< 13 September	15 September >

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) 01:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Durutoviċ[edit]

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

I do not see evidence that this football player ever played in a fully professional league, and I was not able to find this evidence myself. Until proven the opposite, he fails WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league, and he has not received significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough independent coverage. SalHamton (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 13:46, 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Rose Sonenclar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carly Rose Sonenclar

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

Unsourced and bad article jk2exp (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 14. Snotbot t • c » 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to the IMDB, a small but recurring role in a kids' TV show, a role in a short, and a small movie role. The article claims she was in the Nanny Diaries movie but she's not in the IMDB cast list. Even giving the benefit of the doubt on that one, it's not enough. See also WP:TOOSOON. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep According to her official resume posted on her website, she was indeed in the Nanny Diaries, albeit in a small role. She was in Frank Wildhorn's latest musical venture in 2011, called Wonderland, originating one of the main roles. She earned good reviews for this role from notable critics and is featured prominently on the cast recording. Though she is getting more interest now because of the X Factor, she is fairly known within the Broadway community. I have added more credible sources, as well. I am sure I can find additional ones if need be :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.227.119 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What he said ^. She was in a musical being one of the main roles, well known on Broadway, a contestant on X-Factor, and I think that her being the star of a currently going viral video also makes her a candidate for a Wikipedia article. It would be a mistake to delete this. Donatrip (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just learned a bit more about her past performances: She had the role of Gilda Flip in the Electric Company, she has also performed the National Anthem at Madison Square Garden, Dodger Stadium, and at a New York Mets game, she performed America the Beautiful at the US Open, performs for expensive charity galas in NYC, and she is a regular performer at several jazz clubs in NYC, even being introduced at one point by comedian Lewis Black. The comment below this ("Delete Please") is incredibly wrong; this girl has real success for only being 13. Even if you wipe her entire past, the sheer amount of news coverage she has received in the past few days after her performance on X Factor, as well as her soon to be viral status on YouTube, should qualify her as noteworthy and worth an article. All in all, there is absolutely NO reason this article should be deleted. Donatrip (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please Come on, this is a nobody! Actually let some people get real success under their belt before you rush and create articles about them. A spot on the Nanny Diaries, please, what about an actual recurring role! Towack (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article has been around for quite some time - at least a year, if not more. I think it was only drawn to OP's attention because of the X Factor, but she was known long before that. She did have a recurring role, on the Electric Company (12 episodes, I believe). That to me is an "actual recurring role". (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.227.119 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she has gotten reviews in major, reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:ACTORBIO, in the New York Times, Bloomberg News, and Newsday. That's enough for me, even if he roles so far are not that "serious". Bearian (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's being talked about on Access Hollywood and Extra for her performance on X-Factor. If nothing else in her past does it, that makes her noteworthy. Attention whore (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is going to WIN XFACTOR 5 million, and a STAR is born accoding to Simon, are you nerds fing stupid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.131.108 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but even reading one sentence tells you that she has been in two feature movies. She is more well-known than many other article subjects on this wiki. She is somebody.WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 02:22, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) @Dipankan Upgraded! ^{Tag me!} 08:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Alkan[edit]

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

Unsoucred BLP And Questionable Notability Andrew Kurish (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced stub with no indication of his contribution to his field of study. Search for "Ahmet Ugur Alkan" and "AU Alkan" on google news has no hits. On google scholar, I see nothing but 2 authored papers of unclear notability.

Keep: Seems to me to meet WP:Prof No.3 via his having been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association e.g. a National Academy of Sciences.[1] (Msrasnw (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)) PS: I can't read the Science article mentioned in Turkish Academy of Sciences where here might be mentioned.[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. No prejudice against speedy renomination, due to the low participation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiltie Band[edit]

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

Non-notable college marching band. Some tangential mentions in newspapers, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement that subjects receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not thrilled about seeing an article deleted that's existed for nine years, but this marching band simply does not meet notability guidelines. Although they've been mentioned in dozens of newspaper stories over their 104-year history, almost all of them are brief blips in local papers about their upcoming or past performances, or competitions in which they participated. The most in-depth newspaper coverage I could find was the 1961 story in their local paper, The Pittsburgh Press, which is the only independent source in the article. The only other source in the article, which merely gives a short description of the Kiltie Band among a list of several other school activities, is from the school's own newspaper. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be right. When copyediting the article, perhaps I was lucky in landing on the one significant story in the claimed 302 hits in the Google News archive. Actually, it appears that a lot of organisations have kiltie bands, there's a Syracuse Kiltie Band, a Kiltie Band of York, a Stock Yards Kiltie Band, an Alma College Kiltie Band, among others. So if this article is kept it should be renamed Carnegie Mellon Kiltie Band, or alternatively the article could be expanded to be a general one on what appears (to this Brit) to be a peculiar American tradition. —SMALL JIM 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smalljim, great point about the renaming. If other colleges also have a Kiltie Band - or even if they don't - there's no way that this article (if not deleted) should be titled simply Kiltie Band. In fact, if you look at the top and bottom of the group's official homepage within CMU.edu, it verifies that their official, full name is Carnegie Mellon University Kiltie Band. Of course, on campus and in the local community they are simply referred to informally as the Kiltie Band. It's very surprising that over the nine years of this article's existence no other editor ever challenged the title. As far as your idea of having a general article about kiltie bands, it seems on the surface to be a very good idea, if of course the general subject is notable. It could include the names of all colleges (and other organizations) that have them. However, if there are any individual kiltie bands that are notable then they of course would qualify for having their own article. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps this information could be placed in a Carnegie Mellon University-related article? Bleubeatle (talk) 22:33, 2 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) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~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) 04:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Wikijustice2013 needs to be blocked. 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) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a matter for WP:AI, not here.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is handling it, but I posted the info so other editors in this discussion, and the closing admin, are aware of it. His opinion is meaningless since he's obviously not even reading any of the AfD articles. He's simply going into all of them and posting the same comment with a Delete "vote." Apparently, he's upset that Anand Bhatt was deleted and is retaliating by doing this disruptive editing in AfDs. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. We are not authorized to block users here, and the final decision will be based on WP:CONSENSUS and the strength of arguments, not a vote.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graped, I already explained very clearly why I posted the info. Also, I'm fully aware how blocks happen and who can do them, and that we do not vote. That's why I put it in quotes ("vote"). You might want to read WP:URIP2. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because you're talking like a series of templates, all of them unneccesary. 86.44.18.165 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[2][3]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! --GrapedApe (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And I don't know why you unstruck the sock's ivote, but any edit by a sock not only can be removed by any editor, in the case of an !vote it must be removed, especially in a case like this where the sock participated solely as retaliation for another article being deleted that he wanted to keep. See #3 at 3RR exemptions. As has been made very clear, the sock was not even reading any of the articles; he was simply going into one AfD after another to copy and paste his Delete comments. Did you read his comment above? He called the subject "this person"; proof that he never looked at the article or even the title of the article. ;) The admin who blocked the sock, already struck his !vote in the other AfD. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...except that the account was blocked for "Disruptive editing: account used only for repetitive, retaliatory AFD postings" so the exception for "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts." does not apply. Sorry.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently still don't get it. Wikijustice2013 is the sockmaster and 99.99.174.248 is the sockpuppet. Read WP:SOCK. The two accounts are the same person and all the AfDs they participated in were fraudulant because they were done purely for retaliation. Did you not read the blocking admin's comments? It said, "I've indef blocked the nominator (Wikijustice2013) as a purely disruptive account, and the IP as an obvious sockpuppet. All of this seems to be retaliation for the Anand Bhatt AFD. I don't have time right now myself, but I'd recommend speedy closing this and any other AFD started by the same account as in bad faith." It's mind-boggling that you continue to beg not only for a bad-faith "Delete" !vote from an editor who so egregiously disrupted Wikipedia, but, more importantly, from one who never even read the Kiltie Band article (or any of the other AfD articles). I would strongly suggest that you drop this and move on. Fighting to keep the "Delete" of a very disruptive editor will not make you look good to any other editors who participate here, including the closing administrator. What you're doing is equivalent to a politician who says it's ok to keep the campaign contribution of a known felon because he didn't get caught until after he gave the money. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll cease my correct policy-based arguments and allow you to go against policy to strike the AFD !vote that no one would pay any attention to anyway. WP:HORSEMEAT applies.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:09, 12 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) 20:11, 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 no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burl's Aircraft[edit]

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

Unnotable company as far as I can see. One reference is a dead link, and the other two aren't much better. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish subject's notability. Note, I found a reposting of one of the dead links on the Pprune web forum here: [4], and the other dead link (in the external links section) I found the updated URL for. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This deletion discussion has been mentioned at WikiProject Aircraft and WikiProject Aviation, within whose scope they fall. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did go to my central public library and checked Jane's All The World's Aircraft from 2007 to 2011 and found no entries, so it would seem Burl's has not been noted as an aircraft manufacturer, even though they hold the TC for the Sedan. The Alaska Journal of Commerce article plus this EAA article seem to be enough third party refs to barely meet WP:CORP as an aircraft parts supplier, though. Those articles also have enough material to do some substantial expansion of the article, which is needed if it is kept. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have done some expansion, clean-up and formatting of the article. I believe it meets WP:CORP now. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only solid independent source is about the man, not the company. The rest are either dead links, trivial government documentation, or from the company's own site. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this seems to be a one-person business, the Alaska Journal of Commerce article doesn't really differentiate between the person and company, referring to both pretty much interchangeably. I still think it establishes notability for the company. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is only notable for his company, the page should be on the company, not the man, a la WP:BLP1E, I'd assume? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a single article in an obscure publication (circulation: 7000) hardly demonstrates notability for either the man or his one-person business. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 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) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:FAILN and the sources are unreliable as the two links provided are dead See: WP:IRS and WP:LINKROT --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In checking just now I only found one dead link. Which two are dead links? - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you need to read the policies and guidelines you link to. Being a dead link does not = unreliable source; from WP:LINKROT: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer.WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." (emphasis in original) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I should have probably read close before linking to a guideline, thanks for that information. However I still do not think that the article has established notability. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two links appear dead to me. The second is reproduced, probably in violation of copyright, in a forum post that claims to be a copy of an article in the Anchorage Daily News. Please don't interpret this comment as either supporting or opposing deletion: I'm just trying to get the facts right. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you note is not a dead link - it is a "nil return" on an FAA inquiry that shows that no aircraft of that make and model are registered, it shows what it is supposed to show to support the text. It isn't a dead link. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake I thought the "Nil Return" was a dead link --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:58, 13 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) 20:11, 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. Sandstein 08:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLN (technology)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original PROD rationale by User:JamesBWatson was "No clear evidence of notability. All of the sources seem to be non-independent and/or promotional and/or do not mention CLN." ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established by Gas Turbine World, Distributed Energy and Power refs. --Kvng (talk) 02:36, 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does appear to be a promotional article, and appears to fail WP:GNG as well. The "Turbine World" ref has an image in it that is identical to this image found in the article, so much so that I thought it to be a copyvio at first. However, the image in the reference is more cropped than the one found in the article, so it can't be taken from the article itself. The author of the article is also the author of the image, the same image found in the Turbine World reference, that doesn't give me a huge amount of confidence in that reference's reliability and independence here. The IAGT reference is not an independent source, which leaves the "erosioncontrol.biz" reference as the single source that I think would establish any notability. I don't think that's an overly strong source of notability, and by itself it certainly doesn't give the article the kind of notability needed to have an article of Wikipedia, as articles need multiple sources that can show notability. - Sudo Ghost 18:16, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The articles cited have that promotional slant toward them, as they rely heavily on quotes from the company's CEO which are similar in each one. Additionally, the source websites are related to the company on as related as vendors, etc. Put plainly, Gas Turbine World, Distributed Energy, and Power are not "reliable sources" for the purposes of establishing notability. Senator2029 • talk 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three established publications have published articles on the technology. The fact that they're published is what establishes notability. What does slant have to do with it? -—Kvng 02:31, 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 delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Macolor Cruz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fernando Macolor Cruz

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

A PROD with these concerns was removed although they haven't been addressed: A WP:BLP making extreme claims with no independent refs. See also Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fernando_Macolor_Cruz, where a similar article was declined. heather walls (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strong claims (such as in this case being royalty) need strong sources, and I can't find them in this case. I note that the supposed "Studiorum Universitas Ruggero II in Italy" that (our article says) gave him an honorary degree appears from some evidence on the web to actually be an association in Boca Raton, Florida, closely connected with another Boca Raton organization, the "Accademia Normanna in Rome" that he claims to be a "delegate" to. We had an article Studiorum Universitas Ruggero II but it was tagged as a hoax and deleted as a copyvio a week or so ago. The University of Bouake appears to be a real university (at least from 1996 when it split from the University of Abidjan, according to our article [5], until 2003 when it was closed, according to this news piece); I have no evidence of an honorary doctorate from there, either. I suspect some kind of walled garden may be going on. Our article on Rodolfo Aguilar I may also be relevant for untangling this; that article has somewhat reliable looking sources for Aguilar's title and says incidentally that he made up and conferred a title "Grandmaster of the Royal Order of the Calamian Sun" on his son; that title is claimed in Cruz's article, so perhaps there is some connection. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC

Retain.Dear David. The problem with finding only internet sources makes Wikipedia very limited in scope. First, it is true that the Norman Academy and the Ruggero II University were incorporated in the United States. But both got their license to operate from the Republic of the Gambia as per the Ministry of Justice registration there (with special assistance of the President of the Republic of Gambia!) himself. How can you call this a hoax! Now, How can I send you the documents when they are not online? Tell me and I will gladly comply to the satisfaction of your curiosity and doubt. In relation to the University of Bouake, you might be reading from an outdated source. Please refer to this link: http://www.cirad.bf/fr/ubouake.php and read the translated version of the updated status of the university. Regarding traditional ancient tribal titles in the Philippines, please know that this has a very complex story. But allow me to discuss it to you in a nutshell. Tribal titles of nobility in the Philippines were there since time immemorial. Antonio Pigafetta saw this. History can attest to this. In fact, there are more than two thousand royals and nobles in the country, as compared to the few "huge" names in British or Spanish monarchy. In the country, these ancient titles were re-recognized and affirmed again with the passing of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts or simply known as IPRA law. This law was passed by the Republic of the Philippines to make amends to the injustice done by Spain to the native royalties and the native societies of the Philippines. The title of the prince was granted under a provision in this law. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Republic of the Philippines issued Administrative Order No.1 – Series of 1998, Rule IV-Part I, Section A to C. Here is the link: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno8371irr.html#.UFPZ57LiamI

Here you will read the law that became the basis of the prince title. Again, how can I send you a scanned copy of the certificate of grant and the tribal council of elders' proclamation affirming this title? It is easy to discredit but very hard to repair comments once they have already been done, especially online. So, please. Tell me how to contact you off Wiki so I send you legal documentation to this effect. Thank you.

