Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 12 (Sun) May 11 (Sat) May 10 (Fri) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 1 September	3 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 userfy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sater Design Collection[edit]

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

Promotional. Would need a fundamental and total rewrite to be encyclopedic. Refs in article do not establish notability, being either a passing mention or promotional articles. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. Amazing it's not been spotted before. Peridon (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would quote from the userpage of the article's author: "I now work from home doing graphic design, web design and online marketing". Interesting. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have found it either, but for an "other things exist" argument elsewhere. GregJackP Boomer! 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess where I found it? Peridon (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please check the talkpage of this discussion for information posted by the article creator. I requested that he post any concerns to this discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 03:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First of all forgive me for posting to the talk page, I thought that was the proper place for discussion. Greg thank you for you comments on how to make the article more encyclopedic. I am a very positive person and tend to try and overlook any negatives, so I can understand how that might be perceived. I will look into finding facts about the other side of the coin. I am not sure how I can make the sources more reliable other than scanning the sources in and making them available for the reader. Would this be acceptable? If so what would be the proper way to make them available to the user? Would I post the pictures to the image section of wikipedia? Or would I post them online, and link to them? 11:18am, 27 August 2012 (EST) MicahR79

Comment - I can support userfying the article so it can be worked on. Micah, this means it would be moved from article space to one of your user pages, where you could work on it until it was ready. I would suggest going through the WP:AfC process, where experienced editors will review your work and offer suggestions. GregJackP Boomer! 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't post any scans of sources - that would come under copyright violation! You can't make a particular source 'more reliable' - whatever form it is in, it is either reliable and independent or it isn't. I've just looked at some of your refs. The builderonline ones don't appear to be real reviews of the company - more like showcasing designs or getting comments on someone else's work. Anything with 'blog' in it, even a .gov site, is not reliable. In the article, the quotes from Amazon etc are highly promotional and quite out of place in an encyclopaedia article. People often forget that this is an encyclopaedia, and not a directory or promotional place like AboutUs. I'm willing to move the article to userspace for reworking (by you...) if you think you can get rid of the WP:NPOV stuff, show that the subject meets WP:CORP, and get some refs that meet WP:RS. Pictures - if they are your images then they may be uploaded here or to Commons. This means that you license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0 meaning that they remain your copyright but they can be used anywhere by anyone. (Any company owned images must be released by the company themselves - you can't just upload them and say that it's OK.) Don't ask me how to do it - most others will be able to help there - but don't worry about it until the text is sorted. Peridon (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That sounds great. I tried my best when writing the article to comply, but obviously as a first article, an encyclopedic article, and a wiki, I was doing a lot of firsts. I would love to have experienced editors/writers look at my work and help me create a truly valuable resource for the community. As for the book descriptions I used those like the description of a tv episode. I was thinking this is what the author is saying his book is about. That might be promotional in some way, but almost anything that is said about someones company, band, tv show or anything creative that is a quote or written in positive light could be considered promotional couldn't it? As for the refs, I guess what my question is how do I allow you or anyone else see a reference that is reliable that isn't electronic? Obviously you don't have access to every tv show, newspaper and magazine made. So how do I show a non-electronic but reliable source? Thank you GregJackP and Peridon for you help. MicahR79

Just put it in the reference thingy in the same way. See WP:REF - there's a policy on almost everything if you can find it... Peridon (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is the section at the very bottom of the article called book/publication references. There are around 10 publications that have written about Sater Design. Would that not show notability? That is why I included those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahR79 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are truly ABOUT the company, and not BY the company or just books of their designs, then they might be good. To be honest, I can't really see there being 10 reliable independent publications about a house design business, but if you let us know what they are, someone might be able to say yea or nay. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as suggested. It's possible this article could prove to be a keeper, if Reliable Sources can be found and added. Most of what I found in a quick search was tons of mentions-cum-advertisements in Builder Magazine; we need something else, things written ABOUT him instead of BY him, but I think there may be more out there. For starters, find a source that proves he was the architect for Villa Ivrea. Trim the awards section to include only MAJOR awards (if any), with citations. Eliminate the promotional descriptions of the various publications; they should just be mentioned, not described. And delete the cutesie-folksy information about Dan Sater; this article is about his company, not about his volunteer activities and family. As suggested above, when you have a much shorter, properly referenced article, go to Articles for Creation and get it reviewed by an experienced editor before reposting it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 8 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 result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Rabinor[edit]

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

I doubt notability. Her one book has only 60 library holdings in worldCat. She has written articles, mostly in non-peer reviewed newsletters, given lectures, and appeared on Oprah. None of this amounts to notability as an expert. As for GNG, I see no 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DGG. ukexpat (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Would you consider a journalist who only publishes articles not notable because they haven't published any books? I think not. I think her oeuvre qualifies her for an entry, especially given the organizations with whom she's worked and the special nature of the topic she addresses. Appearing on "Oprah" is a plus, not a minus because that show had a high bar to appear as a qualified expert; those producers didn't just taken anyone off the street to pontificate. Finally, I've added some third-party sources. I will continue researching to add more. deadlinedd —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious db-promo. EEng (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any significant coverage of her. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. I declined the speedy nom to establish a robust consensus via AFD. The JPS ^{talk to me} 05:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per the policies in WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the peer-review, third-party sourcing issue. The article should stand as a result. Deadlinedd —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact remains that being published, appearing on Oprah, etc. don't confer notability. EEng (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary. Eleven sources proffered, yet not a single one is ABOUT her. Notability for biographies is based on secondary sources that are actually about the subject. There's nothing like that here. Qworty (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR for lack of significant coverage about her. Seven of the eleven references are written by her. She gets a passing mention in the New York Daily News, but I couldn't find anything else. And being interviewed is not the same as having people write ABOUT you. Fails WP:ACADEMIC because her books and articles are almost completely uncited by others in the field.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Paseo[edit]

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

Non-notable street. Sources only mention buildings on the street, not the street itself. Article is a huge list of trivia, and removing the trivia would leave it blank. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Whilst I have sympathy (unusually) for TPH's nomination of some of the streets he has AfD'ed, this one does appear to be a significant and notable thoroughfare.

As an aside, the nomination of "Sources only mention buildings on the street, not the street itself." is utter rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Where are they? Comment on the article not the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article is already in quite good shape and well-demonstrates its notability. It seems that the nominator is flying blind again. Warden (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your definition of "Good shape" is "Has only one good source and not one, but two trivia sections", I'd hate to see what you think a poor article is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books, in particular, contains a wealth of coverage for the street. I have added some sources to the article. Gongshow ^Talk 00:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and can be verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources which demonstrate its notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has plenty of sources to pass WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 06:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of invasive species in North America. SarahStierch (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of invasive species in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States[edit]

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

Delete. Invasive species should be listed by political jurisdiction and/or by biogeographical region. The Mid-Atlantic region is neither.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of this, including List of invasive species in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, Invasive plants of Wisconsin, List of invasive plant species in New Jersey, and any others similar to it (I'm leaving out the everglades one specifically just because it's such a distinct biome that I imagine there's specific reliable sources to it... but I wouldn't be wholly opposed to it being included) to List of invasive species in North America. If List of invasive species in North America becomes big enough to justify a fork, then we can begin breaking out by region. But the state-specific articles are way too specific. I disagree with Liefting that it should be by political jurisdiction, at least on a state level. If anything it should be by country, or by "biogeographical" region. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While an invasive species spreads over a given biome or other biogeographical area, the definition of whether it is invasive and the control of the species is done at a political level - hence my rationale for having articles defined at the state level. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 00:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or split to the by-state level. Invasive species in the Everglades is notable as a distinct biome with a distinct problem; most sources will be at the state level for other areas; this grouping, however, is somewhat nebulous - the "mid-atlantic" area covers a lot of jurisdictions and more than a few biomes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a future merge, rename, or similar reorganization of this information. Disagreement with the scope of the article is not a justification for deletion, and the other issues can be addressed with normal editing. If reliable sources categorize their information this way - and they do- deletion should be off the table. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:04, 25 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, Sandstein 06:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to the continental level - as per Shadowjams. And table-ize to provide more than 'just' a list of names. state/province level lists would be painful to maintain (overlapping info) and provide very little insight into the spread of these invaders. (the Article is about the invaders, not the politics that surrounds them) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:53, 26 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, SarahStierch (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the suggestions from editors above. Disagreement with the criterion for topics being included in an article is not a valid rationale for outright deletion, which would be too hasty in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Q. Jones[edit]

