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. G4: It's been done before with the same result Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crolf[edit]

Crolf (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 for things made up in one day. Also, no sources for notability. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonsense. Possible G4 speedy. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of racial classifications[edit]

List of racial classifications (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 is a work of original research, with no quality sources (which indeed would be difficult to find). It also promotes as valid a system of classifications grounded in scientific racism and which social scientists regard as obsolete. This is not a list of "classifications", or classification systems, but an attempt to divide the world into "races" and ascribes to each "race" dubious statistics such as "annual growth rate", "religions and philosophies", and "ages". Where is the methodology? Where are the sources? Is it possible to create a good article out of this? I don't think so. 192.12.88.145 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's not even properly named. I had imagined a "list of racial classifications" would include all the various racial classifications that have been proposed over time, not a single list of a particular set of racial classifications and their assumed related characteristics. --Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is unsourced original research. The population numbers in the article are derived by adding population numbers from other Wikipedia articles, which is WP:SYNTH and is also likely to lead to unreliable estimates as the methodology is dubious. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, and probably original research. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article is entirely unsourced, but seems to be based chiefly upon the work of Carleton S. Coon (see below).

((Carleton S. Coon Racial Definitions))

•••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:21, 15 September 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. Cleanup is needed; if none is forthcoming in the next few months this could be renommed. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midas List[edit]

Midas List (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)

Useless list, full of unsolvable links to disambiguation pages. The fact that a well known magazine publishes the list, does not make the list itself noteworthy. The Banner _talk 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list might just be notable[1][2][3][4][5][6] The first ref includes a good critique, some of which I've added to the article. However even if it's notable we don't need to list every single person on every list: the Billboard Hot 100 is notable but we don't list every song that's on it. Depending on the length after pruning we could merge to Forbes's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The list may be notable as a topic, in which case it's appropriate to have an article about the list (methodology in putting it together, reactions to it), but I'm concerned reproducing the entire list is a copyright infringement. As inclusion and ordering is largely based on opinion, it is not uncopyrightable fact but instead copyrightable creative expression. So those should be pruned outside of perhaps the top few entries in each year's list or other entries for which there was specific commentary in secondary sources. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but get rid of the list sections. The links available are enough to meet notability in my view, and this article in particular provides good secondary analysis to justify a stand-alone article, even if it ends up being a tad short. The issue of notable lists being reproduced in articles has been brought up at AfD several times before, and my understanding is that the contents of the list can be easily be considered creative expression because they are compiled arbitrarily, and that even listing only the top entries is also problematic since that would the most relevant and interesting section for Forbes' readers — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An excerpt of, say, five names, would arguably be too short to be infringement even if it didn't qualify as fair use. And there is certainly no issue with simply stating who is number 1 for each year. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed on Top 1, and I see what you mean regarding the excerpt, but I'm not sure where we could draw that line. As you said, it's arguable. I missed part of your comment above regarding individual entries that have been selected by secondary sources, and that seems workable. For example, this source focuses solely on the women appearing in the list. Perhaps we could collapse all years into a single table, with a column for the top entry, and a Notes column to highlight whatever secondary sources have deemed noteworthy for that particular edition — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 6 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and prune (retaining the top few from each year) per the above comments.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix issues pertaining to the disambiguation pages. --Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. There is discussion of the Midas List (and its controversies) in other media. E.g., VentureBeat last month [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyHillbilly (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSP (band)[edit]

CSP (band) (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 music duo that doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NBAND. No references are present in the article, and I was unable to find any while doing the usual searches. Their only claim to notability is that they collaborated with a couple of notable musicians, but notability is not inherited, and this particular group does not seem to have any notability of their own. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete if someone recognizable like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this person DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[8][9]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no references, and no external links. The author should work on getting reliable sources prior to resubmitting.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – a lack of reliable sources discussing the band tells us that the article fails WP:N. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No reliable sources of notability at this time.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation books[edit]

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation books (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 has no real content. In fact it's only a single link to another page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The fact that it has had exactly zero content since 2007 is telling. Reyk _YO! 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This article has no references or sources. Also, no content.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No content, nobody's seen fit to do anything with this since it was created in 2007. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:15, 15 September 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 Olympia, Washington. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mah[edit]

Doug Mah (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 per WP:POLITICIAN ...William 18:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Olympia, Washington. Ideally, I would like to see the History section of city articles touch upon their various mayors, and that would make this a plausible redirect. (Plus redirects are cheap.) Location (talk) 20:27, 9 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Olympia, Washington as stated above. This article may be a possibility in the future when more information is reliably sourced on the topic.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Olympia, Washington. The current references are both dead, but at least one is replaceable - and primary, and therefore no good for WP:GNG, though it would be good for verifiability as of a bare matter of fact. The subject got plenty of local news coverage during his terms as councilman and mayor, but apparently nothing more - which puts him just below what I would regard as notable for an executive mayor in a city of this importance. I am generally unhappy about a redirect to an article which doesn't mention the subject - so I've taken up a suggestion made above and added a table of recent mayors to the proposed target article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work! Location (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater boston chamber of commerce[edit]

Greater boston chamber of commerce (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)

Unsourced article created by the marketing communications manager. Disputed prod. Google searches not finding many hits. noq (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - yeah, a tough one. Plenty of news "hits" but most relate to other stuff where the GBCC is an "also" mention or is mentioned in reference to an award they gave out or someone who was a member. Strong case for an argument that the organisation fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from its members, which is where I think most of the sources fall down. Most the sources provided don't give the organisation "coverage", rather they cover someone who spoke at one of their meetings or someone associated with the organisation doing something not related to the organisation. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I agree with Stalwart on all of his points. Additionally, the person writing this is a huge COI. I believe this article could be remade in a more suitable tone, and by someone who wants to create an article on the subject, rather than the marketing communications manager.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 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. per his request, the article has been userfied back to its author for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duane A. Sikes[edit]

Duane A. Sikes (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)