It was not me that called it a hoax. And I'm very easy to find offline but doing so will do little good: what we need here is not something that will persuade one editor at a time that the claims in this article is true, but rather something with which all editors can verify its truth. That's why Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, something this article is missing and badly needs. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would hope that something so dramatic and national would have reliable secondary coverage. The other problem with a certificate of grant from you is that it is original research which we can't use to verify the main information in a biography. It may be that Fernando Macolor Cruz is not ready for an article in Wikipedia's standards. And if there are thousands of royals as you say, perhaps these titles alone are not enough to establish that kind of notability. heather walls (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear David and Heather, thank you for both for the enlightenment. If ever the question of notability will suffice as the main issue here, I think the one great deed that this person did and is still working on which is worthy of acclaim was his move to found an international NGO called the International Stateless Persons Organisation (ISPO). This NGO assists and provides representation to stateless persons throughout the world. Stateless persons are those not considered citizen by any country under the operation of its law. These are the people where no country protects nor care for. If the question of his being a tribal noble becomes a blockade in this direction, then I may gladly assist in re-editing the article to this effect. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.82.122 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I cannot find any reliable secondary coverage regarding the International Stateless Persons Organisation. heather walls (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear Heather, here is one of the links to an initiative of International Stateless Persons Organisation with over a hundred signatures: http://www.change.org/petitions/us-secretary-janet-napolitano-discretionary-decision-in-favor-of-mikhail-sebastian-s-return-to-the-us Hope I was of help in this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.110 (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Unfortunately no, creating a petition does not establish notability. heather walls (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC, & WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article should probably abdicate, as I can't find any reliable sources about this person at all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider The latest link is from a CNN I-report about a stateless person's case.Bottom part has attachment documents two from the international Stateless Persons Organization, addressed to the DHS cc The White House signed by Fernando Macolor Cruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.242 (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are CNN iReports even reliable? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone else picks up the story and details, I would say no, it's the same as a blog. Every page says "NOT VETTED BY CNN" heather walls (talk) 19:47, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy De Souza Queiroz[edit]

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

fails notability -- Y not? 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and no notability asserted. Electric Catfish 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there seems discussion about his conservation, it is not in English and is very minor. Maybe a foriegn language wiki, not English, wiki is better. SalHamton (talk) 18:40, 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 keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Pizza Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this article on Random Page Patrol and could not find any references. The articles does not assert notability, and fails GNG. Electric Catfish 17:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it passes WP:GNG:

Paywalled source: The Washington Post article. "In Salsomaggiore, Italy, about 350 people from 17 countries competed in the 10th World Pizza Championship. The competition is divided into several categories: classic pizza; pizza in a baking tray; fastest pizza; largest pizza; and, yes, even freestyle pizza acrobatics."
Paywalled source: Shepherd of Michael Angelo's Pizza wins bronze at World Pizza Championship in Italy. Quote from Google News summary: "SALSOMAGGIORE, Italy - Competing with his pizza team, the World Pizza ... brought home a bronze medal from the World Pizza Championship held in April."
Paywalled source: In brief
There's more: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - News coverage on the topic since at least Wall Street Journal February 25, 1994 and Los Angeles Times March 17, 1994. The topic caught general interest in April 2001 and has been covered since then. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:43, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear stonewalling[edit]

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

An article inspired by a single Reuters report that put together two unrelated words into a new phrase. Deletion requested as per WP:NEO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's millions of two-word phrases that are unworthy of an article. This is one of them. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idiom/phrase being used in the title of Reuters, a major news agency article in relation to a significant event/entity in global politics makes me argue, for politics and English-language notability, to keep and develop. Eventually discuss and agree upon another keyword/article body where non-fragmented discussion can happen on this essential topic in diplomacy. As well as a reference to the nuclear program of Syria, a reference to nuclear program/controversies in general, as a topic of diplomacy, is seen as useful and relevant for this article. An encyclopedia is meant to help in understanding context. There's no place i can find where this is discussed already. At least provide a usable redirect for the subject. Wakari07 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary shows only an informal use for the verb "to stonewall", which present participle is apparently used in the idiom, not used as a separate noun. Can't add much there. The concept needs more context description, not less. Wakari07 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article, as it exists now, is clearly a very recent neologism that has not achieved widespread acceptance, thus falling under wiki's guidelines of WP:NEO. Looking through the gnews archives, there are references to this phrase in news articles going back as far as the 80's, where the term is being used to describe various, and completely different, concepts. So while I can see that an article with this title could potentially be valid some day (though I have my doubts), the article as it stands now is merely on a unnotable neologism and thus should be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world are we supposed to understand media vocabulary if we need decennia to consider a concept that seems at the core and at the edge of (defence) diplomacy? WP:NEO is absurd - here - in my opinion. Wakari07 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transfer - This information, though a useful (and highly relevant to modern events) one, isn't deserving of its own article, especially when there isn't an article on 'stonewalling'. What I suggest is the creation of the article 'Stonewalling' and have the information from this article pasted in as a section of 'Stonewalling'.--ɱ 21:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the sparse sourcing in the article doesn't give any evidence to suggest this is truly being developed as a significant term - there are merely a few articles where the words occur together, and in the case of the Reuters article, the headline has been changed so it's not even there any more. For a term to have real significance, the term itself must actually be discussed in the secondary sources - it's not enough to show a few sources where the words happen to be used together. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa Wakari07 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already pointed out in my initial delete vote that the term has been used by various people as far back as the 80's. Its even been used in describing the US Government withholding data on the effects of low level radiation, which clearly has nothing to do with the various other uses of the term. That was kind of my point that this is just a random set of two words that has no clear cut definition, and has just been used for a variety of different meanings by a variety of different people. There's no one clear meaning of the word, there are no sources that are actually about the term itself, and even after the expansion to the article, this is just a list of all the times that news sources happened to use the words "nuclear" and "stonewall" together without actually describing why this term is notable, or providing any sources that actually describe the term itself. Its exactly what Nwlaw63 said. Its not enough to show that this term happens to have been used in order to prove notability. There needs to be sources that actually discuss the term itself. Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not a neologisms that is in wide use as required by WP:NEO. It may eventually reach a point to where it can have its own article in Wikipedia, so it may help to list sources found so far. The following is a list of sources found so far (please add more to the below)

(The Moscow Times, 16/11/1992, "Kiev Should Stop Nuclear Stonewalling")
Judy Keen (June 8, 1994). "N. Koreans Reject Nuke Compromise". USA Today. p. 1A. The level of threatening rhetoric over North Korea's nuclear stonewalling increased Tuesday, as the hard-line communist regime defiantly ruled out one possible compromise. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
(The Washington Times, 14/07/2003, "Tehran's nuclear stonewalling")
(Council on Foreign Relations, 17/11/2006, "Iran’s Nuclear Stonewall")
(Christian Science Monitor, 25/09/2008, "Ahmadinejad to dinner? Furor ensues over religious groups' event.")
Sylvia Westall and Fredrik Dahl (November 24, 2010). "Syria's nuclear stonewalling deepens: IAEA report". Al Arabiya. Retrieved September 17, 2012.
(Reuters, 14/09/2012, "U.S.: Syria must end nuclear stonewalling, conflict no excuse")

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 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 delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morristown: A Ballerina Love Story[edit]

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

The article was full of copyright issues (since pruned). From what I could find the film never made it to theaters and is only available as a "print on demand" DVD-R. I could not find any reviews from reliable sources. This appears to be a non-notable production. SQGibbon (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this indie film exists, and might well appeal to those interested in ballet, it has received no coverage in reliable sources, and so fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm from Morristown, Tennessee and just happened upon this article's entry at the city's page, and, wow, am completely/utterly shocked that this article has lasted so long. I have never even heard of this movie, nor even read about it in the local papers to even support its citations and notability. — WylieCoyote (talk) 06:40, 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 delete. There is a consensus that the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for identifying reliable sources, and that the subject does not pass WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Gautam[edit]

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

Author of questionable notability. Provided references are either press release based or blogs. Google news search on K. V. Gautam shows only one result, based on a press release. Standard search shows a lot of social media and primary sources - little significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There do not seem to be the sources to establish notability. The ones provided in the article are not. They are either from blogs, press releases about events, or just books that he contributed drawings to, but which do not discuss the actual individual at all. The only source that looks at first glance to have potential is the first one, an inteview at a news site. However, upon looking at the site, it seems to be based entirely around the idea of reporting by "citizen journalists", ie it is a user edited news source that anyone can contribute to. Searching for additional sources is also turning up nothing. All I am really finding are listings of books that he has drawing included in, but again, do not actually discuss him at all. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - New sources have been added to boost credibility of this page. There are news websites Santabanta.com, Newsnama.com, Techgoss.com and Merinews.com that have discussed the subject of the page K. V. Gautam. The subject has been invited in several TV programs (link to video of one TV program has been added in the external links section) to express his views in India. He is a well-known person in his capacity in India. Swati Bhatnagar (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find WP:RS on web or Gnews searching for his name in Hindi or English. Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Maybe in a few years. Lone boatman (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The subject of the article has been covered in various third party portals like Newsnama.com, Techgoss.com and Merinews.com. ~~Saurabh Tyagi (talk)~~ 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this edit was made by an IP address [16] and the signature forged. I smell sock / meat puppetry here. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editors who requested "do not delete" have made no other major edits/contributions other than those related to this article.-Rayabhari (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The subject has enough third party link sources - santabanta.com, newsnama.com and merinews.com. Rajabasu (talk) 08:43, 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 no consensus. Neither side has really fully convinced the other, and both sides' arguments have merit from a policy perspective. Since we've already re-listed once, I'm calling this one as No Consensus; if in six months or so there's been no significant change, and those recommending deletion still feel this doesn't meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG, a new nomination would be reasonable.. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Alexander[edit]

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

Not convinced this actress passes WP:NACTOR. Only point 1 is relevant here, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." A long career but the parts do not appear to be "significant" and press coverage of the WP:GNG-passing kind seems to be lacking. TheGrappler (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in searching for sources it may be necessary to search for Maev Alexander. (If this is deleted, someone will need to delete that redirect). Ryan Vesey 02:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does give better quality results than "Maeve". But I am struggling to find anything on either search that would be citeworthy. TheGrappler (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy withdraw The mind boggles as to how you didn't pick up any sources in google books or why you'd think somebody with that many TV and stage roles wouldn't somehow meet notability requirements. Not to mention why an editor of my standard would start such articles if they weren't notable... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all a criticism of your standard, I was just surprised when I came across this article how - despite a long career and lots of ghits - very little substantive information seemed to be available. My first reaction was that she was probably notable and the article (in the version I saw it) underdeveloped, but the more I searched for sources the more surprised I was at how little I found. I came across lots of passing mentions in books or appearances in cast listings, but almost nothing of substance. There's nothing in WP:NACTOR that dictates that someone with a long list of TV and stage roles is automatically notable: that's just an indication of them being a professional entertainer, which clearly does not suffice for notability. Since she does not have a large fanbase or a unique contribution to entertainment, the requirement is for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Most of the TV roles are small, single episode and/or minor roles. It is harder to judge the recurring roles of old shows, but our article on The Gentle Touch makes no mention of "WPC Sandra Williams" as a major character, nor was her recurring character in Holding the Fort one of the leading ones. So clearly in these cases we are looking at background characters - without further sources is difficult to know whether these are "significant" roles or not. The stage roles are clearly bigger parts, but for the stage performance to be "notable" secondary sources become more important. A performance at the Dublin Festival is unlikely to be notable, a role in The Mousetrap at the St Martin's Theatre sounds more promising but one would hope to see some sort of substantive press coverage to affirm the noteworthiness of her part there.