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

This appears to be a mistake. The officer already has an article at Byron Q. Jones. The New York Times article synopsis only refers to BQ Jones, and p. 20 of this document makes it clear that the commander of the east zone was Byron, not Bradley. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:V .LibStar (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect The article creator has redirected the article to Byron Q. Jones, so unless someone objects to the redirect there is nothing further to be done here. Monty₈₄₅ 05:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd rather it were deleted. It's a mistake; there is no (notable) Bradley Q. Jones. It's not like it's a variation of his name, and getting rid of the edit history for a one line article is no great loss. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's some source somewhere that lists this Jones as "Bradley" and not "Byron", then the redirect is useful and should remain. The article should note the discrepancy, however - "In the citation for the award, Major Jones was erroneously listed as Bradley, not Byron..." or some such. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have undone the redirecting of the article, which took place after the AfD was created. Per the Guide to Deletion: You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.. Redirect may well be the result; even speedy redirect. However the article must not be redirected until after the AfD is closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Eugene Hoy Barksdale, "On 8 March, 1924 then Lt Barksdale and his navigator, Lt Bradley Jones, flew a DH-4B, powered by a 400 horsepower Liberty engine from McCook Field, OH to Mitchel Field using instruments only." Given that Byron Jones was a pilot, not a navigator/instrument engineer, and was a captain or major in command of Selfridge Air National Guard Base around this time, it appears that Bradley Jones [2] and Byron Jones are, in fact, two entirely different people. Therefore, this should be deleted, not redirected. (Note, Barksdale's article originally gave the navigator's name as "Bradley Q. Jones", but I've removed the Q. as I've been unable to verify that was Bradley Jones' middle initial.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. The sources presented are not convincing proof of notability but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete at this point. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Rho Eta[edit]

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

Non-notable local fraternity, with less than 9 chapters. Not recognized by any national umbrella organization. No evidence of any notable achievements by fraternity. Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of coverage in third party sources. GrapedApe (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local would indicate a single campus, not one with that many chapters. Additional news articles have been added to wikipedia article.Naraht (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having only 9 chapters and no affiliation with a national umbrella organization does make it local. All the sources are student newspapers or facebook, which hardly seem to demonstrate "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", per WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Facebook ref replaced.Naraht (talk) 17:52, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:21, 19 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization does exist at multiple universities and so I would be inclined to consider it to be notable enough to meet WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not based on some arbitrary number of chapters; it is based on significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Even a single-chapter fraternity could be notable if it meets this test; a dozen-chapter fraternity which does not have such coverage is not. No significant independent sources are given at the article, and a Google News Archive search found only passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure if I specifically voted above or not.00:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Some sources: [3][4][5][6] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 of those 4 reference are university sources, which, while they are reliable sources are not indications of notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What part of WP:GNG do you think it fails?Naraht (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the article should be kept, but cleaned up and perhaps renamed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important battles in medieval Indian History[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be encyclopedic and though it would work better as a list I don't really see why that's necessary. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: On the one hand, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. On the other hand, there is much that is worrisome about this list (it is, in fact, already a list): the inclusion criteria are vague at best and most of the battles currently listed are not medieval battles (making the inclusion criteria even more questionable). -- BenTels (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think deletion is necessarily the answer, but the article needs a copyedit and some major changes. First, if the article is to retain the present title, several sources that list many or all of these battles as "important" or, for that matter, medieval, must be found and added. If not, which I presume will be the case (though indeed many of the listed battles were, in my opinion, important), the article could be moved to something like List of Indian battles by death toll or some similar characteristic, and organized that way. dci | TALK 20:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of important battles in medieval India. As a list it should work. --regentspark (comment) 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a good topic, and reliable sources will undoubtedly be able to shake out a list of the battles that were the most significant, but honestly, there's nothing to keep here. No sources, precious little wiki markup, written by a non-English-speaker to the point of incomprehensibility. Blow it up and encourage editors to write a better one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of article lacks sources. Picking out some random battles and generating a list is pointless. Secret of success (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is interesting and main reason for deletion seems lack of sources. The article can be developed with sources rather than deleted, because, list of wars fought in India is not available in other pages. Regarding "written by non-English-speakr to the point of incomprehensibility", I think english usage can be improved by some other editor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayabhari (talk • contribs) 19:51, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename approximately as regentspark, but to List of battles in medieval India. Unimportant battles will fail to get a WP articel and hence should not appear. The present structure of the article is unsatisfactory in that the part with headings to one line of text would be much better being added to the table, but that is an argument for improvement not for deletion. It should remain a list-article. Is "medieval" the best adjective for an article that ends as late as 1757? In Europe we would not use that for periods later than 16th century. Perhaps List of battles in Moghul-period India would be better. If that does not cover the start of the list, that section can be split out inot a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The article has potential to be developed as good encyclopedic article; may be renamed as "List of battles fought in India upto 1857" and sources to be added (article is unsourced-that is main defect).-Rayabhari (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful .Needs some copyediting,Shyamsunder (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, edit, rename and add references -- Bharathiya (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete Angr (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophobia[edit]