Appears to have been declined at AfC but moved to mainspace anyway by the author. No in-depth WP:IRS cited and I can't see any available online. Only mentioned briefly in the cites news articles. All his films seems to be non-notable too, while the ones that do have a Wiki page don't mention Sikes. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article was resubmitted to AfC with significant updates, no response in days. I reviewed several other producer pages. Compared to those, this page was more sufficient to be created than most I reviewed. The notable films mention him on the IMDB, something that he could not fake. This article is a work in progress, like many on Wikipedia. I moved it to the project space for the sole purpose of opening it for others who may want to add to it as well. This article is not going to be created and abandoned. I will be expanding this article extensively for the reason that I am trying to start my first page after doing many edits on an unregistered account and learn the ropes. I have learned tons in this process, but see entirely too many pages in worse condition than this that have been active for years to honestly consider this article not fit for the project space. Please consider removing this from AfD as this page will be updated constantly, and the sources provided prove that he is notable enough to be written about. --EngelsBlut (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Have listed your comment as an argument for "Keep". If that is not accurate, please feel free to amend. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Author (EngelsBlut) has requested below to ignore their 'Keep' vote and requests an opportunity to 'Userfy'. 'Keep' vote struck out accordingly. They're welcome to amend this if not correct. Sionk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - The sources provided in the article could not really be considered "significant coverage" of the subject. The first is a promo page for one of the works for which he was Executive Producer. There's no real way it could be considered independent of the subject. The second only mentions him once in passing. There's not real way it could be considered "coverage" of the subject. The third isn't really focussed on the subject but does give some explanation for his involvement. It could possibly be considered "marginal" coverage of the subject; certainly not "significant". I understand the author is working on the article and there is an element of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built involved. Perhaps the author could start by listing the reliable, independent sources on which he/she plans to build a future article. If none exist, then I struggle to see how an article on this subject will ever meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, I appreciate your constructive criticism. I respect your veteran status on Wikipedia, and value your opinion. While, I agree that this article would be much better with more sources, I still do not see how the material given cannot be trusted given the sources. If the bio is in question, I can remove it until I find a source that you consider more reliable, though the source given is not a personal site, and appears to be something done by the production company. If notability is a concern, I can provide proof many of the movies that are listed via the actual movie websites. I did not list every website as I felt that notability was not an issue per AfC. I am a bit disappointed in the way this article was tagged so quickly with many accusatory statements. Like I said above, I am interested in this community and felt that this person was notable enough to write about, while being a challenge to do so. I compared my article to at least 10 others of its same genre and found my article to be sourced better than 95% of them, yet those seemed to have had no tags despite being sourced solely with IMDB references. I have a feeling that this article was originally tagged for deletion hastily. Sionk makes the case that few of his movies are notable, and those that are, do not have him listed on their respective Wikipedia page. I have two problems with that, one is the notability portion. They make an assumption that only a few of his movies are notable based on if they have a Wikipedia page or not. Per policy, Wikipedia pages are not to be used as sources for an article, likewise, I believe they should not be able to be used as a source to establish notability of another article. The second problem I have is the portion about how the movies that are notable do not have him listed on their Wikipedia page. That is not a valid argument because Sikes has no control over who made the Wikipedia page for his movies and erroneously did not add his name to the credits. To me, as a first time article creator with no COI, I am taken aback at the scrutiny this article is taking despite my innocence. I honestly believe that Mr. Sikes is notable enough to be on Wikipedia given his ever growing list of movies, many of which being in film festivals. What is notable to one person, may not be notable to another, I understand this. I just have a strong belief in this article with the best intentions. Remove this page if that is what has to happen, but having dove in head first into the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, I still hold fast that this article meets at least the very minimum criteria and deserves a chance in the project space to be expanded by myself, and others. The preceding paragraph was written with a civil mindset and is not to be taken offensively by anyone. Thank you for your time and consideration.--EngelsBlut (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I said all of his films seem to be non-notable. To be honest, if Sikes had been given glowing credit for his contribution to several non-notable films, that may still make him notable, in my opinion. The facts seem to be he has been given little credit for any of his contributions. Considering his entire oeuvre has been in the last five years, it is likely any coverage would be available online if it existed. By all means add some reliable in-depth coverage about Sikes and the problem will be solved. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a tough one. I can see Stalwart's point, but based on a review of the article and the links I have to say that this article does indeed meet WP:GNG. A history of the page shows that a member of AfC upon declining the article for a source violation stated that this person is notable, but needed more sources. I come to this conclusion because of the nature of the article and the author's statement that they will be improving it in the near future. There are many articles that bring this same argument to the table, but I believe this one meets Wikipedia's requirements.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I should say - my position is "Weak" for a reason - if the original author can provide more "building block" references then I'll be in the "Keep" camp. If not, then I remain in favour of deletion. My concern is that while the editor might still be working on the article, the standard burden of proof still applies and I would have thought more references to support the material in the article would have been provided already, had they existed. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well obviously the same would apply with me, if anyone can find reliable sources about Sikes I'd withdraw my nomination. But I can't see any additional online sources. I'd be interested to know from Riverrunner which sources they've found.

Of the two local news sources in the article, one doesn't mention Sikes at all, while the other only has one brief mention. Sionk (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both mention Sikes. Take another look, his name is on the second page. I know you don't believe in the sources that I have, but I truly do. How is Design specification able to be in a state of needing improvement with no sources, yet, this page is not going to have the opportunity to be expanded by the community? Sionk, please work with me here. This is not an ego issue for me, I promise. I really would like to see this article grow with the input of others besides myself, hence I made this page on Wikipedia and not a website. I can provide many more sources, but none that you would find reliable, so I did not provide them out of courtesy to the policies of Wikipedia. There are many pages similar to John Mazzello which are un-sourced and comprise of one IMDB link, and yet I am struggling to keep this article alive with actual sources and full intentions of expanding it as Sikes career progresses. Please reconsider and give this article a chance. Thank you for your time and consideration.--EngelsBlut (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit silly - if you say yourself there are no other reliable sources about Sikes, then he clearly doesn't pass Wikipedia's basic notability requirements. According to the IMDb he has only been the actual producer on two short films. Sionk (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you. I believe the work that he has done meets Wikipedia's basic notability requirements. I believe the sources that I have at the very least qualify the article to be in a state of needing improvement. You just used an unreliable source in attempt to debate me. I digress. This is silly. Never will I understand how the articles I listed above are somehow more believable than mine when they have no sources. I do appreciate your concern to watch out for Wikipedia's interests, but I truly believe this page is being over-scrutinized and there are many pages in a horrid condition that could benefit from our attention than this one.--EngelsBlut (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem might be that none of the sources cited so far could be considered adequate, either individually or together. Passing mentions in two news articles focussed on other things really can't be considered "significant coverage" which is what is required by WP:GNG. The other "source" really can't be considered independent. Even if the site is run by the production company (rather than by him personally), he is still one of the producers. The site is designed to promote the film he produced and would be financed by the producers (him). That's way too close to be considered independent. So if you removed the sources which are either not significant coverage or are not independent, we're left with no sources at all. That's basically what Sionk and I are saying - more sources are needed before the article could be considered to meet WP:GNG. You might think he meets WP:GNG but this has to be verified, just like everything else. As an aside, it's worth having a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. If other articles don't meet guidelines then you should feel free to nominate them too - that's what this process is designed for. Everyone is happy to allow articles to be worked on but a good understanding of the burden of proof is important. There's no point keeping an article if it is never going to make the grade. If you think it might one day but doesn't yet, it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and that's fine. Maybe ask for the article to be userfied (put on a sub-page of your user-page) so you can continue to work on it. But unless you can provide further reliable and independent sources that give the subject himself "significant coverage", then you perhaps need to look at other options for developing the article. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Stalwart, thank you for the well-written and constructive response; we could all learn something from how you are handling this situation. I have read all linked policies and am in full agreement with you. I would like to claim WP:TOOSOON and request that this article be userfied while Sikes career progresses and I diligently work on its sourcing. Thank you for your time and explanation of the matters at hand. You are why I don't give up on Wikipedia.--EngelsBlut (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy Please disregard my keep. Per discussion with Stalwart, I would like to request that this page be userfied so that I can continue working on it in the future. Thank you.--EngelsBlut (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Once the article is deleted proper, you can use up to 3 months or so to develop a userfied version into a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - article has been userfied and is now available for development at User:EngelsBlut/Duane A. Sikes. I will post a note on your talkpage for easier reference. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only references I found, Times-News. August 1, 2012 and The Citizen-Times July 23, 2012, are in the article and do not provide enought reliable source material from which to write a Wikipedia biography on the Duane A. Sikes topic as required by WP:GNG. Now, if you are desiring to write an article on chimney sweep Duane Sikes[10] or robber Duane Sikes,[11] there's plenty of write up for a Wikipedia article on those different guys. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close - original author has requested userfication as per above discussion and this has been done. Can we now close this AfD to allow the article to be deleted? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 17 September 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 a duplicate of List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest airports in Gulf Countries[edit]