It is entirely possible to have a long, low-key career without crossing WP:GNG. The article's current state is vastly improved, but most of its length comes from expanding cast listings in prose, and adding details about personal life. Where is the "meat"? The most substantive source is an approving mention in a TV review from 1973, albeit for a role in which her screen-time was "occasional" with "long and arid intervals between her appearance". And there are apparently a couple of reviews in the specialist theatrical press - although I am not convinced this suffices for notability, since it is also possible to find press reviews that laud the performance of repertory actors, but we generally don't consider them notable. For such a long career one would expect to see more substantive sources and more substantial coverage if the notability criteria are met. I still think this case is at least closer to the threshold than you acknowledge, and it is certainly not slam-dunk notable. My nominating comment was measured - I only said that the notability is unconvincing, and gave reasons (all of which still stand), without claiming that the article was clearly non-notable. TheGrappler (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but you'll find that this is the case for over 75% of actors. Many of them lack "extensive coverage" and google book sources usually just pick up credits or brief mentions in other biographies etc. Enzo Petito for instance is typical of this. Alexander does actually have a few biographical entries in who's who in theatre type books though. You'll find that most actors aren't "slam dunk notable", especially older actors who made many appearances but in low key roles, but it is possible to compile something highly useful providing there are some sources to support an article. Trust me on this that the majority of actor articles or potential actor articles are of similar notability to Maeve and Enzo Petito where most of the content would be derived from expanded prose of roles and lack major coverage in books. You could argue that all of them fail notability requirements but you'll find they are generally accepted on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the considered reply. It isn't really "extensive coverage" like a published (auto)biography or a string of magazine articles, that I was looking for; a couple of examples of "substantive coverage" would have done me fine (e.g. if I had found an interview in a newspaper, some reviews of a film or TV show in which she was involved as a "significant" part and which devoted a few lines to her performance). But everything I found was very fragmentary, often nothing more than her name in a cast list, and irritatingly the instances where details popped up were ones that did not confer notability (things like marriage/friendships/previous flatshare, fall in this category). I didn't unearth the Spectator review, which is the most substantive source at the moment, but if WP:NACTOR is taken literally, it's questionable whether that counts as a "significant" role. I'm not hellbent campaigning for the article to go, there are lots of people who got a wikipedia article for far less! But I wanted to see where consensus fell on an article like this, for which sources are numerous but scanty, and which didn't seem likely (even with more sources included) to be an obvious candidate to pass WP:NACTOR. In fact the way I read WP:NACTOR (which is perhaps too literal) I'm still not convinced it does, although your judgment about consensus on interpretation may well be correct. If this is the kind of article that is routinely kept at AFD then perhaps "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" needs a rewrite to reflect current consensus, or at least some clarification on (e.g. what counts as "significant" - are minor characters ok if they are speaking roles, for instance? And does "notable" mean "notable enough to mention" or "notable enough to deserve an article? - this makes a big difference for stagings of plays, very few of which are article-worthy in their own right). TheGrappler (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that both The Independent and the Birmingham Post list Ms Alexander among the notable birthdays for February 3rd each year (along with Kenneth Anger, Paul Auster, Val Doonican, to get even deeper into trivia). AllyD (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Blofeld and AllyD. Specifically, we must note that WP:GNG was created to ensure that Wikipedia did not decide who is notable and who was not notable. GNG is meant to make sure that wikipedians look to external sources to see if they have decided someone is notable. In this case, The Independent, a national newspaper, has stated that Maev Alexander is notable. Wikipedia must defer to the paper and say that she does meet our guidelines. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting they do that, as even if a piece of trivia it suggests Alexander is more notable than the sources suggest. But listing someone's birthday is hardly the "significant coverage" the GNG demands, so I don't think the actual wording of the GNG supports your interpretation of it. (In general I'm not convinced the idea of outsourcing the definition of "notable" works so neatly, because the "depth of coverage and quality of the sources" clause comes into play. For example there are often enough secondary sources - many column inches - to write well-sourced articles on many local businesspeople, amateur or repertory theatre actors, semi-pro or amateur sportspeople, district-level politicians, but we generally hold them non-notable. We essentially declare that extensive coverage in the local press is not sufficient "depth of coverage and quality of the sources" but this judgment is partly driven by the desire to exclude people who don't "smell" notable. There are certainly biographies that are treated as clear-cut deletions on notability grounds despite having far more substantive sources available than this one does.) TheGrappler (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You referenced my next point in your comment. We specifically exclude coverage that is only local. That's why I mentioned The Independent and not the Birmingham Post. In this case, a national paper stated that she is notable. Ryan Vesey 03:11, 8 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG as Google/Google News/Google Books searches don't return any in-depth coverage. I'm not sure that she meets WP:NACTOR, because while she's been in some notable TV shows most of her roles were small: IMDb says she was in 1 episode of BBC soap Doctors, 3 episodes of The Gentle Touch, 1 episode of the New Avengers. She may have had a bigger role in Sutherland's Law but that article doesn't establish the show's notability (there's 1 ref to IMDb which isn't a reliable source, and one to a fansite on Archive.org) and IMDb suggests she was only in 1 episode of it. If people can indicate what her "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" were, then that might establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An early mention is from Washington Post May 10, 1990, where an "Alexandria Maeve" is mentioned in a string of names of people in the play. Maybe she used a different form of her name back then. The next mention is ten years later, "ON THIS DAY Birthdays: Painter Gillian Ayres, 70; actress Maev Alexander, 52; Irish singer Val Doonican, 71;" Birmingham Post February 3, 2000. This is odd because they would only note her birthday if she had some fame. Yet, I didn't find any news articles on her before that date. it is possible there are write ups on her that are not online. She's then mentioned in Daily Post September 12, 2003 and her name is mention in three other news articles. The newspapers continue to mention her birthday each year from 2000 on, but no real writes on her or her life. The hits in Google books seem only to mention her name, but not much more. Reviewing all the material, there isn't enough source material for a biography article to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:43, 23 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. -Scottywong | talk _ 18:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanth Reddy[edit]

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

I have absolutely no idea why this person meets WP:GNG but the name is fairly common. Unless someone can demonstrate that, for example, the article has been hijacked then this has no place here. Sitush (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bio seemingly started by a family member. Seems to fail GNG, although I am surprised to say this does seem to be a common name. I wouldn't have guessed that... Carrite (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - subequent to my nomination and Carrite's comment above, Rayabhari has added some content relating to the Guinness Book of Records. If this is indeed the same person then perhaps that is sufficient for a claim of notability? - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Guinness Book of Records alone cannot be taken as a basic criteria to prove WP:GNG. -- Bharathiya (talk) 10:35, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'd like to see more discussion about the sources mentioning taekwondo and the Guinness Book of Records. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's been long established that while many notable people hold world records, holding a world record isn't in itself notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete holding a world record doesn't prove notability. The supposed award he got from US presidents, from my quick research, appear to be handed out to a lot of people who complete a certain routine. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The article isn't World Record of Jayanth Reddy, so there's no point in trying to determine whether such a topic meets WP:GNG. In breaking the world record, the reliable sources also wrote about his life. The article is a biography and the question is whether there is enough reliable source information for a biography on Jayanth Reddy. On looking at the source information, there might be enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there is more reliable source information than I found (below), but I think you would need someone who knows how to ring out all the source info for biographical information before you can get a consensus of Wikipedians to agree that the topic meets WP:GNG. Some "Jayanth Reddy" reference material (not all of the following may be related to the above noted Jayanth Reddy) is below: Cyprus Mail September 18, 2008, Staten Island Advance October 20, 2008, Hindu December 24, 2009, Hindu November 16, 2010, Indo-Asian News Service June 24, 2011, United News of India June 25, 2011, Hindu August 30, 2011, New Indian Express October 17, 2011, Hindustan Times February 24, 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:06, 23 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 Rename and merge Sedley Alley into this. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Marie Collins[edit]

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

Very Sad but fails WP:VICTIM, WP:SOLDIER. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies ...William 00:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Sedley Alley It would seem strange to keep one, but not the other. A merge might even be considered. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedley Alley (3rd nomination) as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biography of a True Lurid Crime victim. Tragic though the case was, Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is a registry of news stories, nor is it an accumulation of bios of victims and perpetrators in every death penalty case. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize & Merge into a new article Rape and murder of Suzanne Marie Collins. The crime has received significant coverage sufficient to warrant WP:GNG, even if the victim is not notable herself. Content regarding the Lance Corporal can be merged into the new article as a section about her.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize & Merge I concur with everything RightCowLeftCoast said. The event is notable, even though neither the victim nor the perpetrator are notable. The two articles should be combined to focus on the event, the trial, and the execution, with subsections for the two individuals involved and redirects when either name is searched. Martylunsford (talk) 00:52, 13 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:57, 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 Pep Guardiola. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pep Team[edit]

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

This article is clearly exaggerated by fans of Barcelona cf. there are no references for any thing like the pep team anywhere, neither his article is using one. total WP:puffery. This article should be deleted immediately. Also, admins should notice that everything in this article is contributed by a single new user who is writing everything based on personal views. (completed nomination for 108.78.177.132) SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. I only admit that I created this article, but I had to interrupt improvement of it because of my business trip. Probably next month I'll find more time to reedit this article. To reject the charges I can point out that (Firstly) a lot of people know that article's team was historically unique and there is many sources I can add (Secondly) For two decades I'm big fan of Real Madrid and generally I don't like FC Barcelona, but I appreciate;) Moreover, I'm not new user, I created or improve articles at four different languages Wikipedians. Of course, if admins agree with previous user, I'll accept it. Edamian (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first and most important matter here is there is no such term as ' Pep Team', its neither official nor used anywhere. So you cant make a term for a team out of nowhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.177.132 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, your argument leads to undermine all terms given to great clubs f.e. Mighty Magyars or Golden Team or Wunderteam. Also basketball's Dream Team is unofficial. You said term 'Pep Team' is not used anywhere. Well, during one minute I found this:

http://www.marca.com/2012/05/22/en/football/spanish_football/1337706728.html (Marca)

http://www.frikipedia.es/friki/Pep_Team

http://vimeo.com/43308066

http://firstpost.com/topic/person/cesc-fabregas-fc-barcelona-guardiolas-era-pep-team-2008-2012-video-u_c2vU85Vks-55140-22.html

http://www.vavel.com/es/futbol/fcbarcelona/165984-diez-momentos-para-el-recuerdo-del-pep-team.html

http://www.svenskafans.com/spanien/Gastkronika-Dream-Team-contra-Pep-Team-404786.aspx (in swedish)

http://www.asromalive.it/2012/05/rassegna-estera-marca-il-pep-team-e-gia-nella-storia (italian)

http://www.realmadryt.net/news/Zaloga-Mourinho-zatopila-quotPep-Teamquot-7261 (polish Real Madrid fans site)

http://www.adevarul.es/stiri/sport/finalul-pep-team-mostenirea-lui-guardiola-cifre (romanian)

http://www.information.dk/172615 (Denmark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_c2vU85Vks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyA649ORhxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVN65JEBS_o

http://www.justzik.net/videos_96ceMX-LGqw__FC-Barcelona--M%C3%A9s-Que-Un-Club--2009-Pep-Team--HD-.html

http://www.justzik.net/videos_1hUzFsUF6k4__Barcelona-Pep-team-.html

http://www.totalbarca.com/2012/opinion-pieces/i-saw-the-pep-team-play/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hUzFsUF6k4

http://www.meczyki.pl/pep_team_vs_tito_team,1327,filmik.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GV2ECy2Zso&list=FL_-sOp5P7Hu-YECsLUi7FbQ&index=37&feature=plpp_video

http://www.facebook.com/pages/YO-VI-JUGAR-AL-PEP-TEAM/213446995351754

http://www.facebook.com/pages/BARCELONA-de-GUARDIOLA-EL-PEP-TEAM/219480651411069

Cheers ;) Edamian (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, most of your ref. you just gave are from YouTube, facebook and blogs (ALL POVS) these are not acceptable in Wikipedia. There is no official term as Pep team in the world!108.78.177.132 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially, Marca, the biggest Spanish sport's newspaper :) In at least 7 countries term PepTeam is using. Mighty Magyars, Golden Team, Wunderteam or Dream Team is unofficial too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1cticos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinta_del_Buitre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Gang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Sant%C3%A1sticos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Magri%C3%A7os

Maybe next one, search pliz what (in semantic point of view) does the nickname or moniker mean. And, if I say that term XXX refers to YYY, is the XXX the official name of YYY? Edamian (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 100s of ref for these and all of them were official terms. You are making up everything and moving away from the topic. This wont help you and this fan based article will be deleted.108.78.177.132 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Your job is to convince other admins that this term even existed. You are not allowed to divert from the topic and point to other terms. This does not make it valid for a fake 'pep team' to exist in wikipedia108.78.177.132 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable term that was (according to the discussion) just simply made up by a Barcelona fan. Zappa O Mati 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability beyond a few fans. Giant Snowman 11:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pep Guardiola - There is enough content for the topic to be a redirect and to be a subtopic with its own section in both Pep Guardiola and FC Barcelona: Significant content: Guardian November 3, 2008, Other content: Deutsche Presse-Agentur November 9, 2008, Sunday Independent April 26, 2009, Guardian May 29, 2011. However, the suptopic isn't ready for a Wikipedia:Summary style article since there is not enough content from reliable sources (which exclude youtube, etc. noted above) for a stand alone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:07, 14 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Uzma Gamal, that this content can be merged into Pep Guardiola or FC Barcelona. However, the article is currently just a list of statistics that won't fit into any of those articles, and should be deleted. But yes, there is enough content in reliable sources to make it a sub-section of both Guardiola and Barcelona, but nothing in this article is worth saving. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:09, 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Design Observer[edit]