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

Non-notable pseudo-scientific pejorative neologism; anything of actual value here could be included in the article on gun advocate Jeff Cooper, who coined the term and popularized it. See recent discussion on talk page. Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be deleted and added to the entry for Jeff Cooper. This is just a stub. It is not a medical condition or mental illness, as described on this page. It is covered in as much useful detail in Wiktionary, and repeating essentially the same information in Wikipedia is redundant and a waste of resourcesWP:DICTIONARY. It is a politically-charged term, and the entry is subject to vandalism for political purposes. It was originally intended for use as a political smear to label people in favour of gun control as being "mentally ill," or, as Cooper has stated himself, to anger proponents of gun control. It is only notable within the context of the gun culture in the United States; for the other 95% of the world it is not notableWP:N. References to its use in this discussion point to gun magazines, gun owner websites, or gun aficionado books. The majority of these references refer right back to Jeff Cooper. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for legitimizing a particular point of viewWP:SOAP. Moving "hoplophobia" to the Jeff Cooper page will put the term in its correct context, and healthy discussion and debate can resume in that context.StopYourBull (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)StopYourBull (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re your recent additions: whatever Jeff Cooper intended the term to connote in 1962 is irrelevant now, half a dozen years after his death; it's now akin to the world homophobia with a wide range of uses, right down to the latter being used as a political smear against the subsets of those who oppose certain measures without fearing or disliking homosexuals. As for notability, for the English Wikipedia is the fraction in the largest native English speaking nation significant? If so, it's at minimum 47% of the nation, according to a Gallup poll as of a year ago (weasel word since many gun owners refuse to tell strangers who call them up on the phone that they own guns...). Almost all of them are members of the US "gun culture" (many notable pro-gun control figures own guns, including Sarah Brady (can't source my memory of her owning a shotgun, but she bought a rifle for her son)), with the usual distribution of more and less active. Hga (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This afd is for "hoplophobia" not "homophobia." If you believe that "homophobia" has been coined to be used as a political smear, and that it is not notable and not used as a genuine phobia or legitimate condition, then you should take the appropriate steps to have the Wikipedia article changed or merged into a suitable context. You may be correct. Once again, with all due respect, you cannot confuse the "world" with what takes place in the United States. This is something that is peculiar to US gun culture and that is particular to Jeff Cooper, even if he is dead. Other countries do not have the same outlook on gun culture. "Hoplophobia" has never been anything more than what Jeff Cooper intended it to be: a pejorative to degrade and anger proponents of gun control. It is certainly part of the gun culture debate in the US and, as such, should be preserved as part of Jeff Cooper's contribution to that debate, but not as a word of any note with any use divorced from US gun culture.StopYourBull (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jeff Cooper, per nom, and article's talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Still Merge. There is 1 opinion column that discusses the term itself (in 30 words), and all other citations currently in the article are footnotes/dictdefs or primarysources from Jeff Cooper. The suggested links/refs below are correctly analyzed by The Red Pen of Doom, as not supporting the independent notability of the term. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Cooper i found a few primary source uses of the term, mostly as simply entries of the word in "completely exhaustive lists of every ___-pobia" or in self published pro gun lit. the only third party analytic/encyclopedic coverage of its usage has been solely in connection with its coinage by cooper and the joke nature thereof. there is not anything about its current (mis)-use in the progun literature to attempt to attach a nonexistant clinical disorder to people who oppose guns being everywhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to Cooper~~ - I'd argue about the claim by the nominator that it's "perjorative"; I've encountered people who do indeed have an utterly irrational (per the defintion of "phobia") fear of guns, to the point they become jumpy and nervous at merely having them be mentioned around them. ~~That said, though, this isn't notable enough (yet?) for its own article, so it should be covered in Cooper's article with a redirect.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's written up in books such as this and generally these. Hoplophobia is like homophobia, but for guns is a significant coverage source on the topic. Can "hoplophobia" be cured? is another significant coverage source on the topic. The source Tales from the turkey shoot contains source material for an article on Hoplophobia. The article has some reliable sources in it as well. The term's popular usage in sources may have begun around March 2007: "Now, thanks to gang violence, school shootings and general hoplophobia, kids can't really run around the street pointing gun-like objects at each other and screaming."[7] The other sources I found mostly are letters to the editor, so the term hoplophobia mostly seems to be used by people who like to write letters to newspapers for publication. Second to them in usage are those who write editorials for news papers. Given that it is an article about a word, perhaps it also needs a reliable source discussion how the word is use in popular culture (e.g., many letter to the editor writers and editorialists like to use the term hoplophobia). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. In August 2012, a Nebraska school asked parents of three year old deaf boy Hunter Spanjer to change the boy's name because the hand gestures the boy used for his name looked like a gun and it violated the school's zero tolerance on guns.[8] (Uzma Gamal's comment: Further on The Bushranger's comment above, the term hoplophobia can be used without out being perjorative. For example, years of hoplophobia would seem to be part of what led to an outcome such as in the three year old deaf boy Hunter Spanjer situation.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are many points where I disagree with your analysis - for example this editorial [9] there are several WP:REDFLAG's for one is the claim "A single word can change the nature of an entire national debate, and hoplophobia is just such a word. " for a word coined almost 50 years ago, it is entirely lacking in sources outside of the gun community and so a claim of 'changing the entire nature of the debate' is quite absurd. Second americanhandgunner does not have a reputation for being knowledgeable about medical facts, and it is basing its content upon a paper by Sarah Thompson (i doubt that an actress, a centuries-dead countess or a fictional character is a recognized expert on phobias/medical conditions) however, it fails to provide any details to be able to check on its source (the website where the paper was supposed to be house no longer has it). the editorial goes on to make this analysis "Hoplophobes are afraid of their own inability to control themselves. ... This explains the never-ending nonsense arising every time a new carry law or gun-rights bill is enacted." yet another REDFLAG content.

the fact that "holophobe" appears in google searches is well known arguement that shouldnt be given any weight in AfD discussions as there is no proof that the hits are in reliable sources or that the content is significant or otherwise encyclopedic.

and I am not seeing any reliable sources that show the example of the deaf child's signed name as being "holobia" - thats pure WP:OR-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does not duplicate very much at all of the material in Wiktionary. The term, while coined by Jeff Cooper in 1962 and who died in 2006, has taken a life of its own, and as Uzma Gamal points out there are plenty of clear cut examples of it in the real world that are not particularly "political" (how else do you explain a school asking parents to change a boy's name ???). It could of course be further fleshed out, but it's already pretty solid. Failing that, obviously merge with Jeff Cooper. BTW, does Wikipedia has a policy of deleting entries that are "politically-charged [and] subject to vandalism for political purposes"? If so, why didn't the powers that be simply delete Mia Love's entry after her 2012 Republican National Convention speech to spare everyone the trouble of fighting the vandals? Hga (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To your question at the end: No. That editor is stating something that is Not supported by policy/guideline. Articles are kept/deleted based on Notability, and the reaction to severe vandalism is protection. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing to keep after reading the convincing arguments above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* WP Not a dictionary. Neither is this a notable word. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:57, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and no redirect, either). Stupid neologism invented for self-promotion. EEng (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These comments are relevant circa 1962 when Cooper came up with the term; I'm pretty sure he didn't invent it for self-promotion, although he certainly used it in material some might consider self-promoting (he didn't obtain his stature in the field without "self-promotion", although by definition that ended no later than 2006). As Stalwart111 notes below, it may be "stupid"---I certainly thought it was a bit silly at best when I first learned it many years ago (then again my study of war starts after the Greek period so it has no resonance for me) and I almost never use it---but since its coining it's undeniably become part of the debate per all the references and it does with one word describe an clearly observable phenomena. Which was a reason neither "stupid" or "self-promoting" to coin it in the first place.... Hga (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable term. It does not duplicate material, and it is wrong to censor WP. Yaf (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may be true that the term is "stupid" and originally "self promoting" but that doesn't change whether or not it is notable or whether or not its notability is verifiable. Whether we like it or not, the term has now become an accepted part of the debate around gun ownership and gun control (see here and here). Stalwart111 (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

those are not reliable sources about the term, merely primary examples of primary sources attempting to (mis)-use the term. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; just pointing out it's use in the context of the debate. I think that the term itself is perhaps a misuse of -phobia but it doesn't really matter what I think... :-) Stalwart111 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but until we have reliable third party sources talking about the term and the use of the term it fails the WP:GNG for having a stand alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, and to be fair I haven't really seen much analysis of the existing references (just debate about the term itself). My inclination is to assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the references but if they are no good then that should be made clear - it would certainly alter my view. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP - If people realize they may have an unfounded fear of someone's simple exercise of our Constitutionally guaranteed natural right to carry the means to defend ourselves, if necessary, it may give them a reason to give their fear a second look. There are people who have a fear of the weapon because of its misuse by someone they knew when they were much younger and they can then pin the fear to the person, not the weapon. Also, if they are afraid in that way, they can know they are not alone in that fear, but rather than act on that fear, they have an alternative in dealing with their own feelings and how they affect their own lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperloco (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A stellar example of an ILIKEIT argument... Carrite (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Delete this and you must in fairness delete Islamophobia, Homophobia, and all other political neologisms that tack -phobia on the end. Since none of the naysayers would consider deleting Homophobia or Islamophobia, this really just comes down to bias. Apply the same standard to all. Deep Candle (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A stellar example of an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... Carrite (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. Deep Candle (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Throne[edit]