List of busiest airports in Gulf Countries (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)

recently created orphan article duplicating List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf; table claiming 2011 Statistics (Full Year preliminary) is mostly a duplicate of the 2010 table in List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf and seems to contain 2010 data (sources are the same in both articles, and are in many cases unusable); cut'n'paste of the article introductions of the listed airports does not improve a list article, only creates problems later when the texts get out of sync Lumialover2 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete Article is too similar to List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Riverrunner123. Too many similar lists, creating more maintenance headaches and inconsistencies.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf, which currently consists only of the 2010 table. I have not checked if this ios the result of text being moved to the current article. It would do no harm to have both tables in the same article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you would read my AfD justification you would understand why your suggestion does not make sense. Lumialover2 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 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 - has been rejected at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nescafé Café de Olla so no need for this copy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NESCAFÉ Café de Olla[edit]

NESCAFÉ Café de Olla (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 was intended to be created in AFC but has been created in mainspace ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's no evidence this is a Nescafe brand, the cited webpages are recipe's! Therefore I wouldn't even suggest redirecting to Nescafe. However, it seems to be a general concoction of spiced coffee consumed in Mexico, but that would be a different subject. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Underdeveloped article about an obscure brand.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 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 United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Radtke[edit]

Jamie Radtke (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:POLITICIAN, as somebody not notable for anything aside from running for political office. All coverage surrounds her political candidacy and fails to meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012 per WP:POLITICIAN. Fails criteria for stand alone article. Location (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012. Fails to meet WP:GNG.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 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. Closed early because it is evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus for deletion. This is without prejudice to continuing to discuss a possible merger on the article talk page.  Sandstein  12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula[edit]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (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, WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect The controversy surrounding Innocence of Muslims is notable, and this individual appears to be centrally involved in it. However, that's all he's notable for, making this a textbook WP:BLP1E. Since the controversy of the movie involves who was behind it, any details on Nakoula that are relevant should be merged there, with a redirect left in place. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article subject fails criteria 2 and 3 for deleting under WP:BLP1E: He's unlikely to remain "a low-profile individual" and "the individual's role within (the event) is substantial and well-documented." Jokestress (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: profile, it's WP:CRYSTAL to say he will become high-profile. The film is high profile, but he's doing what he can to remain low profile. Re: substantial and documented role, my understanding is that it remains unconfirmed, and we know nothing about this man not directly relating to the film with the exception of a fraud conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not WP:CRYSTAL. Nakoula is the only person to come forward so far as being involved at a managerial level in the production of the film. See citations in article. He may be trying to keep a low profile, but that's not what's meant here. Osama bin Laden was trying to keep a low profile in the sense you mean. His actions made him very high profile. Jokestress (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing this guy to OBL is beyond laughable, so I'm not going to touch that. My reading of Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual suggests that he is much more low profile than high profile. If that changes in time, a redirect can be turned into an article, but at this time I see nothing compelling to suggest this is anything beyond BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This person made a film that caused world wide destruction. He used an alias that stated he was an "Israeli Jew" instead of disclosing he was an Egyptian Arab Christian. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know what he supposedly did; that's one event. "World wide destruction"? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In at least 3 countries in 2 regions, causing significant destruction and multiple fatalities. --Niemti (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The film is notable for those reasons. The man who may have directed it but has denied doing so? Not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (see my updated comments below) Redirect to the film Clearly BLP1E doesn't apply at all. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula played an important part in a film that sparked important riots and led to the death of an American ambassador. There goes condition 3 of BLP1E. It's also highly unlikely that this person will remain a low-profile individual since dozens of serious news organization have spent considerable time to gather info about him (and since he will almost certainly face at the very least a lawsuit from the actors in the film, see Innocence of Muslims for details) There goes condition 2 of BLP1E. That being said, the present article could be redirected for now to the one about the film since the information is still a little sketchy. But I expect that in the near future, it will make more sense to separate the two. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Except, there's no strong proof that the film (and therefore, Nakoula) was the motivation for the attack that killed the ambassador. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  True, it probably didn't motivate the attack as my sentence suggests. But it is very much an essential part of the context. That being said, my rationale above conveniently ignores the fact that although circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, there's still (last I checked) no definite proof of his involvement and no admission on his part. On second thought, I would prefer redirecting to the movie although I'm still convinced that in a week's time, this will be a stand-alone article that nobody would even think of nominating at AfD. Pichpich (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now. There are all kinds of little warning bells here, like headlines that use the word "may", and direct links to prison release records. At the moment there's still a lot of uncertainty about this. Unfortunately, I fear he will soon be fully eligible as a 2EBLP because some misguided people seem so dead-set on tracking him down. As an aside, I have to say, I am particularly annoyed by claims that his film "caused" the attacks on U.S. embassies -- Al Qaida has never really needed an excuse to do that, and they planned it out for September 11th with RPGs and heavy weapons. I don't believe for one minute that if this film hadn't been made that they wouldn't have just gone on to the next item in their web search, or the next, or the next, looking for some smokescreen to rally people with who they could use for cover. When people go soft on Al Qaida and turn around and bash our rights and freedoms as being to blame for what murdering thugs did on the other side of the world, well ... let's just say, it might tend to violate BLP. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RPGs and armored pick up trucks with AA guns are now extremely commonplace in Libya. The militias can do such stunts as occupy the airport in Tripoli because another militia has kidnapped one of their commanders, only to be kicked out by still another militia.