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

Non-notable design website, no sources provided and I can't see any evidence at all of independent, reliable news coverage about Design Observer online. Sionk (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added various refs to the article - some obtained via Highbeam but some from newspaper websites. Among these can be found opinions that Design Observer is "Certainly the best-written and generally the most intelligent of the many graphic design blogs ... the level of posts and debate continues to be significantly higher than you'll find anywhere else in the design blogosphere" (Creative Review) A Guardian search shows various articles, one describing Design Observer as influential. And their Design Matters podcast won the 2011 People’s Design Award at the Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum [17]. AllyD (talk) 20:22, 4 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} 17:07, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:20, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sevad, Rajasthan[edit]

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

This article has been in place 6 years and after numerous edits it still consists of the sentence: "Sevad is a small town in Rajasthan, India". No further info (OK, an infobox giving the time zone!), no sources, and I cannot find any evidence of its existence. PamD 12:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might be a real place, but it also might be a caste, and it also might have the wrong title. I found a mention of it in this book; I've also seen a few mentions of a Sevad caste, and there's a village called Sevad Badi in Rajasthan, but that's about it. I have no idea which if any of these was the intended topic of the article, and I'd be inclined to delete it since it's so vague; it's not like we'd lose much. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia allows places to be listed in Wikipedia as it is also an encyclopedia. Any place can be kept if you able to prove that the place actually exists. You can provide latitude/longitude, pin code etc,. But i have no idea whether this place actually exist or not. ---Bharathiya (talk) 10:29, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:28, 14 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) 13:17, 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 speedy delete. Copyvio in part and otherwise a close paraphrase of his web site http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/bio.htm. I think he is notable as WP:Author and WP:PROF, so I started rewriting it to eliminate the puffery and paraphrase, but found it too contaminated by both that and promotionalism; it will need starting over. In general, bios like this on the web are often prepared not by the faculty member but by university PR, and they are also often to blame for adding them here. A notable person deserves better DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Smith (professor)[edit]

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

This article was most likely self-created, and offers little to no benefit to the Wiki community. The person "Daniel Smith" is not a 'notable' enough figure worth having a Wiki page for. It should also be noted that it violates many of the rules citedhere. In all, this page contributes little to nothing to the Wiki community. Flordiagatorpolisci (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - First, am not sure why, but this profile of Prof. Smith is hosted on the site of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Doesn't give a reason or a context and I can't see where it was originally linked from.

Questions about whether or not he is notable enough to meet WP:GNG remain but he is regularly cited as an "expert" commentator on election matters, especially in Florida. The articles, though, are not comprehensive coverage of him, rather by him or with him making additional comments. See here from the New York Times, here from The Ledger, here from The Guardian (UK), here from The News-Press, here from The Nation, here from the Wall Street Journal and here from the San Francisco Chronicle. Most of those are very recent and relate to the 2012 Presidential Election. Ironically, on Florida-specific political issues, he could likely be cited as a reliable academic source whose comments on given issues would likely constitute significant coverage. But that doesn't necessarily make him notable as no-one has subsequently given him coverage in turn.

He runs the website electionsmith.com which seems to be how the various news sources come to seek him out for comment. While he clearly exists, that doesn't mean he meets WP:GNG and while he is regularly cited in newspapers, every single one of those articles is actually about other people, with some comments from him for some added "academic" substance.

Am massively on the fence with this one. Flordiagatorpolisci, you've given us something to think about! Stalwart111 (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! I'm amazed at how quickly and throughly you reacted and gathered information. The part about this article that most made me flag it for deletion was the appearance of it being self serving; it is my understanding that Wikipedia is not 'Linkedin.' It is highly likely that he created the page, though that cannot be known for sure. Looking back at past edits, it appears that the page has been vandalized; currently, under "alternate names," he is listed as "THE DAWG." I highly doubt that this is an actual alias. In all, the page seems to have been self-created, then neglected. Although new to the Wiki community, I feel that it gives nothing to Wikipedia, and that the likely self-spawned nature of creation is against the spirit of what Wikipedia is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flordiagatorpolisci (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it certainly needs work but it might be that he does (just) meet the criteria for WP:GNG. I'd be interested to see what others think and to see if a consensus builds in either direction. I understand your original nomination but it might be that this one is a case of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - full professor at FSU, Fulbright scholar, and work outside of academia. Needs formatting badly. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Hollis[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the subject. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the author of the article I'm obviously biased, but I wanted to highlight the fact that the subject of the article has had seventeen books covering two separate (although related) genres published by a well-known, international publishing house and has sold over a million copies of them. Does that not qualify as 'notable'? Mgswiki (talk) 11:49, 12 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) 13:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I don't see evidence that she meets notability requirements; neither romance nor countryside matters are genres of books widely discussed in the media. She does get lots of coverage at RT Book Reviews[18] which is probably the only commercial magazine that reviews large amounts of romantic fiction. And there are lots of reviews on blogs. But there's very little coverage on the other main online reviews sites (Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus). Nothing on Google News. I tried a quick search for pseudonym Polly Forrester but nothing there either. If there was evidence of bestselling status or more reviews, that would help establish notability, but being prolific isn't itself enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the subject's books are also reviewed on 'category romance' readers' site CataRomance [19]. She has appeared in the USA Today Bestsellers list, but I'm having trouble locating the specific web page and so I can't put up a link to that yet. If the CataRomance reviews are not considered sufficiently independent, and/or if I can't locate the USA Today page, I will myself recommend that the article is taken down until I can make it more cast-iron. Mgswiki (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readers' reviews are generally not considered to be reliable sources, rejected for the same reason as blogs, wiki entries, user-contributed sites like IMDb, and personal web-pages - a lack of editorial oversight, fact-checking, or professional expertise from the writer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete As the author of the article I'm obviously not keen on the idea of abandoning it, but as a Wikipedia novice I will respect the opinions and judgement of more experienced editors. Please withdraw this article (I won't do it myself in case I break something) until I can locate more acceptable references to support it. Note that the article also has a redirect to it from Polly Forrester, which presumably should also be withdrawn. Mgswiki (talk) 20:30, 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) 01:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline Lim[edit]

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

WP:NN actor. Runner up in a talent competition. Filmography consists only of talent show and supporting roles. PROD removed by anon with no explanation. Essentially unreferenced. Pburka (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is not notable in Singapore yet as she was only given a few small or supporting roles in MediaCorp drama series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.170 (talk) 05:42, 8 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) 13:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source is used and i don't think its reliable. Also, subject doesn't really seem to be notable. Would it be possible to speedy this? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although she is the 2nd runner-up of the competition, she is currently not as notable as her fellow contestants such as Romeo Tan and Sora Ma who were given prominent roles in Singapore TV drama series. She is only appearing in various dramas with supporting roles. Notability is a question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.150 (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since this discussion started the article's author has now completely removed the references section. Pburka (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like copyvio, and not surprisingly promo into the bargain. "Given time and exposure, this effervescent lass will blossom into the one to look out for on the hill" says a lot to me. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 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 delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity theory of credit[edit]

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

Self promotion by author of an unnotable theory. Citations that mention the theory by name are almost all by the author in unreviewed conference papers. No evidence that any peer-reviewed article has taken note of the theory. The article proclaims the theory's mention in i) a master's dissertation, ii) a presentation at a CEPR conference.

Note that a Google News search,[20] Google Scholar search,[21] Google Book search,[22] and JSTOR search,[23] for "'Quantity theory of credit' werner", bring up nothing except what is written by the author himself. --LK (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was some media coverage of the book release (says Google). However, that coverage was fairly short-lived, and in any case does not excuse the article being a pure puff piece. Burn it. Burn it with fire. Kerfuffler (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into quantity theory of money of which this is a refinement or development. Warden (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a press release for this guy's pet theory.--Talain (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoting puff piece that's only referenced by the author himself - no secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:47, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Machado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not seeing any reason for this pilot and author to merit an article. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~likely~~ meets WP:AUTHOR, also a widely-known speaker on aviation safety topics and a humorist. gNews search turns up hundreds of mentions of his being a speaker at various events (and, no, not just in the aviation press). Examples: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Individually the various things he's done might not pass muster, but as a group, collected, I believe there's enough to meet notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable achievements do not become more notable when combined with other non-notable achievements. Kind of like how adding buckets of lukewarm water to a lukewarm bath won't eventually make it hot. Delete InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been successfully argued in past AfDs that somebody on the borderline can be tipped over to 'notable' by having multiple borderline things contributing to notability. It's more "working multiple jobs to meet budget" than "adding lots of lukewarm buckets to make hot". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria #1 of WP:AUTHOR. Also appears to meet WP:BASIC: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Machado's definitely a notable person within his field. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 30 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, Wily D 08:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol press release (21 October 2008, "WISCONSIN WING'S LA CROSSE COMPOSITE HEWS TO 'SQUADRON OF EXCELLENCE' SLOGAN") says "With "Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook" used as the ground school text ". Is that good for wp:prof? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian's 17 January 2002 review of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 Professional Edition PC verifies flight lessons by him in the first listed simulator. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And George Soropos article "Flight Fantastic" in 20 November 1999 Sydney Morning Herald does the asme for the unlisted Flight Simulator 2000. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:45, 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 WP:SNOW $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kassos Local League[edit]

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

~~Repeatedly-recreated article.~~Article recreated after speedy deletion. Latest speedy deletion (A7) denied because there are newspapers cited. This is a league of "3 or 4 teams" that has been active from 1970 to 2002 (? "lack of details"). The "newspapers" are publications on the island of Kassos, which has a population of less than 1000 persons. The "3 or 4 teams" are non-notable local amateur teams. No notability whatsoever, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - firstly, the nom is incorrect in saying that this article is "Repeatedly-recreated" - it was A7ed yesterday and that's it. However I agree that there is no evidence of any notability here. Giant Snowman 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local amateur/social/kickabout league. I was momentarily confused by the bluelinked clubs, but they're all just piped to Kassos..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some research effort has gone into this article and in particular the one for Doxa Arvanitochoriou. The Kassos Local League must be affiliated to a Regional Football Association and I suggest that some of the material is relocated to an article for the Regional Football Association. Does anyone know the relevant Regional Football Association? League Octopus (League Octopus 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Though the list of champions might be moved to an article about the relevant regional football association Mentoz86 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the island of Kasos is part of the Dodecanese archipelago, this league is not a part of the official Dodecanese Football Clubs Association and the association's website contains no mention of a Kasos league or a Doxa Arvanitochoriou or any other club mentioned in the article: [35]. Doxa's article on el.wiki was speedy deleted twice, first for the equivalent of A7 (no indication of notability) and secondly for copyvio of the club's "official website": http://doxafc.weebly.com/ Moreover, the deleted article's talk page (which mysteriously survived) contains a post from el.wiki's sysop who peformed the first deletion and states that the "league" is in fact a 5x5 soccer tournament (some kind of outdoors futsal in artificial turf grounds, popular in Greece but I can't find a proper English term) which used to take place between 3 teams during the summer. The sources mentioned are not newspapers per se, only local publications with no journalistic value, of which only I Foni Tis Kasou is at least historically significant, and make no statement about the coverage's quality. With the same reasoning, I will soon propose Doxa Arvanitochoriou for deletion. – Kosm1 fent 13:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid confusion, it appears that the standings on the website are incomplete, featuring only the First Division and the Second Division - Rhodes Group of Dodecanese FCA. The reason is that the Second Division - Islands Group and the Third Division are not starting until mid-October. However, I managed to find Dodecanese FCA's proclamation of the 2012-13 championships here, where it states all competing teams and, again, there is no mention of a Kasos league or even Kasos-based clubs anywhere. – Kosm1 fent 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that I know the full background I withdraw my comments suggesting relocating some material to an article for the relevant Regional Football Association. We should never be promoting unaffiliated football. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

But always remember that there can be examples of small island leagues that are notable e.g Isles of Scilly Football League which has 2 teams! League Octopus (League Octopus 14:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Of course affiliated leagues are notable, no matter how small. And the Dodecanese Football Clubs Association article needs creating. :P And by the way, the league you mention is hilarious. :P – Kosm1 fent 14:41, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by My Chemical Romance[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any indication of notability of this list. It is merely a collection of tracks recorded by the band. Till 11:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smh... Keep per Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers. I'd hope that this article is a list of the group's singles and album tracks; that's what this sort of list is for. If you'd like to get rid of a couple, please nominate them all, if not, then don't bother. Zac 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not policies or guidelines and thus not valid reasons for keeping the article. Till 14:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even have a legitimate reason to delete the article, so... You can't nominate two song list articles without nominating all of them, as per your logic, they should all be deleted; there's nothing different about them. They are all list of songs. Zac 21:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for "notability of this list" is off-base as the subject is not a list; the list is merely a presentation format. So that's not a coherent way of analyzing this list. There do seem to be a lot of lists of other notable artists' songs; dismissing that as a mere OTHERSTUFF observation is a rather facile way to approach the question of when it is and isn't appropriate (from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article."). General practice regarding the same kind of content is a relevant though not absolute consideration, particularly where the deletion nom is in some way applicable to all of that content ("merely a collection of tracks recorded by the band"). postdlf (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However poor an article/list this is, there is room for improvement, For any artist with a number of albums issued, nominations for awards and awards for songs, a list article provides useful adjunct to the discography and main article page. If the nominator feels there is a problem with Lists of songs, then a discussion at the relevant projects, or a group AfD nomination may well be more appropriate. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No actual policy cited by the nom. This list contains notable entries, meeting the stand-alone list requirements. It needs improvement, yes, but not deletion. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:37, 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) 11:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugababes songs[edit]

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

I'm currently not seeing any notability of this list in its current form. It is merely a collection of the group's singles and album tracks in list form. No notability has been demonstrated. Till 10:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smh... Keep per Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers. I'd hope that this article is a list of the group's singles and album tracks; that's what this sort of list is for. If you'd like to get rid of a couple, please nominate them all, if not, then don't bother. Zac 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not policies or guidelines and thus not valid reasons for keeping the article. Till 14:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even have a legitimate reason to delete the article, so... You can't nominate two song list articles without nominating all of them, as per your logic, they should all be deleted; there's nothing different about them. They are all list of songs. Zac 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator states "I'm currently not seeing any notability of this list in its current form" which is NOT grounds for deletion as he is quite clearly stating it can be improved. Probably grounds for speedy keep. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No actual policy cited by the nom. This list contains notable entries, meeting the stand-alone list requirements. It needs improvement, yes, but not deletion. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:38, 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 references added to the article don't seem to be convincing anyone that there is sufficient notability. -Scottywong | express _ 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward F. Malkowski[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.