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

Article on an actor who, while he has had a number of appearances on TV shows and films, doesn't assert his notability. No hits on gnews, and the first three pages of Google results don't return any notable articles or secondary source coverage on him. Speedy declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 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) 01:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A Gold record should mean something. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 22 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:31, 25 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, SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As article looks to have been written from a fan's perspective, it will definitely benefit from major cleanup, but such is do-able (though I will not be able to do so myself for some 36 hours). His long and verifiable filmography appears to nicely meet the intent and spirit of WP:ENT,[10] he appears to have just enough more-than-trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG, and his 1992 Gold record pings at WP:ANYBIO. It just needs regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight OUT Loud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Next to no sources, I just removed content from this article as the sources used do not even mention this group Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried my best to rescue this a few months ago, to no avail. Not notable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although much of what the group does is housed online and on blogs, many of them notable themselves, I was able to quickly find numerous news reports all supporting that the group does what it states and in the case of the mayor from Fort Lauderdale, was effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs)
Keep, ample secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were? Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's borderline, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to justify having an article on this group. Robofish (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails GNG and the article reads like a press release. Belchfire-TALK 23:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeeP Notable for infornation per relase 88.146.161.215 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than ample secondary sources (Miami Herald, Sun Sentinel, etc.) and ample notability. I assume most of these sources were added after the nom. This should be a an obvious keep at this point. – MrX 03:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ORG. There now seems to be just about enough independent coverage to sustain this article, in my view. -- Trevj (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

39th Street (Kansas City)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prod declined due to previous AFD under original name of 39th Street, which of course I didn't catch due to the name change. Sources are all unreliable. No notability found. Search found only directory listings for businesses on the street. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic street of the city and there seems to be little difficulty finding sources which we might use to expand the article in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing policy is not relevant to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? You mean the bajillion motel directories I found listing motels that happen to be on the street? The sources that say nothing more than "X is on 39th Street in Kansas City"? PROVE there are sources. Don't say "but there are sources!" unless you PROVE. IT. Is it really that damn hard?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination and the previous post do not provide verifiable evidence of searches that failed, and another editor says that a "quick search" finds sources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick GNews search returned several articles which focus around the street. Here are three that I have added to the article. Gongshow ^Talk 00:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Gongshow, the article has enough sources to demonstrate notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and can be verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as policy-compliant. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It helps to be notified that there was a previous AfD, but the nominator might also consider adding the template that shows previous nominations in an infobox. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical city street. Dough 48 72 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Search for sources found only directory listings for a Best Western with the same name or listings for businesses on the street. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems easy to expand and so should be kept per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to expand with what? Directory listings for the Best Western located on the street? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMPERFECT is part of the editing policy, as you say so yourself. It is not part of the deletion policy, however, and is, thus, not relevant to this discussion. I believe WP:RUBBISH is the link you want - but please see WP:EFFORT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are editing the article, not deleting it, and so WP:IMPERFECT is the appropriate policy. Please see begging the question. Warden (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion at articles for deletion, but we're not discussing deleting it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per above, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) shouldn't do more large deletions. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think TPH jumped the gun on this one, I don't find this user recklessly nominates articles for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources aren't as hard to find as the nom claims. The article already has some sources verifying the street's reputation for authentic Mexican food, and I found more sources (here, here, here, here, and here) about various development projects centered around the boulevard. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation}
Keep per TheCatalyst31 - multiple sources exist which contain significant coverage for this street. Gongshow ^Talk 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, notable area and now sources are added. Meets standard of being verifiable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is not the standard for this road. Notability is. The notability of the area does not apply to the road. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by TheCatalyst31 which demonstrates passing WP:GNG. It does appear to be a major arterial road as the only non-freeway direct link between Rosedale and Downtown KS.[11] --Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The references are irrelevant to the article, they reference things that are along that street. But all streets have things along them. Nothing special about Southwest Boulevard is demonstrated here. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question What is our policy for the notability of "large roads"? At first sight, this appears to be a road that's an important route for traffic, yet the article says nothing substantial about it, there are no sources to indicate any more, and it's basically boring.

Now when it comes to settlements, there's clear practice that if it exists enough to be listed in a gazetteer, then WP can't get rid of it. See Rosside, a village so tiny it's now exceed in area by its own WP article. Are we in a similar position for roads? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) failed to establish a consensus. The de facto position is that major roads and historic roads with reasonable sources are ok because we have thousands of such articles. Warden (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus is that national ("Interstate ###", "U.S. Route ###") and primary state ("State Road ###") routes are notable per Wikipedia's position as a gazetteer. Secondary state and county roads are usually merged to lists unless they're sufficently notable otherwise. Named local roads and streets, however, are not kept, usually, barring WP:GNG of course - see Apalachee Parkway, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One editors opinion: Western civilization loves their roads–governments make sure that their citizens know where they are, because the citizens want to drive cars on them, and people like having addresses so that they can receive mail. Including the consideration that maps are secondary reliable in-depth sources, all public roads will pass the general notability guideline. But passing WP:GNG is not sufficient to pass the WP:N guideline, the road must also be "worthy of notice" Technically, a limiting factor is the policy of WP:NOT indiscriminate information. Roads are sometimes considered to be a part of the gazetteer, and the gazetteer doesn't need much of an article to be useful, but individual editors are known to argue to higher standards during AfD. There is general agreement across the various notability essays, that some but not all roads are WP:N "worthy of notice". My favorite notability street essay is User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people. A quick check is to see if Google maps adds emphasis to the road. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe U.S. Route 69 used to be routed over Southwest Blvd, if anyone can help source this history. Though unsourced, K-58 (Kansas highway) states that US 69 was routed off the road in 1956.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the numbered route. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say it was? I actually research and improve articles, I care not what those ignorant of a topic say in deletion discussions.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe U.S. Route 69 used to be routed over Southwest Blvd", could be taken as implying that the fact the route used to be a numbered route confers notability. Apologies if I misread your intent, but I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I am known for being a disturber at times.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~. Non-notable, run-of-the-mill local road that has only the routine coverage one expects of such a road, and nothing more. Notability is not inherited from the fact a U.S. route used to be routed along it. That said, TheCatalyst31's links might establish notability - although whether it's for the road or the business distict along the road, I can't be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a history section, which can certainly be expanded more. I feel comfortable with notability at this point, and its clearly a major artery out of the city.[12]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not 100% sold on a keep, but there's enough not to vote delete. So, neutral now I guess? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel rewarded a bit at least for my efforts! :-). --Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All public roads pass WP:GNG. This particular road is an artery, which means both that it passes WP:NOT and the "worthy of notice" clause of WP:N. There is (more than) sufficient material to create an entry for the gazetteer. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, all public roads do not pass GNG. Those that are numbered national or state-level routes do, as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer; local routes must prove they pass GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thoughtfully explained the theory for my !vote above. The force of my reason stands. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical city street. Dough 48 72 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impressive touch-up, Milowent. The Steve
Delete: Run-of-the-mill city street with no credible claim to notability beyond the immediate local level. This ain't Sunset Blvd. or Broadway by a longshot. Sources do not demonstrate sufficient notability, and my own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "not as popular as X" is not a reason to delete. I'm reminded of the phrase "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" Maybe so, but there are many other politicians that are "no Jack Kennedy" yet still qualify for notability in this encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia is better because of it. Likewise, I'm sure we can reason the same for streets and neighborhoods that are not Sunset Boulevard or Broadway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "historic Southwest Boulevard"[13][14], known today for its Hispanic culture and Mexican restaurants as pointed out in guidebooks[15][16] is not deserved of such bashing. Far less "historic" roads are regularly kept at AfD if WP:GNG is met, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary Parkway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhaven Boulevard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decatur Boulevard--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources found and added to the article seem to point towards notability. Large boulevards in large cities have almost always been kept in the past, even if they are not state or Fderal highways. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DayZ Game[edit]