[12] Or even attack each other towns. So it's really no need for planning in that case. --Niemti (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per WP:BLP1E. If in a few weeks, circumstances warrant, this article can be recreated. Safiel (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. This guy is going to be in the news for awhile. In addition to his role in provoking protests in numerous countries, he is likely to become a minor figure in the current U.S. presidential election. It may ultimately become appropriate to merge this with the article about his movie, but I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see how this plays out before making that decision. As an aside: I think User:Wnt is mistaken to be "annoyed by claims that his film 'caused' the attacks on U.S. embassies." Based on present evidence, it appears there is a good chance that Al Qaeda carried out the attack that killed four people including the ambassador in Libya, but I don't think anyone has proferred evidence suggesting that Al Qaeda was the instigator of the protests that have occurred in other countries including Yemen and Egypt. I think both Nakoula and Al Qaeda separately and independently planned their provocations for the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they fed into each other. Nakoula's film fueled protests, and Al Qaeda was able to opportunistically use those protests as a smokescreen and pretext for its assault on the U.S. embassy in Libya. However, I think it is a bit far-fetched to imagine that Al Qaeda simultaneously planned and organized protests in several countries simultaneously, while only using deadly force in one of those countries. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the video trailer (all anyone has seen) was released in July. It was up to an Egyptian political party to object, and an Egyptian TV station to air the footage (including, oddly enough, someone playing Muhammad), both three days before 9/11. Their choice of time, not Nakoula's. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, you make a fair point that the choice of timing for publicizing the video on 9/11 may not have been Nakoula's. However, you're omitting the role played by right-wing anti-Islamist Christians both in the United States and Egypt in promoting this movie. According to Wikipedia's article on Innocence of Muslims, pastor Terry Jones (the same guy who previously engaged in the provocation of burning a Koran) "said on 11 September 2012 that he planned to show a 13-minute trailer that night at his church." Clearly, Jones deliberately timed this showing for 9/11. The Wikipedia article also states that the movie "was brought to the attention of the Arabic-speaking world by Coptic blogger Morris Sadek whose Egyptian citizenship had been revoked for promoting calls for an attack on Egypt." Nakoula is a Coptic Christian, like Sadek, and I think the facts that are emerging suggest that Nakoula lied when he claimed the movie was financed by Israelis. In fact, it was likely financed by his circle of Copts. I think you're right that there are Egyptian extremists who found the timing of 9/11 convenient for their own purposes, and they likely acted independently of Nakoula. It appears to me that this is a case where religious extremists -- both the Islamist and Christian -- are trying to use the occasion of 9/11 to stir up religious hatred. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add also that I think it is especially despicable for Nakoula to be claiming that the movie was financed by Israelis and to be also posing himself as an Israeli-American. It is bad enough that he is trying to provoke anger and hatred. It is even worse for him to be directing that anger and hatred against Jews, who are already targets of extreme anti-Semitism especially in the Middle East. If Nakoula is going to say things that provoke anger and hatred, he should at least have the courage of his convictions and identify himself and his religious beliefs as the source of those hateful statements. It is cowardly and despicable to try to channel those feeling against Jews. His provocation may well get some Israelis killed. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:RS for WP:BIO are global and overwhelming. BLP1E does not apply to a person with this level of notability--just as it does not apply to John Wilkes Booth. Qworty (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What level of notability? We still know almost nothing about this guy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What notability? Are you kidding? Buy a computer and then get yourself an Internet connection. Find a website called Google News and then type this guy's name into it. Then have a look at WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Then change your opinion to Keep. That's all there is to it. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Qworty (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off, keep civil. Second off, all of that coverage is part of this one event, meaning it's not GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which arguments? Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, saying keep or delete "per above" is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is notable for much more it seems as the article itself points out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable figure with reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is notable because of his creation, and also the coverage he gets in the news. Dream Focus 01:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage that fits under BLP1E? I'm really surprised by the number of keep votes, but most of them don't seem to address BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He meets WP:Entertainer just fine. Dream Focus 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No he doesn't. (1) Only one film, not multiple; (2) no evidence of a fan base or cult following; (3) there is impact, but not "to a field of entertainment" – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me. He meets WP:CREATIVE number 3 "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Dream Focus 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- not sure why this warrants a standalone at this point, though I could see it developing that way in the future. For now, all the personalities (or aliases) are being developed in the Innocence_of_Muslims article, so it'd be good to keep the critical mass there until a separate article needs to be broken off. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reluctantly. Creating a film that has resulted in the assassination of an American official as well as significant protests abroad. This person has satisfied the John Hinckley threshold at WP:BLP1E, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Over 90,000 hits on Google as of this moment, a number that has been growing all day and will probably go even higher. I suggest a speedy keep per WP:SNOW at this point. Qworty (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It appears that while the figure is controversial, they are clearly notable enough for a wikipedia article. There seems to be more than adequate references and no true reason or consensus for deletion. Recommend speedy keep at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lots of buzz about this guy since the embassy attacks, and lots of news, like so [13]. Unflavoured (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The whole history of his criminal activity does not belong in the article about the attacks. The question of whether he made the movie belongs there, but the being charged with possession of an illegal substance, taking out money in false names etc etc. is not relevant. Amandajm (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Personal opinions about his ability as a filmmaker aside, we have a properly documented article on a purported filmmaker whose actions have given him well publicized noteriety. As with any comprehensive BLP on such individuals, sourced information on even a criminal background has bearing on his subsequent actions and motivations, and serves to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The guy's first film and he's world famous already? Just wait to see the sequel! --Niemti (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Organic Lawn Management (band)[edit]

The Organic Lawn Management (band) (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)

Articles on this band have been speedy deleted on several occasions and another was deleted after an AfD in early 2011. I can't determine whether this article simply duplicates earlier versions, and it's been nearly two years, so I decided to bring it here. The reviews in the article do not seem reliable in terms of establishing notability, and I found no significant coverage in GNews or elsewhere for this band; just an official website and social networking sites (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, last.fm, etc). Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it too lacks sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS:

Folk's Reason for Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This article fails WP:GNG. With a few more reliable sources, I believe this article could stand a chance in the future if written by someone who has the desire to make it decent.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason to delete. I believe that there seems to be no reason to delete this page. There are numerous pages present on Wikipedia which have little to no valid referencing, and viewing the references from this page it seems that the important ones are not just referencing the band's own site. Reviews have been written by people who work for actual music review sites, which to me seems a valid reason for keeping the page. If they're working hard and whoever wrote it isn't trying to break any rules, then it should stay. The fact that they have an album too, which seems to have had work put into it from people other than just themselves, to me, seems to mean that it isn't a run-of-the-mill group who are just trying to conjure up publicity. (I don't quite know how to get IP on here as I don't have a username). 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.55.34 (talk)