The only existing references in the article are to his own work, which is not evidence of notability.

I searched for "Edward F. Malkowski":

JSTOR: no hits
Google News: the only hits are death notices
Google Books: lots of hits, but mostly seem to be his own publications
Google Scholar: 9 hits, 3 of which are to his own books. None of the other 6 appear to be scholarly.

I searched again, omitting the middle initial:

JSTOR: no hits
Google News: 159 hits, nearly all from the Ludington Daily News, which is the local newspaper of Ludington, Michigan (pop 8,500). I don't know if this is the same person
Google Scholar: 9 hits, 35 hits, but I didn't see anything which looks like a scholarly citation of his work

Disclosure: I examined this article while scrutinising the contribs of Paul Bedson (talk · contribs), having reviewed this DYK submission and taken it to AFD here BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a negative review of one of his books ("though this book may be read for amusement, I would not recommend spending any money to purchase it"; Edwin Yamauchi in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (via Highbeam [36])) and he is cited in a recent Cape Times article ("Evidence leaves no doubt ancient Egypt was black African." (also via Highbeam [37])). AllyD (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for those sources Ally. I've added them and also found him referenced in a couple of scholarly articles (Jones and Jaroslav sources), along with a load of external links, youtube video and (externally linked) bloggy book reviews. There's also a lot of discussion about him by "notable fringe" authors, but I am backing off mentioning that sort of thing as per Brownhairedgirl's advice. It's not a strong keep, but I've shown some evidence that elements of his work is getting picked up in academia, and will probably continue to do so. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding those refs. At least there is now something other than his own work, but I'm still not so persuaded that this adds up to notability:
1. Jones appears to be a self-publsihed dissertation, and it contains only 2 brief mentions of Malkowski
2. The book review in "Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith" is behind a paywall, so I can only see the 1st para. Is it substantial? How does it rate the scholarship?
3. The Cape Times ref appears to be a letter to the editor, but again it's behind a paywall, so I can't evaluate it
4. The Jaroslav ref mentions his work only in part of one sentence: "Some authors concluded that between 6 500–6 000 BCE the flood maximum level was 3 meters higher (Malkowski, 2005)"
Four refs appears good, but it looks less impressive when scutinised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two paywalled pieces: On 3, you're totally right: looking again it is indeed a letter to the Cape Times, quoting Malkowski along with Martin Bernal etc. On 2. the 7 paragraph review certainly is not positive, categorising the book as being among the "rather bizarre unorthodox interpretations" of Ancient Egyptian monuments and saying that "To support his wide-ranging interpretations, Malkowski cites an array of dubious authorities". AllyD (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, the hits from the Luddington Daily News are not the same person. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how he meets WP:AUTHOR. We've got one book review, but that's not enough, see "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He doesn't seem to meet any of the other criteria. I've removed the letter to the editor and Jones. That's Jones's PhD, which he also published through AuthorHouse. It's not surprising that he couldn't get it published properly as his PhD leaves something to be desired. If you look at this bio here [38] he says his "dissertation validated that the Nile Valley civilizations predated those of Mesopotamia by tens of thousands of years." You might wonder how that managed to get him a PhD if it's as crackpot as it looks, but the answer to that is that he holds a "Doctor of Philosophy in Arts and Sciences" from Union Institute & University and for that specific PhD a report said " " ... expectations for student scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work ... " which is pretty obvious looking at what he wrote. Here's his website[39]. So, clearly not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, how I missed our debates! I totally agree Jones is a crackpot if he thinks culture came up the Nile instead of down the Jordan. I think the only thing that makes me really want to keep this article may be the enjoyment that I get from our discussions and your insight into sources. I don't really like many of Malkowski's fringey ideas at all and would be perfectly happy if the page did go. Nevertheless, the weak keep remains based on the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which only takes two to tango and Jaroslav is 2, albeit a very short mention. The other potential seconds I have left in external links, but I would be interested in your opinion of Alan Glassman's review in the New Dawn Magazine (from [40]) “As our own civilization continues to make the kinds of fascinating discoveries Malkowski describes, I believe we may sooner than later find history to be quite different from what we thought it was.” (Alan Glassman, New Dawn Magazine, November 2010 )[41]. There was also a mention in a German magazine that I thought might qualify [42]. There also appears to be a mention in a paid article that I cannot access, from another secondary source you might consider more reliable - “Subtitled 'The History, Technology and Philosophy of Cvilization X', this is a groundbreaking study making a strong case for the existence of much more sophisticated technology than is currently acknowledged to have been involved in building the pyramids. . . This is a serious piece of work which deserves careful consideration.” (The Scientific & Medical Network, UK, December 2010 ). Now if that text really is in their "Network Review" magazine or other publication of December 2010 [43], then I think we might have a contender. If not, I am not too bothered if this flyweight takes a knockout. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:26, 10 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above cited references don't add up to enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Edward F. Malkowski subject to justify a stand-alone article under WP:GNG. I found a Chicago Tribune article on Edward Malkowski, who does magic performed with playing cards,[44] but that is not the above Edward F. Malkowski. I looked for information that intersected Malkowski and egypt and also looked for information that intersected Malkowski and nile, however I didn't find anything. Reviews of Malkowski's books might justify a Publications of Edward F. Malkowski article, I didn't see enought biographical content in any of the book reviews to support a Wikipedia biography article on Edward F. Malkowski. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The article barely asserts any notability at all. He's "known" for disputing the precise depth of the Nile in the year 6500 BC? Come on. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 23 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) 01:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco "O Baby" Rosario[edit]

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

Article is on non-notable footballer, has apparently only played in a non-professional league and has not featured at international level either. Article was prodded but reference was added. Reference does not actually appear to deal with the subject at all. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I call hoax but not sure but fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "O Baby", seriously? No evidence of notability though, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:24, 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 on the main article, but merge the spinoffs to the main. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Television Academy Awards[edit]

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

Also nominated:

ITA Awards for Best Actor - Comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actress - Comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actor in a Negative Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actress in a Negative Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actress in Supporting Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actor - Drama (Jury) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Serial - Drama (Popular) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actress - Drama (Popular) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ITA Award for Best Actress - Drama (Jury) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I hereby submit for the community's consideration Indian Television Academy Awards and all its above-mentioned associated articles. The creator and primary contributor to all of these articles is a single user and his many sockpuppets, nearly all of which have been banned for disruptive editing and persistent copyright violations. The persistence with which he spams Wikipedia with links to these often-plagiarized award articles, nearly all of which lack non-primary sourcing and assertions of notability, leads me to believe that they are unencyclopedic, and probably added to Wikipedia for purely promotional purposes. Only the main article, Indian Television Academy Awards, makes any assertions of notibility, though they're couched in highly promotional language (e.g., "The ITA launced The ITA School of Performing Arts in Mumbai and Del NCR-Noida in Oct 2011.. It is the only one of its kind in India to have all faculties under one roof-singing.dancing.singing.personality enhancement and modelling.. The ITA plans to open such schools all over the country in the coming years.,For information log on to www.itaspa.in") and the whole article is largely plagiarized from press releases and primary sources.