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

After heavily cutting down on the speculation, irrelevant material, cruft, and other nonsense in the article, this is what is left. Two paragraphs basically saying that the game has been announced, and two facts about it. While the DayZ mod may have been notable, notability is not inherited here. Until such time as there is more than speculation on the game, it's little more than a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the DayZ "Standalone game", NOT DayZ mod. Please take note of the difference before commenting. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason to keep this article around as the DayZ mod article more than adequately covers all the necessary information. Mromson (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - What details there are on the retail standalone can be in the mod article until if such a time the retail game is released (though it would not exist at this article name). --MASEM (t) 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DayZ (the mod) has caused a storm in the gaming world much like that caused by Minecraft and Angry Birds, quickly becoming one of the most talked-about releases of recent times and appearing everywhere from magazines to the UK's video game retailer weekly, which is no small feat considering that it is a free mod! There are two perfectly viable sources already in this article, here's another and another. The mod is a Big Fucking Deal, there is zero chance of a standalone game built from the ground up being anything else. Someoneanother 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of the mod's popularity, its the crystal-ball factor that a retail version will be a Real Thing. Once it has been 100% affirmed (the way the sources read, this is still very hopeful it will happen). But, that said, if there is a retail version, are we going to need separate articles for the mod and the retail game? I dunno. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say that this, published hours ago, dispels any doubt that they're serious about the undertaking. Since they are independently notable keeping them contained in the same article introduces WP:WEIGHT issues where there needn't be any and introduces a potential How to Get Ahead in Advertising situation where the original mod which caused the storm ends up being a talking zit on the shoulder of the later commercial product. The mod has historical importance as a mod, not just as part of a potentially larger 'thing', by keeping them clearly demarked in separate articles the mod can receive all the attention it needs as a separate game. Someoneanother 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that really doesn't affirm the game will be release in retail (though clearly they're trying all they can). The reason to keep the mod and retail game together is that I would except there to be major overlap between the two (the gameplay's going to remain the same, and its doubtful the standalone will have that much of a different reception). The only difference really is information about making the standalone. This is a classic case of keeping the two different releases in the same article. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - someone another, I think you're confusing the mod and the standalone game here. Nobody is talking about deleting the mod page. But the standalone game does not have enough information about it to justify a page, and notability is not inherited via the mod. In other words, if the DayZ mod never existed, but we had an article on the game, it could not possibly withstand an AfD. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I promise you that I have not misunderstood your nomination. What I am disputing is that the standalone game is propped up by the mod's sources - discussion of the upcoming project is already happening. I also see a danger in housing both separate projects in a single article, a free mod reliant on a 'donor game' is a different animal to a commercial video game, paricularly when it is the catalyst for such a noted wave of interest from gamers in general and the press. A little redundancy in the gameplay section is a small price to pay for the space and demarked clarity to explore areas like the reception and development of both projects, the 'real world' details which a good quality article on a video game needs. I doubt that I will be swaying any opinions with this line of thinking so won't be continuing in this debate. I won't be swayed by the supposed benefits of merging, more often than not it causes internal battles for relevancy within the target articles and stifles expansion. Someone another 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say this page should be deleted. The standalone game can just be added to the mod page. It doesn't need to have it's own page as of now. OneInfo (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't really need a seperate article. 216.177.248.162 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The Wikipedia article title "DayZ Game" is part of the problem because that is not the right name for the topic so Wikipedian's can't find reliable source info on the topic. It's too new, so there doesn't seem to be a common name for the topic. August 7, 2012: DayZ to get standalone release and August 18, 2012: The Guide: Games news provide details on the topic. However, the topic doesn't yet meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. --Enok (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I'm going to ignore the 7 day rule on AFDs and close this. It's clear this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not publish theories in the scientific community; that's what scientific journals are for. We cover topics that are already published and can be attributed to secondary sources. This AFD has turned into an argument between the author (and 'inventor') and the Wikipedia community. No Wikipedia policy arguments have been presented at all for inclusion and now this discussion contains a legal threat. There is no need to play along with this user anymore as they've been blocked for the legal threat. v/r - T P 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fukushima Paradox[edit]

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

This is WP:OR pure and simple. The theory has been created by the "science fiction writer Michael Anthony Norton" and the page has been created by a user named "MikeAnthNort". No independent sources are offered to show this theory has become notable, and net searches come up with nothing about Norton's theory. Michitaro (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable theory which should not de discarded from Wikipedia just because it has not yet been covered by traditional media. A reference to literature on quantum physics is included and it is intended that this entry will be further developed with additional references. Wikipedia pages on asynchrony, fission, and the disasters in Japan are also linked. Why does michitaro put "science fiction writer Michael Anthony Norton" in quotes? That is a fact, pure and simple. --MikeAnthNort (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A theory that "has not yet been covered" is by definition not notable on Wikipedia. Please consult WP:GNG. Note that this theory has not even been covered by non-traditional media on the net. Adding sources from physics does not affirm the notability of the theory itself. In fact, it here is only evidence that the article has pursued original research in violation of WP:OR. Adding wikilinks also does nothing to prove notability. Finally, I put your name and title in quotes simply because I was quoting the article. Michitaro (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article reads like a piece of fantastic fiction advanced by a single book, not a serious encyclopedia topic. Also, the only reference is to a single quote that is only tangentially relevant, without any on the actual topic. Chris857 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional reference, citing relative phases of nonlocal exchanges of variables, particularly with regard to Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics. More references to be provided - there is an abundance of research on this.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you carefully read WP:OR. Merely adding more citations from science articles that themselves do not mention the Fukushima Paradox will not only do nothing to satisfy WP:GNG, they only show that you are engaging in WP:OR. You must provide independent reliable sources that talk about the Fukushima Paradox itself, not aspects that you are using to advance your theory. Michitaro (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains unsourced, non-notable, fringe, original research that is patent nonsense, and the author has a conflict of interest. The references have very little relevance to the content of the article. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Michitaro, Chris857, and CodeTheorist: What is your political motivation behind suppressing a valid theory from Wikipedia? I just posted this yesterday - I did not send out a press release - how am I supposed to draw quotes from others in the scientific community re: the Fukushima Paradox when itself has a life of approximately one day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAnthNort (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — MikeAnthNort (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who besides M.A.Norton says it's a "valid theory"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote of article author changed below to "Delete", so struick through "Keep" here. I believes this means that there are no "Keep" !votes at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the GNG: Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.
To MikeAnthNort, WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Chris857 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To MikeAnthNort: Wikipedia is not a place for announcing a new theory. It is an encyclopedia for recording established knowledge. What has not been established does not belong here. You should wait until it is: WP:TOOSOON. Finally, while it is true WP:GNG states that "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft", it is merely underlying the fact that articles on notable subjects might not yet show all the existing sources to prove notability. Instead of deleting such articles, we on Wikipedia must find those existing sources. Your case does not fit this because you have not shown those sources exist. Being a "draft" does not mean the article can sit on Wikipedia for years until new sources eventually appear to support it. Michitaro (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Chris857: a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena". It is not rather an invention or story in the context to which you are attempting to place it.
To Michitaro: I assure you this entry will not "sit...for years" before pointing to additional sources relative to the phenomena described. It has only been a day! --MikeAnthNort (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you cannot predict the future and assure us it will eventually have reliable sources that will prove notability, it is best you announce this theory elsewhere and wait for sources to accumulate there. Wikipedia again is not a place to announce theories. Michitaro (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable theory because it draws a correlation between the field of big data & virtual particles and nuclear physics. It is also notable because it implies a re-cast net of responsibility for research and lessons learned from the 3/11 disaster. Many people lost their lives because of the disaster and many more have had their lives displaced. A theory purporting the source of the disaster even if it mitigates the assumptions of geophysics next to big data and quantum physics has a reasonable place within the Wikipedia canon. --MikeAnthNort (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is clear you still don't understand the definition of notability on Wikipedia. It is not a factor of such subjective criteria as a subject's supposed importance or ability to explain things, but of whether it has "significant coverage" from "reliable" "sources" that are "independent of the subject"--that is, whether there is proof that others think it is worthy of attention. You can argue all you want that you think it is important but that will do nothing. You must find independent sources that think that. You have not done that, so it is clear the article does not pass WP:GNG and should be deleted. Michitaro (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search of "Fukushima Paradox", and the only results that are not on Wikipedia refer to more of a paradox of nuclear power and its pros and cons. I think this topic may be unsourceable, except to User:MikeAnthNort. Chris857 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the definition of 'theory'. How has this one been used to make testable predictions? —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox it. I guess I need sources. Do anonymous sources work? --MikeAnthNort (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please! Obvious hoax Consider: Essentially, the virtual particles behaved as a natural defense mechanism against the unstable, over-heated reactors. Speedy. EEng (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy deletion tag, because it's not a blatant hoax, and probably not a hoax. That someone promotes a theory that's wrong doesn't make the article a hoax. The article is probably a faithful and fair representation of a wrong speculation. Normally I'd PROD it, but this AfD should clear it up. Wily D 08:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're way too forgiving. The author says below he knows the idea to be absurd; therefore he's perpetrating a hoax. In addition it's clear he's doing so in the interest of self-promotion. There's no reason to indulge such behavior at the expense of other editors' time and attention. EEng (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEng: That's defamation to call it a hoax. How is that intended to deceive or defraud?--MikeAnthNort (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the universe provides "a natural defense mechanism against the unstable, over-heated reactors" is absurd; if you understand this then you are perpetrating a hoax. Or if you wish, you can persist in claiming you actually believe this baloney -- thus implying something else. Take your pick. EEng (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be absurd but that does not make it deceptive or an element of fraud. Systems have capabilities to adapt to unusual circumstances in order to adhere to conservation of energy and other classical laws.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By admitting your ideas are absurd, you're admitting they constitute a hoax. This debate remain on record indefinitely and it's is not doing your reputation as a science fiction writer (or science anything for that matter) any good. EEng (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You call it an absurd hoax. I call it a theory quite plausible considering the introduction of new processing systems placed upon the fabric of the global information grid in very recent years.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fun time's over. Back to Area 54 with you before the director is forced to order more electroshock. EEng (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say good night but your choice to digress from the topic strikes me as quite immature. Is this how Wiki works? --MikeAnthNort (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. It has no media coverage outside this page. The creator is not notable either. Wikipedia is not for promoting new scientific theories, whether fringe or mainstream, true, false or nonsensical. Still, it's livened up my Monday morning, so thanks for that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in independent secondary sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question is not 'Is this theory bollocks?' but 'Is this theory notable?'. The few mentions of the term on Google (searching with a 'minus Wikipedia' filter) are on places like blogspot or appear irrelevant. Not good enough. That the theory seems to me to be bollocks is not relevant, as there can be notable loads of bollocks. (If a virtual particle carries vast amounts of energy and travels out over the ocean, it's quite simply not a virtual particle. They only appear in calculations, and can loosely be regarded in the same way as 'holes' in solid state electronics or the square root of -1 in maths - a way of getting your equations to work... Peridon (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, I would suggest that Mr Norton (if it indeed be he) should read WP:COI, our 'conflict of interest' policy - editing concerning you and yours. It's not 'forbidden', but it is 'not recommended'. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: COI, There is a greater community interest of concern rather than self-interest here, but point taken. --MikeAnthNort (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the greater community interest of concern, you should have no trouble publishing in a more appropriate medium. —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Copernicus & Galileo had theories that were considered absurd. Be careful so quickly to judge just because it is unorthodox. -- unsigned comment by MikeAnthNort