Regarding other pages with little or no valid referencing, they have no bearing on this article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). And, as User:Peridon wrote in the previous AfD, if good references are out there, I welcome their inclusion.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, surely it does have a bearing. If there are pages present on Wiki with no valid referencing they should not be allowed. That's the whole point of the site, to have a free, accurate encyclopaedia. The fact that this page does have some valid references should count in its favour. Just because one group of people haven't heard of them doesn't make it a valid reason for deletion (see [[14]]). People who read the Live Music Scene website will clearly have been exposed to them. And, re: the AfD in 2011, the page seems to now be more accurately written with more references and notability. 12:09, 15th September 2012, (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.55.34 (talk)

Delete - This article simply does not appear to assert the subject's importance as outlined by WP:MUSICBIO.  -- WikHead (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see how notability is met generally or specifically for bands. There is no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason to delete Just another example of wikipedia moderators trying to exercise their power for little to no reason. Moronic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.238.122 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Contrary to the assertion that there is "(n)o apparent reason to delete", the nomination statement articulates a clear reason. I get from the last AFD that this band has a loyal following. However, that isn't the issue. Reliable sources are needed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is just not enough coverage for this band to meet the notability criteria. All but one of the reviews being presented as sources are from user-submitted review sites, and thus are not reliable. There is one that is not, from "Live Music Scene", however, not only am I unsure of that site's reliability, it is still only a singular source, falling short of the multiple reliable sources needed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 20 September 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Processed World (magazine)[edit]

Processed World (magazine) (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)

Magazine last published in 2005. Cannot find mention in independent sources. Did include work from notable artists. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A popular anarchist magazine widely read throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and other parts of the United States. It featured many notable authors and artists. Keraunos (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Though I see the merit in keeping this article, to meet Wikipedia's source requirements, this page will need to be completely re-sourced with independent sources.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG:

• Laura Fraser (December 8, 1984). "Anti-computer rebels 'byte' back". Globe and Mail. p. M11. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• John Wallace (March 1, 1986). "The high cost of high tech; the dark side of the chip". The Nation. 242: 246. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
• Frank Clancy (December 3, 1986). "The 'Far Out' Utne Reader Digests Alternative Press". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. Retrieved September 16, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Denise Caruso (July 14, 1991). "10 Years Of A Wonderfully Bad Attitude Computers & Technology". San Francisco Examiner. p. D14. Retrieved September 16, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Paolo Pontoniere (March 24, 1997). "Cyberculture. The Cd-Rom By The Bay". Los Angeles Times. p. 4. Retrieved September 16, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Jamie Beckett (January 20, 1998). "Activist Looks At S.F.'S Fabled Past "Shaping San Francisco" Is A Cd-Rom With A Purpose". San Francisco Chronicle. p. B3. Retrieved September 16, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Tom Hodgkinson (July 22, 2006). "Idle thoughts". The Guardian. Retrieved September 16, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Amanda Plumb (October 1, 2007). "Zines From The Shop Floor". New Labor Forum. 16 (3/4): 152. doi:10.1080/10957960701279272. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
• Gregory J. Scott (March 1, 2012). "Utne Bids Adieu". Minnesota Monthly. 46 (3): 42. Retrieved September 16, 2012.

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per spread of references above. Also found on Highbeam (sub reqd): Washington Post 1989, Chicago Sun Times 1993, The Progressive 2003. AllyD (talk) 18:31, 19 September 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 Three-lobed Burning eye (magazine). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Lobed Burning Eye[edit]

Three-Lobed Burning Eye (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 fictional element appearing in only a single short story, without the notability required for its own article. The creature described is merely a form of Nyarlathotep, who is extensively covered in his own article, and appeared only in the short story The Haunter of the Dark, whose plot is also covered in a seperate article. I would merely redirect this page to one of those, but I actually believe that this article is a misnomer and thus not a valid search term. Its been a number of years since I read this story, but if I recall correctly, the actual creature it is describing is called the titual Haunter of the Dark, and "three-lobed burning eye" is simply a discription of one of its prominent features, not a name for the creature itself. Thus I brought it to AFD instead, as I believe deletion to be the more logical choice. Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect- to either The Haunter of the Dark or to Three-lobed Burning eye (magazine). This article is poorly sourced, entirely redundant to the article about the short story, and is more about the character Robert Blake than the titular monster. But I think the existence of the magazine called "Three-lobed Burning eye" proves that the title is a legit search term. Reyk _YO! 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect to the magazine's article is a plausible solution, and one that I had not thought of. I think that would make a lot of sense. Rorshacma (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Redirect or Delete. Does not seem to have independent notability. Eshlare (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or disambiguate per Reyk; excellent research to find that history of the term.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not have independent notability as per the sourcing requirements at the WP:GNG. No qualms about re-creating it as a redirect or disambiguation if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VersaEmerge[edit]

VersaEmerge (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 music project lacking references to support WP:MUSIC and lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. References are mostly blog entries, posts, or other non-independent items. reddogsix (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is coverage at Alternative Press, including an album review and "profiles" on the band inside the magazine. Similarly, Rock Sound has coverage both online and in print. There is also a staff review at Sputnikmusic. On the whole, there looks to be sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND. That said, I agree that the article in its current state relies quite heavily on unreliable sites, and most of the band's studio albums/EPs should not have individual articles.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - VersaEmerge are fairly well known within their genre and, as Gongshow wrote, has had coverage in magazines such as Rock Sound and Alternative press. They have toured internationally and have quite a large fanbase - I do not see why this is up for deletion. I agree that the sources are weak, but there are many more credible sources out there that can be substituted for the current ones. I suggest this be cleaned up, but kept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.227.119 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chippenham Park F.C.[edit]

Chippenham Park F.C. (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 amateur football club. Not played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. Perhaps merge info to Chippenham Town F.C. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet notability requirements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence that they played at the requiered level. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A Step 7 club that has not played in the FA Vase and is therefore not notable. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - haven't played at high enough level to pass the projects "notability-threshold" and hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "merge" suggestion seems promising, however, and should be the subject of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (Loudspeaker)[edit]

Gale (Loudspeaker) (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, virtually zero results from the find sources tool.  daintalk   22:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very well known and widely reviewed manufacturer of hi-fi speakers. What Hi=Fi etc. might not jump out of a Google search but the first page of GNews hits included The Age with "From the UK come the famed Gale loudpseakers, renowned for their classic sound qualities of smooth midrange and upper-end detail". There's a What Hi-Fi review here. Should probably be moved to Gale Limited.--Michig (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is also well beyond the purview of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not generally considered to be a convincing argument when stacked up against "couldn't find any significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 5 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is one of those annoying cases where old products that people remember from yesteryear get wiped via an AfD because nobody could go in a time machine to document them in reliable web sources. There's a product description here, but as Richer Sounds (apparently) own Gale, that's a primary source. Your google-fu may fare better with a search for "gale silver monitor" --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with parent company Audio Partnership. There's not much coverage of Gale that I can find:[15] and from Google Books "Hi-fi News & Record Review: Volume 24, Issues 1-6" (text not available), although most of the hifi magazines don't publish online so there's almost certainly more out there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Pretty well-known UK manufacturer of high-end hi-fi loudspeakers. If you can't find sources, then your search-fu is clearly weak.