Certainly sources exist for the main award ceremony, but as someone without an intimate knowledge of Indian media it's difficult to identify which of them, if any, constitute reliable and independent press coverage (i.e., from media sources unrelated to companies organizing or sponsoring the awards, and from media sources which aren't simply reprinting press releases and programme guides). Even if the award ceremony in general is found to be notable, it would be helpful to consider whether the individual awards are notable in and of themselves and therefore worthy of separate articles. Many articles for individual awards not listed here have already been speedily deleted. Psychonaut (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amongst heaps of essays written on Wikipedia i am surprised that there isn't any about awards. Well... i assume they are not considered something different and hence existence of articles on them should be simply based on WP:GNG.
The Indian Television Academy that was established probably in 2006 or before felicitates people working in Hindi-language television industry including various TV channels. It does not consider regional-language television shows. But this situation is much better than something like STAR Parivaar Awards where the TV channel Star Plus gives awards to shows that are aired on Star Plus itself. (Why do we have that in-house awards article then? That's because you will find many newspapers and articles talking about it. Very good coverage.) Given the case of awards related to Indian television, i find this award notable in this sense that it is given by a third party and has a fair scope.
Now considering all the copyvios, promotions and such stuff because of all socks i find individual articles unnecessary. There is no point in increasing our own work of maintaining these articles. There are more socks and SPAs working on Indian TV shows than other regular Wikipedians and it hence becomes difficult to fight with all these incompetent people. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, much as it would make our job easier, we can't delete an article simply because it happens to attract vandals, plagiarists, or editors with COI issues. What we need to do in this discussion is to establish whether there are any reliable sources, independent of the awards, which cover them in significant depth. Since filing this AfD I've had a closer look and haven't found any. I found a few sources with lots of coverage, but which are clearly owned and operated by the award organizers themselves, or just reprint the organizers' programme guides verbatim. I also found some entertainment tabloid-style sources which mention individual shows winning certain awards, but these are brief mentions and are more about the recipients themselves than the awards. Can anyone point to at least a couple mainstream news sources which cover the awards in detail and aren't associated with the awards? If not, then we must assume that the awards are non-notable and/or lack the requisite reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all I'm not seeing any independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 3 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☽ 00:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix the primary topic, and merge the spinouts... over time and through regular editing... and protect the results. We might consider how the US's Academy Awards have grown over time and let this do the same. Behavioral problems with certain editors are best dealt with through education of those editors or through administrative oversite of any copyvio brought in through newcomer's enthusiasms and/or misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines... but not through deletion of the arguably notable topics with which they have dedicated their interest. While the pre-tagged version did not itself offer sources, it would be an error to assert that no independent reliable sources exist,[45] or to ask that we delete and salt a notable topic based upon poor editing or headaches caused by the uninformed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, you didn't link to any particular sources, but rather to a Google search. Which of the results, specifically, do you feel are both independent and give sufficient coverage of the awards? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the copyvio was apparently created by an unschooled contributor doing a lot of cut-n-paste... but that's addressable. The proffered newslink was in response to the comment "not seeing any independent sources" when in fact they exist for use... even if not in the article. And while the Indian Televsion Academy ( ITA really needs an article itself, just as we have for AMPAS) as a source might be used for simple description of the organization's hiearchy, notability for the Indian Television Academy Awards is found in the awards receiving media recognition since 2001... with the awards being covered in independent sources such as Sify India Today Indian Television Media Newsline The Telegraph Indian Express The Hindu Chandigarh Tribune and too many more to reasonably list here, showing wide interest in the awards bestowed by the ITA. When they are called "one of the most credible TV Awards widely watched by all Indians and Asians" we would do well to see what we can do to make this poorly written article on a notable topic more suitable for inclusion herein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Going through those in order: (1) [46] is sourced to IANS, which has PR function according to their website (2) [47] is sourced to Mail Today which appears to be part of the same conglomerate as TV Today, the main subject of the article according to this. (3) [48] is published by the people who apparently run this award (4) [49] is a PR release distribution service. (5) [50] has only a passing mention of the award. (6) [51] is a repackaging of quotes from a press release (7) [52] has only a passing mention of this award (but talks about another award). (7) [53] is another passing mention. (8) [54] is odd, the video doesn't work for me, the text has a mangled character set and textual content appears to be a rip off from a forum. In short: no in-depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose by that negative analysis, all by-lined "English" coverage of this topic in Indian news media from Sify, India Today, Indian Television, Media Newsline, The Telegraph (Calcutta), Indian Express, The Hindu, Chandigarh Tribune and the many others found through searches but not listed here, should be disallowed from Wikipedia for WP:V of any facts because of their use of 1) a shotgun approach that covers multiple topics briefly within one article, because 2) their format is almost always tabloid-brief and sensationalistic, and 3) because no matter how it is presented, it represents information they found elsewhere and which then, even if supposedly checked for accuracy before being presented, esentially echoes the information found and echoed in less appropriate sources. In my not being able to look into the minds of Indian news reporters or their editors, I am unable to determine just how these reporters gained their information or how their editors checked for accuracy before presenting or re-presenting it. Rather than being picked apart afd-by-afd, perhaps they should ALL be taken to WP:RSN. And, as they do not present their news in the same lengthy or neutral manner as does Washington Post or The New York Times, we could dismiss them and then remove hundreds or thousands of Indian topics supported by such inappropriate Indian news media from Wikiedia entirely... despite an seeming importance to the billions in India.
      - However, and in curbing a Western bias, we might also conclude that news services in other parts of the world simply follow different means of editorial oversite and use a different manner of presentation of facts than do many in the West, and so not judge them by standards more applicable to Western media. We could decide hErE that awards noted in Indian media since 2001 have some arguable importance to the billions which read those poorly written media reports. I would suggest also that we not rely too heavily on English-language coverage for the non-English topics notable to India, and that it would be best to find and defer to translations of the Non-English original coverage. What would be most helpful here is input from editors able to search for and offer sources in Hindi, Telugu, Assamese, Maithili, Chhattisgarhi, Konkani, Gujarati, Punjabi, Urdu, Santali, Kannada, Malayalam, Meiteilon, Mizo, Oriya, Nepali, Tamil, Kokborok, and others.
      - WikiProject India, your input here is much needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:RSN wouldn't help in many cases because most many of these sources are often reliable. When they're not reliable is when they stand with a conflict of interest or are republishing something from someone who is. A very similar situation happens (or used to) in the UK where 'celebraties' with role in one arm of a media conglomerate (BBC, the murdoc empire, etc) would get coverage in other arms of the same conglomerate. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand your opinion and your examples, but WP:RSN is the proper forum to discuss reliability of what a source might offer in context. And again, we should not rely on English-only sources for topics arguably notable to non-English countries. Input from WP:WikiProject India would be most helpful, and input from editors better able to search for, gauge, and offer sources about the ITAA in Hindi, Telugu, Assamese, Maithili, Chhattisgarhi, Konkani, Gujarati, Punjabi, Urdu, Santali, Kannada, Malayalam, Meiteilon, Mizo, Oriya, Nepali, Tamil, Kokborok, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm happy to suspend the AfD while we take this to WP:RSN. None of the sources I've looked at in detail appear to have mentioned the language of the awards. I had assumed that they were held in English, but that may ont be the case. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, but there is no need to suspend an AFD in progress. All we need do here is a consensus as to whether or not the primary topic is notable to India and, if kept through consensus that it can be fixed, whether or not the secondary articles should be merged into the primary topic. The nominator himself notes that the primary awards ceremony is itelf sourcable, though the addressable issue of tone and copyvio set by the unschooled creator remains. Both the nominator and myself seek input from editors better able to offer non-English sources for this awards event that has existed since 2001. It was your "delete and salt all" !vote that had me consider that not everything notable happens only in countries where English is the primary language, and notable to India and through non-English sources is just fine for us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The salt part of my !vote was based entirely on the repeated copyright and user behaviour issues. If the article is kept, in should be locked, for the same reasons. (b) If there are a bulk of sources in a non-English language I would advocate writing a wikipedia article in that language wikipedia, I have a history of voting keep for borderline articles based on the existance of an article in an appropiate foreign language. Personally I'm sceptical in this case, because in other cases where this is true (particlarly in former soviet states and pacific cultures) many of the poor-quality English-language sources are strongly linked to sources in a foreign language (i.e. not necessarily bi-lingual sources but sites which contain many stories / comments / reviews / user-submitted reviews in a forign language or link to sources in a foreign language). (c) none of the videos I'm seeing in relation to this article seem to work for me. That may be related to me being in an odd region. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, the nominator (that would be me) said the articles were "sourceable" only insofar as there exists media coverage of the awards. I was careful to point out that I could not identify any such coverage which is both independent of the awards and focusses on them in sufficient depth. So far I'm still not seeing any such sources; Stuartyeates has very helpfully presented an analysis of a number of individual cases, many of which I had already reviewed and dismissed as reliable sources before posting this AfD (and indeed ought to have included in my opening remarks). There is no need to take the individual sources he lists to WP:RS/N; it's already very clear even to someone unfamiliar with the topic which ones are affiliated with the awards, which ones merely reprint or reformulate the awards' press releases, and which give only passing mentions of the awards. (Incidentally, I had already asked on WP:RS/N about one of the sources, and nobody seemed to think it was reliable.) What we need is evidence, not mere assumptions or pointers to unchecked Google results, that reliable sources for the awards actually exist. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we not be so ready to judge this based solely upon limited English-language coverage for a non-English topic quite likely notable to India. These awards were first presented in Mumbai in 2001. I would be quite suprised if there was absolutely no non-English coverage, and would expect that there would actually be more non-English than not. Per WP:CSB, it would be best to defer to translations of more in-depth non-English coverage. And yes it's on the Indian delsort... but we really need to be more proactive in getting the word out to its active sub-projects. If wishing to curb an unintentional systemic bias, we would liklely need a re-listing or two as we alert India-related projects to seek input from editors more able to search for and offer sources in Hindi, Telugu, Assamese, Maithili, Chhattisgarhi, Konkani, Gujarati, Punjabi, Urdu, Santali, Kannada, Malayalam, Meiteilon, Mizo, Oriya, Nepali, Tamil, Kokborok, and others. I have no familiarity with those languages. Others do. We need far more input from those editors in India and/or familiar with Indian media, before tossing this one. WikiProject India's input would be most helpful in making an informed decision. Let's reach out. 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that these have been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Article_alerts for some time. I'm not sure how well patrolled that is. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd like to propose that (should some or all of these be deleted) any salting of the topic should be lifted if foriegn-language versions of these pages be created. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the doubt previously raised about the language of the awards, it appears from clips available online that they are held primarily in English. The presenters occasionally exchange brief banter in Hindi, and the live entertainment (song and dance numbers) are in the original languages, but the introductions and presentation of the nominees and awards themselves are in spoken and written English. This is in keeping with AnimeshKulkarni's characterization of the awards as intended for a country-wide rather than regional audience; it can be assumed that most Indian viewers will understand English, even if only as a second language. This also means that we should expect coverage of the awards in English-language media. However, a search of the Times of India, India's (and indeed the world's) most widely read English-language newspaper, doesn't turn up any independent in-depth coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:24, 12 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I agree that more input from editors from WikiProject India would be very useful here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though it critically lacks major support from any WP:RS, an analysis of the trivia fetched from g-search and highbeam search points out that the subject, ITA Awards, has good encyclopedic notability. The associated articles listed above should be merged with the main one and the other issues, such as copyvio, sourcing, low quality, should be dealt separately. AshLey ^Msg 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please identify which specific articles are reliable sources establishing the notability of the awards, rather than just handwaving the argument with a link to unannotated search results? Someone already tried this upthread, and a careful analysis of the individual search results revealed that none of them were reliable sources. Also, given that notability is not inherited, how do your search results for "Indian Television Academy" have any bearing on the notability of the awards they bestow? No one here has asserted that the Indian Television Academy is non-notable; what we are trying to do is to establish whether their awards are. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean inheritance; the search results for ITA is a super set of ITA awards too. Though third party references are fewer than what I thought earlier, I hope, these sources would help to hint on its notability: Hindustan Times, Western Mail, Best Media. AshLey ^Msg 07:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep After going through all arguments above, I suggest we merge all of these small articles into one main article, remove unsources material and develop a bare bones article on the topic. Yes, I agree with the point given above that the coverage of these awards could be suspect and I too have not found any third party coverage by a reliable source. Most publicity, like the Murdoch example is carried out by one arm of the media empire for the other or the winners declaring themselves on their books, magazines etc. There arent that many channels and I guess they can't stop these awards once everybody has been awarded. But, you will still get lot of hits on google books and news for the same reasons given above. So, we still have reasons for an article but with extreme prejudive towards WP:NPOV. I have found a lot of secondary reference to the subject. The problem here is that the awards are quite new. Found some reference here with regards to Derrick o Brien ^[1]. Found a reference here about currrent affairs of 2007^[2] and some more about Aaj Tak^[3]. Also found a mention here in the career profile of Sanjeev Kapoor^[4]. Also found secondary coverage regarding some television serials^[5]. Maybe these articles need to be developed further but the topic is encyclopedic -Wikishagnik 06:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete all - The topic seems to meet WP:GNG on the low end, so someone can recreate it, but there's no reason to fix multiple topics with such problems. A first mention of Indian television academy awards is Business Line November 20, 2001. The ITA news articles initially are about who won rather than the ITA itself, but some of that info would be good in an ITA Wikipedia article. Then the news articles start to cover the ITA topic somewhat.[55][56]. I did run across a news article for which Google noted, "This site may harm your computer," so the topic has some external issues. I don't see any reason to keep the current material in Wikipedia, but I have no objection to someone recreating the topic using reliable source material. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that http://www.presstrust.com/ is a reliable source, but I'm happy to take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if anyone believes it is. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the presstrust.com story originated from Web Newswire in India.[57] I couldn't get the Web Newswire URL to come up so I linked to the presstrust copy so people could read the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems to be a good way out for a marginally notable group of articles. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ O'brien; Derek. Cadbury Bournvita. Penguin Books India. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-14-333026-4. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
^ Laxmikanth. Current Affairs Reckoner. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. pp. A–109. ISBN 978-0-07-022166-6. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
^ Business today. Living Media India Ltd. 2005. p. 214. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
^ Sanjeev Kapoor; Alyona Kapoor (2006). Sanjeev Kapoor's No-Oil Cooking. Popular Prakashan. p. 145. ISBN 978-81-7991-279-9. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
^ Limca book of records. Bisleri Beverages Ltd. 2006. p. 149. Retrieved 15 September 2012.

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) 11:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurukkal brahmins[edit]

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

This article has not now nor has it had reliable sources for quite a long time. The group may exist, but existence is not sufficient to have an article. I can't find anything other than passing references--certainly not enough for an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:for lack of reliable sources. I've googled for some too, but find nothing. It's also rather disruptive to have reversions to 3-year-old versions that bear 4-year-old cleanup tags that have already been cleaned up once before. --Stfg (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly reliable sources on the subject notable among them being [58] and [59]. There is also a detailed description in Edgar Thurston's Castes and Tribes of Southern India. See [60]. Nevertheless, I do agree that the article requires some cleaning up.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 14:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What do those sources say? If all they are is the Gurrakhul being in a list of other clans, that's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. And Thurston is somewhere near the opposite of a reliable source for caste matters (heck, for almost anything). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, you ought to tag Castes and Tribes of Southern India, too, for deletion. How can it be considered an important book if it has stuff on non-notable social groups? Anyway, I'm, all right even if the consensus is in favour of deletion.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 08:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would change my !vote to a keep if there were acceptable sources and a genuine intention to deal with the issues of the article. Reverting to a version from August 2009, which has multiple issues and a circular ref tag that points back to the very same article, does not encourage optimism. What do the other sources say? What are the prospects for genuine article improvement? --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above point form Ravichandar84, the fact that something has a Wikipedia article does not make it a reliable source. Mein Kampf, Bible, and Casablanca all spring to mind (not in the sense that they are in any way similar, but in the sense that they are obviously very important books/traditions in the history of the world (in very different ways), but that none of them meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. And in relation to what Stfg says, if anyone can actually provide enough information from reliable sources to write even a 3 line stub that shows why this group is independently notable from the greater Brahmin caste, I will happily withdraw the deletion nomination. I just think that if the only thing we can reliably says is, "Group X exists", then we shouldn't have an article on it; instead, we should just include it in a list or in prose somewhere else in another article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete serious WP:GNG failureShrikanthv (talk) 10:39, 13 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one mention in google scholar. SalHamton (talk) 18:37, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cossor Ali[edit]

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

Living person. She is the wife of a convicted terrorist, accused of failing to disclose his activities and found not guilty. No other information of general interest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE-- Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. -- Bharathiya (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not finding any sources about her separate from the one incident.--Talain (talk) 21:09, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shazad Khuram Ali[edit]

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

Living person. No record of any conviction. Arrested but presumably released without charge? No general notability SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. --Bharathiya (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly nothing to establish notability. Not every accused criminal warrants a page. --Talain (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources for an article. SalHamton (talk) 18:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vijaya college[edit]

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

Delete - Two institutions listed in one article. Both are well known institutions but I doubt about their notability as per wiki rules. So I hereby propose deletion of the article. Bharathiya (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified tertiary educational institutions are generally held to be notable. Needs separating into two different articles though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Established institions of learning with 5000 students. Agree with nom, however, that this needs to become a disambig page and spun out into two separate articles for the two colleges. SalHamton (talk) 18:45, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veda (company)[edit]

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

Veda claims to be the largest company of it kind in ANZ, but apart from B2B listings no independent 3rd party sources have been found despite the efforts of at least two editors. The ACCC report is reliable regarding the claim, but is only a listing. The same for its previous existence as Baycorp Advantage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Not enough reliable coverage to justify inclusion. The only reason it was not an A7 was because the first sentence effectively said "Hey! This thing is important because it's important!". I was considering PROD'ing it but now that this has launched that can no longer be done. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The idea that "the largest credit reference agency in Australia and New Zealand" is not a claim of importance is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Anyone applying for a mortgage, bank loan or credit card in those countries will have the decision made on the basis of data held by this company. How is that not important? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added various references and info on the extent of the company's data and reference presence in Australia. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that someone has come forward with reliable sources to verify the article's claims there is no reason to delete. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:29, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it passes WP:GNG: [61], [62], [63]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources provided above show notability of the topic. Sailodge (talk) 15:39, 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major kalshi classes[edit]

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

Spammy unsourced entry for non-notable, unaccredited training institute. Prod declined by IP without comment. Hairhorn (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete - Advertisement. Not notable. --Bharathiya (talk) 10:31, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable organization, no sources available outside of the company's own site. Rorshacma (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Rorshacma, and per Bharathiya. BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:27, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversational Lush[edit]