That's right, and their ideas were also suppressed, just like yours are being suppressed right here. By doing so we're helping you along the road to Intellectual Immortality. So why resist? In a moment we'll show you the instruments, and if after that you would please submit yourself to house arrest for several decades your martyrdom will be complete. After you're dead and gone we'll celebrate your genius. Trust us. EEng (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the theories of Copernicus & Galileo were proven true hundreds of years before Wikipedia existed. That is not the case here. It is also a clear Fallacy to suggest that since those theories that were initially discounted were later proven to be true that this theory is true as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.74.113 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to grant that Mr Norton may not have intended this as a hoax, per se. However, Mr Norton, please realize that you have a conflict of interest. Also realize that notability cannot be self-declared. It must be externally bestowed. For something to be notable, others must have taken note of it. Since this is Mr Norton's theory, Mr Norton cannot be the one to declare that it is notable. I strongly recommend that this article be deleted. DS (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about it not being a hoax (there is a wide gap between 'Original Research' and 'Intent to Deceive' - this being OR). I also agree that the author of anything here cannot at the same time be the source proving its notability. And had Wikipedia been around back then, we might well have had articles on the theories of Copernicus and Galileo - because they stirred up a fair bit of notoriety. (Please note. everyone, that notoriety is correctly used there, unlike the majority of cases I see here.) If it can be shown in reliable independent sources WP:RS that this theory has attracted reasonably widespread coverage, I'll happily change my !vote. Peridon (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate much of this feedback - learning about the Wiki process. It will be difficult for me to find the appropriate sources as the ones I would like to speak to about this remain anonymous. Sub-electronic impressions of industrial system processing instructions remain "afloat in the ethers" and I find their emergent interactions upon the macroscopic scale fascinating and noteworthy. That's the crux of the Fukushima Paradox.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute Does anyone here want to contribute to make the entry legit for Wiki?--MikeAnthNort (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):It's quite a different place once you get behind the scenery - the carefully neutral articles. Here is a world of passions and daggers in the dark... As to sources, ones you can speak to are unlikely to be independent and reliable. And anonymous is right out. What we need are ones that are published. But not in blogs, forums or wikis (even us), or Facebook and similar. Self-published or anon editing is not considered reliable. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do try to rescue things - but I've not managed to find anything in the way of sources. I'm sure the others here have looked too. Believe me, we do try. I've even rescued an article about a rapper by adding references. (Unlike most rappers we get here, he was notable...) Peridon (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can second the opinion that while AfD can sometimes be a brutal experience, there are not a small number of cases where other users rescue an article that, while poorly put together and not immediately showing notability, could be saved because the references were out there. I've done that a number of times myself (again, that is what "draft" means in WP:GNG as discussed above). We're not all a mean bunch. I'm afraid, though, that my searches of the net for "Fukushima Paradox" have not found anything that can be used to save this article (that's why I nominated it for AfD). Perhaps there are articles in print that are not available on the net, but that's increasingly less likely these days. There's thus nothing we can do about this unless one of us decides to write an article about this in some reputable journal or newspaper. Again, I think it is best for you to announce this theory in some other space than Wikipedia, argue for it there, create some notability, and hope someone else can create an article again here (as others have said, you should not be doing this yourself).Michitaro (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says this article is an Orphan. Is there any point for me to place a link to it in "See Also" sections of other pages? Also, what is the timeline for an AfD page? How long do I have to expect a contributor to modify the page for possible inclusion? --MikeAnthNort (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for unpublished material per WP:NOT.Curb Chain (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically WP:NOT#OR.Curb Chain (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note We have talk page discussion from another editor who feels the page should be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--MikeAnthNort (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)— MikeAnthNort (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CurbChain, are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fukushima_Paradox?[reply]