Still, delete per WP:JUNK. If even their PR people couldn't be bothered doing a halfway-decent job, why should we bother? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 7 September 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:21, 13 September 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. There is disagreement about whether the sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and no real consensus for a merge. Please also note that we cannot usually choose "merge and delete", as doing so would violate Wikipedia's content licence. (See WP:MAD.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open smart grid protocol[edit]

Open smart grid protocol (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)

Had nominated for G11, was declined and converted to a prod which was just removed as the first edit of a new account...who seems to speak in edit summaries like the other SPAs editing the article. Language is leaning promotional, and seems to me that this may be some SPA's pet project rather than an informative article on a notable topic. Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this page. It is a valid and informational page. While I did not create the page, I have investigated Open Smart Grid Protocol (OSGP). In addition, I am an expert in the utility industry having worked with a number of utilities and vendors. The references are all correct. They refer to official international standard bodies that have approved the various OSGP related specifications. This is not a promotional page but informative for utilities and other companies looking for information on smart grid protocols. The only reason that someone may want to delete this page is if their company does not support OSGP. If you feel you have a valid reason to justifty removing the page, please state them. Otherwise, let's remove the comment that this article is being considered for deletion, since this is misleading to the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: Brenwyn is working for Echelon maker of LonWorks and this article is just adverticing for them, not objective and open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your statement about Brenwyn working for Echelon is correct or not; however more importantly is that the information on this page is correct and provides information about a protocol that many companies use and support, not just Echelon. For example,Duke Energy,E.ON, Vattenfall, Fortum, SEAS, and many other utilities are using this protocol for their equipment today. So unless you have any evidence that the information is not factual, I believe that we should remove the comment from the wikipedia page that this article is being considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Information inside this article is very narrow and single sided. The OSGP is NOT an open group nor is the standard designed by a open group but simply the Echelon LonWorks that has been donated. There are many links and sources were Echelon is stating they have donated lonworks as an open standard. Text regarding security flaws are removed even though the European security standard has been removed since it used RC4 @ 64 Bits. There are basically two standards at this moment: NIST GSIP and OSGP, more than 700 companies support NIST GSIP and its IPv6 based and your telling me that OSGP is the best. You must be joking or working for Echelon.

I think it would be best if ONE standard text is made with both standards making a list with pro's and con's and not a commercial text like it is now. Looking at the smart meter wiki: There is a growing trend toward the use of TCP/IP technology as a common communication platform for Smart Meter applications, so that utilities can deploy multiple communication systems, while using IP technology as a common management platform.[70][71] Other solutions suggest the use of a single, universal connector separating the function of the smart grid device and its communication module.[72] A universal metering interface would allow for development and mass production of smart meters and smart grid devices prior to the communication standards being set, and then for the relevant communication modules to be easily added or switched when they are. This would lower the risk of investing in the wrong standard as well as permit a single product to be used globally even if regional communication standards vary. OSGP is NOT based on TCP/IP but on the Lonworks static protocol. QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 28 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous sources establishing notability quickly found: [16] [17] [18]. Article can be edited to address problems. --Kvng (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is incorrectly taking exception to the wording of the name that is used on this wikipedia page. Open Smart Grid Protocol is not being used generically but rather specifically to a specification that was approved by ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) that produces globally-applicable standards for Information and Communications Technologies (ICT).

Here is the link to the OSGP specification, http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/OSG/001_099/001/01.01.01_60/gs_osg001v010101p.pdf

So again, this page references OSGP, which is an actual approved specfication that is used by many utilities worldwide. Therefore, this wikipedia is justified and legitimate, and should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — PLCmentor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment I am seeing variations on "it's useful", "it's notable", and "but it's true!". Just a reminder: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The article as it stands contains only primary sources on the nuts and bolts of the protocol. There is little context, and statements like "it is one of the most widely used smart meter and smart grid device networking standards" lack citations. What independent source said that? Braincricket (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion of statements in the article is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion of the article in the encyclopedia (what we're discussing here) is notability. The article can be improved by adding references or removing dubious statements but that's generally independent of the decision to keep or delete. --Kvng (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to smart grid. There are plenty of sources out there, but many of them are press releases like this one published by Reuters. Sources that I'm pretty sure are independent include an article by the EE Times, a mention in an article by Transmission & Distribution World, and an article on smartmeters.com which states that Echelon's OSGP technology "holds an 81 percent share of the smart electricity meters installed in Europe". I agree that the article needs editing, especially to add context and cut back the promotional tone. On a side note, I wonder if there are foreign language sources out there, since this seems to be a European thing. Braincricket (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to smart grid, per WP:GNG. A few further sources:[19][20][21][22] -- Trevj (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a merge produce an WP:UNDUE or ((too long)) problem in the destination article? --Kvng (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I suggested a merge earlier because I thought the article was ((overly detailed)). If it were cut down to < 200 words, then it could fit in smart grid as its own subsection. But that might not be realistic. Braincricket (talk) 19:03, 15 September 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment I have relisted because both merge and keep reasons are about equal at the moment in my opinion. I would appreciate more input.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After two re listings, two weeks and significant discussion, it is probably appropriate to close without consensus. There are other AfD's to fry. ---—Kvng 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then merge smart grid, per WP:GNG. LonWorks == OSGP == ESNA == Echelon. There are three smart grid standards at this moment: [1] SGIP-NIST, USA started in 2009 by Obama. Is a truelly open standard activity backed by nearly 800 companies. [2] SG-SC formed by the SG-TF[23] by command of the European Union, is backed by severel hunderes of companies. [3] OSGP backed by ESNA an organisation started by Echelon and backed by 8 others including universities. Is a completely private initiative not backed by countries. The number of installed devices mentioned in many publications are all installed in Italy, Italy was the first country that between 1998 and 2005 switched to remote metering because of the fraud that took place. Since LonWorks was not accepted by the European commision as being the future network for Smart Grid a new organisation was started (ESNA) to support the marketing of LonWorks at that time already renamed into OSGP a name that is very similar to SGIP. Its better to start ONE smart grid article that will include all forms of smart grid that are in development. I am a participating member of the SGIP-NIST working group and a member of the SG-SC in Europe. My company tried to become a member of ESNA but this was refused since our business is closely related to Echelon's. For people that do not believe me simply do a WHOIS on www.esna.org and look who is the person who registrated the name in 2005, next check who is in the board of directors of ESNA the Echelon boss ?. Uhmm the same name !. QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No policy reason given for supporting delete. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean should be deleted. -—Kvng 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then merge to smart grid. - The source information available is mostly press releases (about 100, including republication of the press releases in different sources). Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A first mention of OSGP is on 8 Sept 2010,[24] so the topic hasn't been around that long and may not meet GNG for a while. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If deletion and merging are being jointly proposed, then doesn't that amount to redirecting after deletion? Once deleted, there is nothing to merge. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to smart grid as noted above. Independently, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Trusilver 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This page provides information about a specific protocol (OSGP) that is used by utilities in the US and around the world for smart grid applications and services. This page is about the protocol not some generic information related to the smart grid. Therefore is so not be merged but should be kept as its own page. -—PLCmentor —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — PLCmentor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The issue isn't that it doesn't provide information, but that it doesn't provide notable content. It's based on press releases, not third-party reliable sources, which means the article cannot accurately adhere to WP:N, because the only thing in the article is PR spin; even ignoring the fact that the article fails the notability guidelines, that makes for a poor article at best. - SudoGhost 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Press releases and their kin don't do anything for satisfying WP:GNG. I'm not opposed to merging content, but I don't see anything really worth merging. - SudoGhost 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You either did not notice or are discounting the sources Braincricket listed above. If the latter, please let us know why. -—Kvng 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Comfort Stairlifts[edit]