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

One of thousands of mixtapes that get release but there's nothing special about it. No independent coverage or information beyond a track list which warrants the existance of this individual article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:33, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:26, 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. Though there is some disagreement as to the local nature of the sources, there seems a rough consensus to delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orient Express Cocktail Bar[edit]

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

Just another bar in NYC. Not particularly notable. Entries in the entertainment guides / restaurant reviews do not indicate any special notability. (Is there a restaurant of any significant size anywhere that doesn't get reviewed by its own hometown media?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- Wiki is not a business directory. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. -- Bharathiya (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – since it meets WP:GNG: [64], [65], [66]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When considering the sources for this restaurant, keep in mind the concept of depth of coverage: this restaurant has received reviews only in local media. To be sure, because the locality is New York City, the "local sources" have a much greater breadth of readership, but consider if this restaurant had been in Tulsa instead of New York. Would local reviews in the Tulsa newspapers and magazines have counted toward depth of coverage? In general, for WP:ORG, we want to see coverage of an organization beyond its own local media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local coverage that does not provide the required depth of coverage to establish notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The New York Magazine source isn't "local coverage" whatsoever. It's a nationally-circulated magazine in the United States. Here's the article link [67]. Per the Wikipedia article for the magazine, its 2009 paid and verified circulation was 408,622, with 95.8% of that coming from subscriptions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Sir, here we are not discussing about the notability of New York Magazine. This magazine is notable for sure. But kindly understand that one or two listings in that news magazine does not make the subject to pass WP:GNG. There needs to be multiple primary and secondary sources (not to forget WP:RS) and wider coverage shall be necessary. We needs to be extra sure as it is a business listing and not a BLP. WP:GNG is not the same for a BLP and for this kind of business listings. So kindly understand the wikipedia policies in this regard. Please add more reliable sources so that we can make sure that the subject is notable not only locally but at least in a region/state. Don't loose heart, if deleted. You can always come back whenever you feel that you have enough reliable sources. Otherwise, Sorry IMHO this article needs to be deleted immediately. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a business directory. There are sites such as yellowikis for this kind of business listings. So for now it is very difficult to keep the article. Thanks. -- Bharathiya (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment As I have already noted, while New York Magazine is surely a notable publication, it is still a publication that serves, primarily, its New York City audience, and as such, will publish reviews of local restaurants. This is local coverage and does not meet the requirement of WP:GNG that the coverage of a topic extend beyond its own local area. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply (to NA1K)- I think you may be confusing New York magazine with the New Yorker, the former is a local publication while the latter is a national publication with a much broader readership. New York magazine is a local publication akin to Boston magazine, both of which cover social aspects of the two cities in which they are based. In either case you are again ascribing the publications notability with the depth of coverage of the subject within the magazine. Just because a publication is notable does not make the subject covered by the publication notable, we have to look at how the subject is covered within the publication. Is the coverage routine or does it go into depth and give a broad picture of the subject? In this case we are seeing simple blurbs, reviews and topical coverage that only establishes the verifiability of the subject. Just because it appears in print does not mean it is notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I support the above said comments of WikiDan61 and Jerem43. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are circulation statistics from the New York Magazine media kit page: Demographics/Circulation (To view it, click on the link in menu on the left titled "Demographics/Circulation", then scroll down to the end of the page). While 71% of the magazine's Designated market area (DMA) is in New York State, 29% of its DMA is national. Therefore, the magazine is not solely a "local publication" whatsoever, because almost one-third of it's circulation is national. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Dear fellow editors, we are simply going and taking the topic to some where else. I hope now we are not discussing about WP:RS of New York Magazine. The local news paper may be having nation wide circulation. It may be notable but it does not mean that every word printed on it should be on Wikipedia. Further subject, just being published in one or two does make it notable. I think WP:GNG is very clear on this. It needs multiple, verifiable and reliable material. Not just a review in one notable magazine. I think we can better close the discussion. Just repeating the point does not make any sense. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Dear NA1K: Being an experienced editor, you know how wiki works and you know what we are exactly trying to say. Please add some more reliable references (Both primary and secondary)(Not just a review. Review cannot be considered as Primary Source of notability.). Then yes, probably IMHO we can have another opinion right here. Sir, Being in a Article Rescue Squadron, you know better. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reviews from reliable sources can certainly be used to qualify topic notability, although it is preferable that some of them are from publications with regional or national coverage, as is the case regarding this topic. If the use of reviews wasn't possible, then many Wikipedia articles about books would be removed from the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The discussion over reviews is an old one. As it stands now, WP:Food and its sibling projects do not count reviews as establishing notability, only verifiability – regardless of the source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that this article is about a company, not a food. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Restaurants and commercial food service companies fall under the purview of WP:Food and WP:Foodservice, which is the daughter task force of The Food and drink WikiProject. And I wasn't discussing food, I was discussing restaurant reviews... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More sources:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references mentioned by User:Northamerica1000 provide additional support for the notability of the Orient Express Cocktail Bar. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable due to lack of depth in coverage. Restauraunt reviews and other routine or local coverage do little to establish notability. Also fails WP:Run of the mill, as there are literally hundreds, of drinking establishments within a one-mile radius of this one that have garnered a similar level of coverage. None of the sources are in depth discussions about the establishment itself. My own search turned up only more reviews and routine coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any bar/restaurant is going to have multiple reviews published in it's local market. Nothing particularly noteworthy about this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above sentiments that just having a number of links to be used as sources alone doesn't automatically confer notability, its the actual depth of the coverage within those sources that should be able to show notability. And the majority of the sources found do not really qualify for that. Several of them are downright unusable for establishing notability for this eatery. The sales listing for the building and the report on the opening of another, unrelated restaurant that happens to be owned by the same person, for instance, don't even mention the bar in question. Both may be interesting factoids, but neither establish any sort of notability for the bar. Others, such as the listing in Timeout New York, are just simple business listings, that has absolutely no in depth coverage at all. The rest are pretty much just standard, in some cases very brief, restaurant reviews from various New York centered publications. At least one is not even from a reliable source, that I can see, and is just a blog. These are all just very standard, run of the mill occurances that do nothing to show why this particular bar has any notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not every reference in an article can be used to show notability. If that's the way we wrote articles it would be a sad world. I added a fair number of the recent cites to see what detail I could add to the article, I have not a care that it will be deleted from wikipedia, I'll repost it on my blog and make money from it when that happens.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:57, 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 Delete. While the opinions expressed here are on the face of it fairly evenly split between keep and delete, looking solely at the number of different editors who have put forward policy-based arguments, the arguments for deletion are more convincing. We require evidence of notability, and coverage in reliable sources. This BLP has neither as those in favour of deletion have pointed out. None of the arguments for keeping have a basis in policy. Michig (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanji[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Delete Looks to be a page recreated after a speedy delete. I proposed it for deletion but the deletion was contested. I think that it doesn't meet WP:BIO. TheRingess (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching is awkward given the number of other people named Mohanji, but I'm seeing no evidence that this shipping manager and AuthorHouse author meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real name of Mohanji is P.K. Mohan, and you can find many third party sources online by googling his real name. Zlio2004 (talk)

Comment A quick google search on his real name does not seem to turn up any more reliable sources.TheRingess (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and these do establish that he has indeed worked in shipping management. But employment, and even quotation in newspapers in a job role, does not automatically equate to notability. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is moderated now and highly shortened. He is more a spiritual teacher and charity worker rather than a (was) General manager of a shipping company, which was not sourced properly earlier; now his spiritual / charity face is highlighted in the article. We may keep.-Rayabhari (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find more reliable sources to meet notability criteria at this moment. As a creator of this page I ask for speedy deletion of the Mohanji page until more reliable sources are collected. Thank you. Zlio2004 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Zlio2004[reply]
DeleteRecommended for Speedy delete. I have gone through the previous page and the one in present edited form. After all these edits, The page is left out with no information the page creator wanted to convey. I can understand What the page creator must be going through. It is better not to have a page rather than getting reflected with such remarks which harms the credibility .My request to all the editors is to help and encourage the page creator with more information and what is exactly required . Probably editors with spiritual background would be able to understand the point of view.Nilkanthyengde (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article at the present is fairly neutral and there is nothing that "harms his credibility" as the above user observed. Further, the argument that - what original creater wanted to convey - or what he may be going through - are not important, because, articles of wikipedia are generally encyclopedic supported with reliable sources and encyclopedic information only matters and not what creator feels. (Earlier it was full of flowery language and resembled advertisement) This user has edited/moderated the article with an intention to salvage this AFD and thinks that the moderation efforts are fairly neutral and the article is open/available for further neutral POV editing with reliable sources!-Rayabhari (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eventhough topic is questionable but alas clearly meets wiki GNG criteria , please refer to devita saraf was kept due to long list of newspaper publications Shrikanthv (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets the basic criteria. Can be kept. Suggest to add some secondary sources, if possible. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:57, 13 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it meets the basic criteria since it was highly moderated, and should be kept and further edited with third party sources. -- Zlio2004 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The newspapers have trivial mention of the person. The Hindu does not even mention Mohanji. Other sources are not third-party RS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Red, I'm simply not seeing enough 3rd party sources with significant coverage to pass the biography guidelines. Unfortunately, the subject will probably have to be the object of a scandal before there will be.21:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRingess (talk • contribs)
Comment The Hindu does mention Mohanji's charitable foundation Ammucare Charitable Trust. -- Zlio2004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But it doesn't mention him and that's what is relevant to this discussion.TheRingess (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDuring a cursory search on internet regarding spirituality (a hot topic of 2012) I stumbled on the page called World Parliament on Spirituality, Hyderabad (India). There I noticed Mohanji as one amongst many distinguished speakers who are coming on one platform in this year end to discuss about varied topics related to spirituality. Then I decided to learn about the speaker and I got some information through www.speakingtree.com and another third party reference is as follows http://www.wpsconnect.org/speakers.php. I think these are relevant third party links in support of this page. Strongly recommended for Keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuragbais25 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Anuragbais25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lists of speakers, etc., are not reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I follow blogs of many masters on Speaking Tree eg. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ,Ashutosh Maharaj Ji and Mohanji. Mohanji recent blog In Search of Precious- 1 inspired me a lot so i searched more about him and found this link http://jolitaasmara.blogspot.in/2011/11/mohanji-path-of-his-heart.html JOLITA KELIAS is Independent Journalist/ Writer/ Author she write about people who make positive difference in the world. This Page is highly recommended for keeping.

Deepali07 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Deepali07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blogs, etc., are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources given are either not reliable or do not have significant coverage of the subject, and so cannot count towards notability. I can't find any other sources online that would indicate he passes WP:ANYBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:23, 22 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) 11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majeed Pejajj[edit]

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

Unreferenced biographical article. No independent evidence that this person existed. Slashme (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No book sources that pre-date the Wikipedia article. --Slashme (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content of this article is unverifiable. It could be useful to know the Arabic (?) transcription of his name, if it exists. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep edit history does show books listed as sources- later removed. Can we verify whether or not these books contain relevant information? Porphyro (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a diff, please? There were no books listed in the edit history. The article contained two external links (now dead links). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majeed_Pejajj&diff=156951943&oldid=156876330 the link is to a British library book reference, now dead presumably as a result of a website change Porphyro (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the JSTOR version of the book and searched for "majeed" and then for "pejajj" and came up empty both times. --Slashme (talk) 21:21, 10 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable. -- Bharathiya (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate any sources to verify the information present in the article. I also tried searching using the alternate name mentioned in the article's talk page, and was likewise unable to find anything reliable, just a mention of the name and his death in a question and answer type site. Even if this individual did exist, there's still nothing to show that he was notable. Rorshacma (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is really a hoax, it's the longest standing hoax on wikipedia I have ever seen Porphyro (talk) 11:06, 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) 11:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Riva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination following no-consensus close with no-prejudice towards renomination. Non-notable autobiography. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Originally BLP Prod, declined with IMDb ref (which is not a reliable source) and two other refs with trivial mentions. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits other than trivial mentions. No significant GHits that I could find. Looking at the refs, I see the following problems:

IMDb is not a reliable source and this has been long established on Wiki.
Elle Decor is a trivial mention of Riva in a article on a boutique.
International relations is a blog and not reliable.
R&G Collective is a blog and not reliable.
Daily Candy is a trivial mention of the store and of Riva.
Los Angeles Times is a trivial mention of Riva in article on the store closing.
LA in bloom is a blog and not reliable.
Huffington is a trivial mention of Riva in a article on boutique.
CBS Local returns a page not found.
Stylebeat is a blog and not reliable.
Whitehouse.gov is a primary source. Additional secondary sources on the position would be needed.
New York Times does not mention Riva and notability is not inherited.
Turner is a trivial mention and notability is not inherited.