Yes. By your participation on the talk page there too, you are publishing your idea on Wikipedia. I suggest that you as the author request the page to be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced fringe OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Consider. Perhaps mention of Stuxnet can save this article. When you tear open a pillow atop a mountain, all of its feathers scatter in the wind and some are not recoverable. Analogy aside, you are dealing with Pulse Logic Controller components on the open seas of the internet directly related to industrial systems. Just as each of our DNA is 99.9% the same, you can say the same about code in cyberspace. It's a grand mix and all of the consequences of such ought to be considered. The writers of Stuxnet keep anonymity so it's impossible for me to get in touch with them. Otherwise I would try and develop this article further. If you can hold off deleting for now, I would like to find an authority to modify it for inclusion.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your point here is that your hypothesis has value, Wikipedia is not the place to argue it. If your point is that a human artifact designed for sabotage supports the existence of malevolent time-traveling particles, go back to bed. —Tamfang (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, COI and self-promotion. Unsalvageable. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gandalf. It's neither COI nor self-promotion. It's a THEORY.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "theory" whose only demonstrated value is to bring publicity (in a limited environment) to its author. —Tamfang (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure where the feathers come in (in my garden, it usually means a sparrowhawk has visited, and she's had another pigeon), but I'm afraid we can't publish your theory UNTIL you produce sources that fit in with WP:RS. I would remind everyone that this is not a public utility or free webspace - it's an encyclopaedia. Magazines like New Scientist, Nature and Scientific American publish new things. We record things that already have been discussed and noted or published reliably. Stuxnet to me is a worm, and I can't see how the writers of it could be of any relevance even in the unlikely event of us finding out who they were. I'm not sure (again...) of what you mean by "an authority to modify it for inclusion". Here, the 'authorities' are no more able than any other editor to modify articles and our 'authority' is in areas of administration not content. If you mean an authority on the subject of nuclear physics, if their comments are verifiably published in a reliable place (not a blog), they might help. If the article goes down, it can be re-done at a later date - provided the sources are present. Bringing the theory to the attention of the world is your job, and we are unable to help with that. As original research, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is a medium containing articles on various topics covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. Nothing more, nothing less. To subvert tacit knowledge would be a disservice by Wikipedia. I will write to the publications Peridon mentioned, though it's disappointing to receive calls for deletion of my article because some here are in disagreement with the theory.--MikeAnthNort (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I write articles about my incomplete font-generating software and my unfinished novel? —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my case at least, and it ought to be in the cases of the others (hint, hint...), the call for deletion is down to the lack of notability - OUR definition of notability as laid out and discussed until consensus was reached. We are discussing things here. Any editor may give an opinion. (New accounts that only edit here and nowhere else are called single purpose accounts, and the closing admin will probably attach little weight to their posts.) If there were evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, I'd be arguing to keep - even though I think the theory is as full of holes as an Emmentaler cheese. We have articles about Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, and the 'fact' that man has never walked on the Moon. All rhubarb (with no custard), but well documented. When this is, try again and leave me a message. If you've got widespread coverage in RS, I'll defend it. No matter what I think of it. I would suggest New Scientist of the three named - they notoriously (in terms of scientific orthodoxy) published Rupert Sheldrake's theories of morphic resonance and formative causation. Richard Dawkins refuses to even look at Sheldrake's evidence. However, they do tend to list references at the end of their articles, as do we, so you may still need some outside coverage. Worth a go - stamps aren't dear and emails are free. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is hilarious. Delete as original research with no indication of notability or coverage in reliable sources, created by a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. Also, it's made up. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my time is up here - Delete!--MikeAnthNort (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article says that the theory was suggested by "Michael Anthony Norton" the "science fiction writer". The opnly person of this description I can find is someone who has one book to his credit, self-published, [17] so this is not a notabale person making the suggestion. Take into account that the article was written by MikeAnthNort, has no real references, cites nobody else who thinks this idea has merit, and what you've got left are multiple violations of the whole alphabet soup: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:FRINGE etc, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Writer's Showcase Press" was a new one on me - and I couldn't work out whether it was self-pub or 'legit'. (Often the names used at Amazon are to disguise involvement by lulu and similar, but this name seems to have issued at least 21 books by different authors - latest being 2002 - http://www.jacketflap.com/writers-showcase-press-publisher-7512 but the Amazon blurb for Norton's book doesn't fit with the children's book image given there.) Peridon (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuSasori, it's not a hoax and anyone who deems it as such is facilitating defamation ~~and facing legal consequences~~.

Yes, Writer's Showcase is a division of iUniverse, a print-on-demand publisher. "A Line in the Sand" was published in 2002. --MikeAnthNort (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your comment above is a violation of our no legal threats policy. You need to withdraw it, or it is likely that you will be blocked from editing until you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning your book is that being the author of a single self-published book does not make you an expert on the subject of the article in question, and therefore there's no way that it is notable through that expertise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Will userfy on request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Revolution[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Three refs no in-depth coverage between them and the only independent one is this which is a database entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much a case of WP:TOOSOON. The convention has only been held once, and aside from the sources on the article there just isn't a huge amount of coverage of this convention in any independent and reliable sources. The three sources so far don't show a depth of coverage for the convention and I don't think that it has notability enough at this point in time to warrant having its own article. It could well be that this convention eventually becomes notable but I think it was jumping the gun a little to add it so soon. It looks like it did relatively well to get even three sources, as most anime conventions fly under the radar and go without any real notice, and there's always the possibility it could become notable in the future. It's just not there yet. I have no problem with the original editor userfying a copy of the article if she were interested in sticking around and incubating this. I do want to warn her about ensuring to write the article in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, as the article was sort of written in a promotional light. You don't really need to name all of the sponsors for the group unless the teaming up was very notable, such as if it were to be sponsored by Pepsi or Taco Bell. Also, try to avoid primary sources since they can't show notability and can only back up trivial stuff. AnimeCons.com can only back up trivial things at best, as it's really only a routine listing of conventions. The coverage there is usually provided by the anime conventions themselves, so it's pretty much a primary source for lack of a better comparison. I recommend getting some help through WP:ANIME, as they can help show you which sites are considered notable as far as manga and anime go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage at this time to warrant an article. Maybe if there is Anime News Network coverage somewhere, then it could be notable. Too soon, perhaps? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a press release and a notification that they've confirmed some guests, but nothing really in-depth. I see the ANN mention as more of a trivial source than anything else since it's so brief. It's sort of close to being notable enough for inclusion and if they hold it again next year, I'd go so far to say that it'd be almost guaranteed to pass notability guidelines if they get even one more news article about them. My only concern is that this is all fairly light to say that it absolutely passes notability guidelines and there's no guarantee that the convention will be held next year. A good example of "guaranteed to" is Twicon. The convention had its serious issues but they were already planning the next convention by the end of the first one, which never actually came about for various reasons. Twicon got lots of other coverage, of course, but it's a good example of a convention that seemed very likely to have a second year that didn't. Although if we could get at least 1-2 more RS then I'd be willing to change my vote.

Comment. I'm neutral on this article because the edits have made it much better, but not entirely sure its noteworthy as of yet. Would also agree with the userfying of an copy of the article. Esw01407 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Saquet[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. I can't find any independent coverage about this person whatsoever. At the moment the article reads like a CV. SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 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, Hue Sat Lum 20:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to no coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Once site noted "eMusic.com Best-selling albums as of July 19, 2010: 5. Yan Saquet, NYC Meat Packing District 1.[18] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Mohammed Bin Suleman[edit]

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

Articel about a 27years old Libyan businessman, that claims he has made a fortune of 13.5 billion dollars (what scale?). Only one source is given in Arabic language, that doesn't list his name طه محمد بن سليمان. Haven't found any other source, so tagged it as a hoax. The CSD has been declined, so sources are needed and users that can read Arabic. Is it a hoax or not? Ben Ben (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in Arabia for a thousand and fifty-seven years and two days, counting, the humble clown can at least tell you that it is not a hoax. This guy exists. Thing is, I don't think the ref has relevance to the guy. (My Arabic is not that pro, though.) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also has a page on arabian wiki. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know about the article on ar.wiki. It's marked with ... missing cite sources, ... has not (been) audited and may not be reliable enough, and need attention by an expert or specialist in the field., see. If the ref isn't relevant, how could you tell that it is not a hoax, that the guy exists?--Ben Ben (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Both articles are from the same author: User contributions:Samylou27--Ben Ben (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that I can at least assure you that this guy exists, and it is not the hoax... But pertaining to the subject being notable... I'm not so sure. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, then add a source please. If you can't find one, he is not notable. The article claims, that he has made a fortune of 13.5 billion dollars, as a 27 years old. That should have given him some attention. At least people that have Charitable Activities gain public attention.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to be wikified, like an info box and inline reference of the only reference, bullet points converted to sections etc., if it is to be kept. Well people in the Middle East do not gain public attention on wealth alone. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE: Fails WP:GNG. Not notable as per WP Guidelines. Not even a single reliable source. - Bharathiya (talk) 02:46, 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, Hue Sat Lum 20:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This source mentions "Commentary by Taha Suleman discusses the weak relationship between Kurdish officials and journalists as many articles on uncivilized phenomena are being written in Kurdistan Region but no government official has, to date, ordered an investigation into the issues covered by the media." Not sure if it is the same person as Taha Mohammed Bin Suleman. However, that's not enought information for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Irawan[edit]