Castle Comfort Stairlifts (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)

Although the charitable works of this company may be laudable, neither their business, nor their charitable activities, rise to the level of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - well spotted, I can't believe this article has survived so long! Unfortunately there seems to be no general news coverage of the company, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There has been BBC News coverage on the BBC Iplayer from BBC Midlands today :- Mon 12th October 2009 and in the local press. No online links to original reports of these are available but there is a vimeo link http://vimeo.com/20949442. I suggest a visit to the British Library, where you can request back copies of the Sentinel newspaper, where numerous reports of this company and some of the work they do are available. Kitesurfer45 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.10.227 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: — Kitesurfer45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per WP:ORG, the depth and breadth of coverage required extends beyond coverage in the company's own local press. Local newspapers often report on the goings on of the company's within their coverage area. Notability requires coverage beyond just this local area. Things that are locally notable are not necessarily globally notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, being the BBC, the news report doesn't name the "stairlift company from Newcastle-under-Lyne". Sionk (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. They are in the news every now and then when they step forward and do good, but the coverage usually is only a sentence or two, not enought from which to develop a Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS. Article probably created in good faith by User talk:Hampk under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia is WP:NOTYELLOW. The Clarion is a free advertorial newsletter. The claims made for The Sentinel are not supported and are dubious this report places it at #20. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS. Private philanthropy on behalf of a business won't appear in every local or national newspaper, and why should it. Please proceed with deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitesurfer45 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Springs Golf Course, Srinagar[edit]

Royal Springs Golf Course, Srinagar (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:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per No inherited notability. And also Something doesn't become notable automatically, because it exists. The Golf-course has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources. Notability is not inherited, the designer might be notable but the subject itself is not so notable and it's more than likely to fail WP:GNG. Nothing is notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. The Golf Course itself did not receive notice, it doesn't deserve an article, this is what I think. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, a simple Google search helps before making a contradictory !vote at an AfD, as proven below. Mar4d (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BEFORE would have worked here. It passes WP:GNG per these sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (page 490), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. (page 18), 11. (page 158), 12, 13. It is ranked as India's #1 course by Golf Digest. --SMS ^Talk 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Notability proven per sources by SMS. God, this AfD is a joke. Mar4d (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I‘ve not created this page on my village‘s golf cource, see a flickr image. It is still India‘s #1 Golf Cource as per above. It was featured among the Asia‘s top ten golf cources.  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 09:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and has encyclopedic information. Rayabhari (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley of Kashmir[edit]

The Valley of Kashmir (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:BKCRIT Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It passes WP:BKCRIT, given these and some other source: 1. (Page 46), 2. (Page 2), 3, 4, 5. (Page 38), 6, 7. (Page 20), 8. (Page 275). --SMS ^Talk 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your kidding right? I just looked at the first four sources, all they do is mention the name of the book. There is no indepth coverage in any of them, and this one is not RS[25] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 160+ hits on GScholar[26] confirm that this 100+ year old book was deemed to be a significant book about its topic. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to remove verifiable information like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That search will give hits for "walter" & "lawrence" Sir Walter Lawrence is notable, this book however is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Something doesn't become notable automatically, because it exists. The book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Notability is not inherited, the author is notable but the book itself is not so notable and it's more than likely to fail WP:BKCRIT. No book is notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. If the Book or its content itself did not receive notice, then the BOOK is not notable. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment'- This source [27] says it‘s the best book on Kashmir, this one says it is the famous book. It‘s provided as a reference see. User:Darkness Shines and User:Mrt3366 think that with their actions (reverting my edits, tagging my articles for deletion and harassing me at my talk page) I‘m going to quit. No I‘m not going anywhere and I‘ll continue help wikipedia with my contributions. Thank you.  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 14:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may have escaped your notice but your first source is junk, it is one persons opinion and is a story of "what I did on my summer holidays". Your second source does not look much better at all. But more importantly it only gives a single mention. Where are the sources with indepth reviews or discussions on the book? There are none, which is why it fails. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per comments of Arxiloxos, Mehrajmir13 and SMS - the sources listed are enough to verify that this book passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. So far as I can judge, a large proportion of references to Sir Walter Lawrence in subsequent literature are actually quotations from or references to this book - so I'm finding it very difficult to see how the book isn't notable while the author is. Having said that, I can see some reason for having the book covered in a section of the author's article rather than separately. PWilkinson (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mar4d.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - famous books are notable, and once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Konstantin Habsburg-Lothringen[edit]

Karl-Konstantin Habsburg-Lothringen (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 person lacks any notablity. I understand the inclusion of Otto von Habsburg's children and Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, the son of the current pretender. But he is not notable even as a former royal. Former royal family don't even get articles passed the son and direct grandson of the pretender on wikipedia. This article should be deleted The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree he is not notable enough to have an article. - dwc lr (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is the third in line to the former throne of Austria-Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He would be significant if it wasn't a former throne, which was basically renounced by his grandfather. I wouldn't object if it was an adult heir to a former monarchy, but he is an eight year-old child, heir to a non-existent throne. For example Prince Vincent of Denmark, a one year-old, is notable because the Danish throne is in existent.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also an article about Prince Nicholas of Romania who also third in line to a throne of former monarchy (Romania). Okay, Karl Konstantin is only 8 years old, but he is the only prince who had no article from the Austro-Hungarian line of succession TOP5. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only people ahead of Nicholas in the Romanian succession are his mother and his 63 year old aunt who is not going to have any children so he will be claimant to the throne. That is is not the case with Archduke Karl-Konstantin as his cousin Archduke Ferdinand will succeed. - dwc lr (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable pretender to a notable throne. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 17 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Galea[edit]