There might be an argument for R&G Collective, though I doubt it, but Riva just doesn't have the sources to establish general notability, much less to meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't see any claims of notability in the article which I was inclined to pursue any further than the excellent and exhaustive work of the nominator -- since I felt it was unlikely that notability would be demonstrated even if the sources were more reliable. This might be worth a redirect to her husband's article at J. Michael Riva but I think deletion is more appropriate. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:37, 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Primary source is White House website and there are sufficient secondary sources. She has been appointed by the President of United States. So notable for sure. It is not the platform to show any bias towards anybody. -- Bharathiya (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being appointed by the POTUS doesn't automatically make her notable; key appointees probably, but she doesn't fall into that category. I made a random check on three of her fellow non-key appointees: none have articles. Art directors aren't generally notable either, much less assistant ones. I'm not finding any significant media notice other than the White House announcement. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Clarityfiend. The advisory board for the JFK Center is nice, but that's not multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kuber Singh Rana[edit]

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

tausif(talk) 08:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. Will the nominator please state a rationale for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No rationale to delete presented. It's blank. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP- the person holds a very important State Office. Further this Afd is void since no rationale has been mentioned. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSubject notable; reliable sources available. Keep.-Rayabhari (talk) 07:09, 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 delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benoît Falchetto[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Only claim to fame was being the driver in the accident that killed Isadora Duncan. Zanhe (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost the entire stub is a copy-paste from the source http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/df.htm#FAL so could probably be speedy deleted, reason G12. Falchetto is only mentioned in passing, in the story of the unusual death of his famous passenger. Sionk (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sionk. BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:29, 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) 11:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Computational Cognition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently moribund journal (last issue published 2010). No independent sources, apparently not indexed in any selective major database. Tagged for notability since 2010. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: part of a (since-deleted) walled garden (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical linguistics (2nd nomination)). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also nominated the editor-in-chief (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tao Yang (Wuxi)). —Ruud 11:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Ruud 11:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 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 Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Yang (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page which links to 3 pages so is not eligible for CSD. Better all done with hatnotes PamD 07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a few other entries. This page could perhaps be combined with poyang (disambiguation) as boyang is an alternate transliteration of both entries currently on that page. older ≠ wiser 14:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination - OK, expanded dab page is now worthwhile! Sorry about that. PamD 14:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manx Communist Party[edit]

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

i can't find any indication at all (by search google) that such a party actually existed. could be a WP:HOAX Soman (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in the Isle of Man, per apparent failure to meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find any online references to this either. Equally, I found nothing indicating it to be a hoax. If we assume good faith then the presumption should be that it's not a hoax, hence the redirect suggestion. -- Trevj (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, if we can't find a single non-wiki mention anywhere, we better assume it's a hoax. Do note that the creator has been blocked. --Soman (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There appears to be no credible evidence of its existence, much less establishment of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- EVen if it existed, I very much doubt it had ebnough members to make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need verification. I can't find very much, and what's out there is contradictory. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 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 delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Talk[edit]

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

Originally prodded May 2010, then part of a mass AfD May 2010 (no consensus on group of articles). Recently czarkoff prodded again as No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic — notability of topic is not established. Removing second prod nomination and bringing it here to AfD. My concern is that this article does not meet WP:WEB. Breno ^talk 04:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry, I didn't notice the previous PROD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 1913[edit]

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

This is just an indiscriminate list of events without any structure or basis on which to decide what should be included. Is surely redundant to 1913. So its against NOT and CFORK. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I just finished copy-editing this article, and I found it very interesting. It would be useful for researchers into this particular month (novelists, poets, historians, etc.). Yes, one would have to delete the chaff, but it is quite encyclopedic. Many encyclopedias have Almanac entries. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an almanac section too. Interesting and useful are not policy based arguments. What is the inclusion criteria for what is otherwise and indiscriminate collection of information? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question There are 225 articles in Category:Months in the 1900s. Since the outcome of this AfD will apply to the other 224, should they be nominated en masse? Braincricket (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides those 225 pages of events by month, there are another 168 ranging from November 1998 to September 2012, so the number would be 393. However, the first of the WP:FIVEPILLARS is that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", and one of the elements of an almanac or an encyclopedia yearbook is a chronology. The objective in the 1900s articles is, and should be, to provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources, something that generally hasn't been the case in the year by year articles such as 1913. Mandsford 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. In addition, this is a WP:SPINOFF, an acceptable type of forking. If month articles were merged into their respective year, the thing would be absurdly long. And I don't think it's redundant to 1913. That article has two entries for January, neither of which overlap with those in January 1913. Braincricket (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5, point 1. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain what the inclusion standard is for this page to avoid it being an indiscrimate collection of information. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these chronology articles are potential magnets for inane spam. I'm not sure if there's an existing policy on what can be included, but I'll suggest one now. Every entry must have a citation. I've also been looking for old AfD discussions in the hope that they'll provide some insight. So far, I've found September 1900, March 1 – March 31, and August 1, 2003 – August 31, 2003. Braincricket (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There isn't a big consensus over this matter, although I believe the consensus is presumed when you see the immense categories like Category:Months in the 1900s. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I was wondering about voting the other way, but you convince me. This is much better referenced than the January sections of 1913. Category:Months in the 1900s if properly populated would be over-large for convenience. I would suggest that the proper parents would be Category:Months in the 1910s, leaving the present parent for 1900-1909. When I fiorst worked on WP, all the dates were linked, which really went rather too far, but a diary of events in a given month is useful. Yes, this is a form of historic journalism contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and there are contemporary newspapers available on-line, but this is a convenient way of picking out the principal events of the period. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 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)} 05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawrence (Writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this page should be deleted because I think that Mark Lawrence meets the WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR criteria as he has been a finalist for various writing awards, and he has received significant critical success from his books Prince of Thorns and King of Thorns, both published by Ace Voyager. BigZ7337 (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disinterested third party here. The article seems to rely heavily on self-published sources. However I did find an interview with a branch of HarperCollins, a big publisher, which might be considered more reliable. --Drm310 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also saw this primary reference, but I can not find any substantial secondary coverage. reddogsix (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and WP:BIO. In the best source proffered, from HarperCollins, he interviews himself! That hardly meets the requirement of a secondary source. Qworty (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a major, MAJOR rehaul of the page and removed almost every source on there. I left the B&N source since it is official, although I do want to stress that it would be considered trivial. Being on a list does not give notability, not even if you were on the New York Times list. It just makes it more likely that sources could be found. By the same standards, simply publishing does not give you notability regardless of who you published through. I also want to note that being a finalist for an award does not matter. What matters is if the person actually won the award and if the award would be notable. Most awards are not so notable that they would give absolute notability or even contribute towards notability at all. Goodreads' awards would probably fall between "totally not notable" and "contributes towards notability but does not in itself give absolute notability". All of that aside, a search brought up quite a few reviews of his books. I did find an interview that wouldn't be considered a primary source, but I'm not sure if it'd be a RS or not. It's in the EL section if anyone wants to take a look. I think that overall there's just enough for this author to barely squeak by notability guidelines, as he's received reviews from Locus, Tor.com, and the AV Club. There's some other reviews as well, but these three seemed to be the biggies. There's always the option of creating an article for Prince of Thorns itself since most of the coverage surrounds the first book but right now I don't see any problem with the author's page existing and the book titles redirecting to his page, as there's not much more that would be placed on the book page that can't be placed on the author page. I also changed the name of the article to "author" since that's generally the standard.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't totally agree with having so much removed (especially the goodreads information/ratings) but I suppose that less is more, especially in a Wikipedia page. It's also now much more neutral, something that I couldn't do because I am a big fan. I really used interesting info I found from his personal blog and from interviews he's done, but I guess it is better now with it having just larger/more prestigious sites. I'm sure that his second book King of Thorns is going to receive more recognition as it is a better book, but it has only been out for less than a month. I don't know how to add it, but there is a picture you could add to the wiki info, here's a link to a high quality author photo: http://princeofthorns.com/images/me_an_c2.jpg Thanks for your work, and hopefully the page will be kept now. He might not be famous outside of the fantasy community, but he is a rising star, and I believe he's definitely at a similar level as other fantasy authors that are currently on wikipedia. BigZ7337 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the big thing with Goodreads is that it is pretty much completely unusable as a reliable or even trivial source. There's nothing at that site that gives notability in the slightest apart from the book potentially winning an award there, which it didn't win. I know that you're new here, but generally speaking Goodreads should absolutely never be linked to at all in a Wikipedia article, not as a source or even as an external link. The only exception to this is that we have it used as a primary source on the actual Goodreads article, but that really only works for the actual Goodreads wiki article. Now if the book had won the contest then linking to the contest page would be another exception but for the most part it would be better to link to an independent and reliable source commenting on the book winning the contest. As far as the other content goes, I removed it because it wasn't neutrally written. It was very non-neutral, being written from a fan or promoter's perspective. Articles must be neutrally written. Phrases such as "For most of the book, Jorg is 14 years old, which makes the brutal unforgiving darkness/grittiness featured in the book even more alarming and offensive to some sensitive readers." are from one person's perspective/opinion and could be considered to be original research and also somewhat seems like a bit of a barbed statement against people who didn't care for the book. The other reason I removed so much was that we didn't really have any independent and reliable sources to back up the claims made by the primary sources. You can use primary sources (things that are published by the author, his publisher, or anyone involved with him), but only if you have multiple sources from places that are considered to be independent and reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is where it can get tricky for a lot of niche writers because most of the non-review coverage has been in blogs and other sources that wouldn't be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Reliable doesn't always mean mainstream, but that's generally what it usually boils down to. Since you're new, I recommend asking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you have any questions about sources. But again, Goodreads is not usable as any source that can give notability and the ratings on that site don't matter here, mostly because just about anyone can edit there or post a review. It's not reliable. Even if all of the reviews are genuine and not someone posting multiple fake reviews in either direction, the ratings there don't really mean anything to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough for 4 books. He is not a flash-in-the-pan writer and sources provided look good. As edited now, I vote keep. It can be improved. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough given the awards nominations and so on, for the type of genre literature. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:38, 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 delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Club[edit]

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

This club does not meet the notability criteria. Mootros (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - can't see anything to establish that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I note the club may have closed, or at least closed temporarily. So we might be dealing with something that was rather than something than is, and we need to remember that notability is not temporary. That said, having done a search, I can't find anything to suggest it was notable previously either, a la Studio 54. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The club closed in 2010, but it was a major social institution in Tacoma beginning in 1930, with many prominent members. A stub tag should be added and the article further tagged for development, but there's no cause to delete it.Clubwiki (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - Okay, so taking the above into account, I had another look in the interests of assuming good faith. There's not a lot but there are a couple that might be usable:

This from the The News Tribune (from Tacoma).
This from Unico Properties. Obviously not independent (is from the club's landlord), so not great for notability against WP:GNG. It's a passing reference (mentioned in a list) but is perhaps useful for confirming the location and prominence of the subject as an "anchor tenant", if we can establish notability.
This from a charity fund-raiser held at the club. Gives more than just a passing mention to the club, though is obviously written to promo the event and should be considered to be at least partially WP:PROMO.

My concern is that there is still not a great deal there in terms of history for the subject. Everything I can find is essentially a passing reference, eg. "so-and-so got married at the Tacoma Club" or "we had dinner at the Tacoma Club" or "the venue for x event is the Tacoma Club". Yes, it obviously did exist but I'm not sure the above will be enough. I'm probably now on the fence and have changed by position above to Comment. Thoughts anyone? Stalwart111 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. The closure of the club isn't relevant, lots of notable things aren't around anymore. But the fact that the article doesn't even try to assert notability is telling. It probably should have been speedy deleted, in fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stalwart111, not a club like Studio54; it's a gentlemen's club like the Union Club of the City of New York. As search of the Social Register for the Seattle area is enough to turn up many notable members. The article should be tagged appropriately, but kept because the club was one of the most prominent gentlemen's clubs in the US in its day.Wikophile (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that; my point was in relation to venues - the sort of venue is irrelevant. I'm sure the club appeared in many directories but Existence ≠ Notability. Nor does the club inherit notability from its members. I'm happy for you to claim it, "was one of the most prominent gentlemen's clubs in the US in its day". But like everything else on Wikipedia that claim needs to be verified by reliable sources. If we had some then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not all social clubs are notable, and this one would not become notable merely because of its past membership list. I'd like to see good sources about what the club did or the notability of its clubhouse. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and nom, not notable. It should also be noted that Wikophile and Clubwiki are sockpuppets and have been blocked. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:19, 22 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 01:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pen & Pencil Club[edit]

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

This club does not meet the notability criteria. Mootros (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very, very weak keep it does claim to be the oldest of its kind, which is supported by reliable sources. That's about it as far as notability goes, but it's something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notable members of the Pen & Pencil Club, as mentioned in the article, and its long and distinguished history in Philadelphia are enough to make it notable. The article certainly could be developed more, but that's nothing that the appropriate tags can't warn about and encourage. I think it's telling that the nominator, User:Mootros, has some kind of beef about gentlemen's clubs; in the past week he's attempted to remove massive amounts of content from List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States, List of London gentlemen's clubs, and List of India's gentlemen's clubs, as well as proposing a large number of club-related articles for deletion. This one, without question, should be kept.Clubwiki (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a perfect article by any means, but the references exist to establish notability.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Wikophile (talk) 14:20, 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 delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freak City[edit]

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

Unsourced article on public-access TV show from somewhere unknown by unknowns. Orange Mike | Talk 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete public access shows are non-notable pretty much by definition, and I don't see anything indicating this is an exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - it is possible that in the pre-YouTube era a public-access show might have been influential by tipping off people in more powerful positions to something of import (a trend, a performer, a meme, a style); but there's nothing in this article to indicate that such was the case. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability for this public access show. I admit that the term is a rather common one when looking for sources, and the lack of information in the article doesn't really give us much we can use to try to refine the search, but there do not seem to be any sources to be found. Rorshacma (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this write-up in Spin magazine, which is a nice start, but nothing else so far. Gongshow ^Talk 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find enough reliable sourcing to keep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:52, 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.