Stefan Galea (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 depend on the (non-transferable) notability of who he has worked with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Examples include: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article now includes enought reliable sources from which to write the Wikipedia article on Stefan Galea per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recent updates by Northamerica1000. Sufficient sources now.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pravegeya[edit]

Pravegeya (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:NFF. No sources. Harsh (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment: Well the this new article sat for 32 hours before being sent to AFD.[32] Tagging for issues might have helped, as the film existed and was not unsourcable. Appears to have been completed and is simply awaiting release. Yes, the article author messed up its format and made lots of typos... inlcuding the film's name. It is NOT "Pravegeya" (with an e) but rather "Pravegaya" (with an A). I have just addressed some initial issues with the nominated stub being improperly formated and suffering from many typos.[33] More to do. Input and assistance from Sri Lankan editors would be most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are some sources in the article (I didn't find any elsewhere). Given the Sri Lankan location of the topic, there probably are more sources for the topic that are not on-line. Meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devaraya (Telugu Film)[edit]

Devaraya (Telugu 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)

Fails WP:MOVIE Harsh (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFF. --Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete this one-sentence stub. As with most Indian films, the audio music tracks are almost always released weeks or months before the film itself... and I did find THESE [34][35][36][37] which state that the audio will come out on September 28 2012, but that the project is currently filming. Fails WP:NFF. As this article is premature, we can bring back a far more comprehensive article when the film is released and actually gets some film coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 14 September 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. Copyright violations should be cleaned up, but copyright violations in themselves are not an argument for deletion, unless the entire article is a blatant copyright violation per CSD G12. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Maria Vattalil[edit]

Rani Maria Vattalil (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)

With greatest respect to Rani Maria Vattalil, she appears to have been a nun of local great significance, but without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the "Servant of God" assertion, I can find no mention of this in the archives of L'Osservatore Romano. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why reliable preferred for deletion,not unreliable

BEFORE NEGOTIATING DELETION OF this article

you should check UNRELIABLE ARTICLES LIKE Thoma of Villarvattom,which looks funny and which doesnot even exist.i would call it an article on people who never even exist.i would call Thoma of Villarvattom, a ghost article " you have to first negotiate deletion of ghost articles about people whose existence has never happened or imagined by certain people." Users of wikipedia should not show interest in deleting reliable articles --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i can point out thousands of article like this--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and moreover

L'Osservatore Romano online is not the place to search for list of servants of god.for that you have to contact vatican tribunals directly or syro malabar church. i can give you certain indian newspapers links for the same God’s own saints

i dont know whether this will satisfy you

it would be better if somebody remove that deletion tags and for your information i subscribe vatican newspapers. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not shout. Wikipedia is not the place to get emotionally involved, as there is so much that one editor cannot control. If you want the article to stay, just take the time to remove the biased language from the article and find some reliable sources that assert her significance. We cannot violate the rules of Wikipedia just because the subject of an article is well-liked. For an article to stay, it must be neutral and verifiable. hajatvrc @ 08:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also relevant: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources seem to exist, including an English bio published in India, brief bios in other books, news coverage, and further coverage in Indian and Italian sources. Tidying was required, not deletion. Note on searching: "Sister Rani Maria" seems to be how she's generally referred to. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A great example of a deletion discussion acting as a catalyst for the improvement of the article. The bias is gone and sources have appeared. Nice job! hajatvrc @ 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per improvements to the article and comments above. Hopefully someone will be able to watch the article and keep it in good encyclopedic standing. heather walls (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There appears not to be sufficient reliable information about her to write without copyright violations of ll local articles. Editor above should feel to nominate all other non-reliable article for deletion and canvas the known universe for assistance. Eau (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to what you mean in your first sentence. Would you expand on how a small number of sources necessitates copyright violations? Is there something wrong with the article in its current state? hajatvrc @ 18:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessitate copy vios, it leads to easy copy vios when there is so little information all the editor does is repeat the little that is sitting in the small number of local sources. JohnnyJohnnyScreamAtEveryone's image uploads, all of them, and other articles should also be verified for correct copyright. If he owns the copyright to these web images he uploaded in jpeg pixelated form, they require permissions attaches to the pages and he could upload higher resolution images. If he doesn't they should be removed immediately. Eau (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about the image copyrights, but I am wondering what specifically in the article right now is a copyright violation. I think that the problem here is that most of the sources on Sr. Rani Maria are in other languages (that will not appear if you are using a search engine that is only giving you English results). But Wikipedia has people for that! We just need to give our translators a chance to learn about the article and find the sources. This is not an isolated incident, it has happened before. hajatvrc @ 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The contract killer sentence, the landless sentence. So, you didn't bother to read the sources, and you what, we should just ignore image copyright violations? Not much support for this article, is there? Further along in the sainthood process will be further sources, and Wikipedia has plenty of Indian editors to help with translations as necessary. The murder was in Indore? It's probably published in both English and Hindi, then. Eau (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should not ignore image copyright violations. This discussion is about Rani Maria Vattalil, where there is only one image. This image was not uploaded by Johny, but by an administrator who explains the copyright status. Other image copyrights violations should be dealt with elsewhere. I never criticized you for saying there were copyright violations in this article. I asked you where you saw them so I would know. All I ever requested was explanation.

You say there is not much support for the article, and then say that there must be support in Hindi and that we have translators who could access it. So what is the rationale for deleting the entire article? The "landless" clause should be removed immediately because it is copy-and-pasted (I will do that after I submit this). But as far as the rest of the information goes, the similarities between the sources and the article will be rectified when we have more sources (which will be accessible by these translators). hajatvrc @ 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "landless poor" clause was not a copyvio: it's a standard phrase which doesn't even occur in the source. It was not copy-pasted. The similarities between the sources and the article are not a copyvio, but reflect the telling of the same facts. And we don't delete article because actual copyvios might perhaps occur in future. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My interest inbeing wiki-lawyer cudgelled todeath is zero. Wikipedia wastes too much time with wikilawyering allowances to copy and pasters, and there is always more talk, never a jump to just delete the copyrighted information, and it just gets worse and worse. But here we are, not editing, not improving, but talking instead of removing. I feel the cudgel blows reigning down on me, but I have said my say, and leave you to discuss, discuss, cudgel, discuss, discuss, cudgel. Eau (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion has now allowed the information to stay and the copyright violation to be gone. Discussion is good. hajatvrc @ 23:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is good indeed. Hajatvrc's involvement has led to improved wording and an additional source. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Johnyjohny294 has been blocked, the copyvio problem is not likely to continue. -- 202.124.72.76 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Assuming we can get over any COPYVIO issue, this would seem an articel worth keeping because she was a martyr. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]