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

Non-notable young player who fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a fully-professional league). The article has been deleted three times previously - PROD in December 2011, CSD in June 2012 and BLPPROD in August 2012; I'd also suggest SALTing the article to prevent further re-creation. Giant Snowman 18:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom, and unsalt/recreate once he makes his debut in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 13:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Repeated recreation makes salting necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 8 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 it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Harding (lawyer)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BIO: the article does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sources are mostly self-published or press releases. Moreover, does not pass either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I also made a good faith effort to check Google News and could not find more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is totally devoid of any indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, per nom and TJRC. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sirawata[edit]

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

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability. Google searches not finding anything mentioning Sirawata and Jats. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found the Jats, and Sirawata is listed on List of Jat clans. I agree it does need references, maybe someone more familiar with the subject or who speaks Hindi could be more successful in finding one.Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was added to the list of Jat clans by the editor that created this article. This article was created as it would be removed from the list without an article. noq (talk) 18:19, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:18, 19 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and impossible to verify. Delete with no prejudice to recreate if sources are found. --regentspark (comment) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still on the fence about this... no strong policy guidelines to support either. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theo polisme 17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though this caste (or sub caste) may exist but I find no mention of it in reliable sources that can indicate its notability. --SMS ^Talk 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Mint Condition: 2013[edit]

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

Non-notable yet-to-be-published book with no references. Non-notable (fan fiction?) authors. No indication the publishers exist either. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the authors are anonymous they cannot be assessed for notability; the publisher is seemingly unknown to the Internet. No reliable sources can possibly be available for an as-yet unpublished book. Also infringes WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All works in this unpublished anthology will be created by the members of the fansite thedarktower.org which happens to be to only site even mentioning the publisher Ambannon Books. Tl;dr: WP:V, WP:N and WP:TOOSOON. jonkerz ♠talk 20:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is zero coverage of this anywhere but on the DarkTower forums. This is ultimately a non-notable upcoming book that is being published by one of the forum posters. Not notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is that this was added by the publisher. The screen name of the original editor is the same as the email that is posted on the Dark Tower forum. This might be able to be speedied as promotion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI≠WP:SPAM: clearly there's a conflict of interest, but the article isn't overtly (or even slightly) promotional. We shouldn't assume promotion just because there's a COI; rather, we should judge the article for any WP:NPOV/WP:SPAM issues. matt (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Star Soldier. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Soldier vs dodonpachi DAI-OU-JOU[edit]

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

I did a search for sources on the subject under all three possible names: Star Soldier vs dodonpachi DAI-OU-JOU, Sutā Sorujā vs Dodonpachi Daiōjō, and スターソルジャー vs 怒首領蜂大往生. I found three things. First is this, but it appears to be only a sentence mention of the game. Second is this, but it appears to just be a press release for the 2006 limited edition of the game. Third and last was this, which appears to be a proper review of the 2006 limited edition version of the game, but I don't know how reliable the site is and it was the only review I could find at all. Thus, because of the lack of sufficient reliable sources discussing the game in a significant manner, I would say that this game is non-notable. A sentence or so merge to another article is possible, but i'm not sure where it should go. Silver seren^C 07:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 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, Hue Sat Lum 16:26, 26 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) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Soldier or delete This is, apparently, a mobile phone game available solely in Japan. While neither of those facets are a reason for deletion, add them both together and you get "what the hell are we supposed to do with this?" when it comes to sourcing and expanding the article. The links in the article mostly lead to 404 errors, a search brings up a lot of WP mirrors and 'lecture notes' sites (?) which don't link to anything. The chances of anyone having both the ability and the inclination to do anything with this are non-existent. Someone another 04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man O'War (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Man O'War (comics)

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

Comic book character that does not seem to be notable. Unreferenced. Google, GNews, GScholar, GBooks turn up primary and tertiary sources, nothing directly evident that will support notability. BenTels (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 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) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany's Restaurants[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiffany's Restaurants

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

No evidence of notability for this local chain (6 locations) of bars. No reviews in high-profile guidebooks. Three of the four footnotes are deadlinks, apparently to the trade press; the fourth is to Urbanspoon. Macrakis (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 26 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) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in secondary sources and per nomCurb Chain (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. This is a weak keep, as the sourcing still seems pretty patchy. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Young Musicians[edit]

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

Non-notable article and I have found few appropriate sources to establish notability. The links here and here contain useful information but read like business directories and thus wouldn't be appropriate references. Additionally, there is a small mention here which also wouldn't be enough to support this article. I should note that I have searched with both Google US and Google UK and found nothing useful with both. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 26 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) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this article in the Independent helps establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG. There's a piece in Classical Music magazine about it joining the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, it has an affiliated group in Hackney, is mentioned on barbican.org.uk, visited the Aberdeen international youth festival and had its funding discussed in the House of Lords. -- Trevj (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' (Agent X song)[edit]

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

No indication of notability besides mere existence. The are some trivial mentions but significant coverage is required to meet WP:GNG. Till 06:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:31, 26 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) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable single and has no significant secondary independent reliable coverageCurb Chain (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lorber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Local councillor without any substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. The previous debate ended as a no consensus based on concerns over WP:POLOUTCOMES however that page states that "City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London." In this case however, Lorber is not part of the main citywide government of London, he is one of 63 in Brent, one of London's 32 boroughs. He also stood for parliament 3 times, but finished a distant third with around 10% of the vote thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. Other coverage consists of brief quotes in the local newspaper on local issues [19] thus failing WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The consensus (see WP:POLITICIAN) is that local councillors are NN, unless for other reasons. Nothing in the current biography suggests otherwise in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I'm amused that someone thought his membership of the National Trust was significant though... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalisia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A seemingly non-notable band. I can't find evidence that this band meets WP:BAND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 19 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is a good amount of reviews on webzines, mostly focused on their debut album Cybion, for example [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. By themselves they should be enough to satisfy notability, with the obvious caveats that their reliability is not entirely clear. At least metalreview.com states they have an editorial control, while u-zine.org and vs-webzine.com... kind of do; perhaps a French speaker could provide more insight on them. Still, the number of reviews together with the fact that their contents are unique (i.e. not simply regurgitating a press release, thus suggesting independence from the subject), is enough for me to think that an article is due, be it about the band or the album — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento em Telecomunicações[edit]

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

Non-notable article and there seems to be few sources of English or Portuguese. Additionally, the article provides little material appropriate for an encyclopedia. There is one mention here, one article here and one file claim here. I found few links with Google News Portuguese here. As the Portuguese Wikipedia article wasn't written any better, I believe the Portuguese article should be rewritten and translated after it has met notability guidelines. While I am not fluent with Portuguese, other users are free to search deeper. Although I have found several results with Google News archives Portuguese, I strongly believe the Portuguese article should be rewritten and translated when wikified. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:30, 26 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) 15:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established in either Portuguese or English versions of article. --Kvng (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG, LibStar (talk)

The result was redirect to Stutter Bunny. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McGowan[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources here, and there are a million Frank McGowan's in Scotland. Just because someone is in a notable band doesn't make them, themselves notable. It appears his bands are more notable than he - and him appearing on a few TV programs also doesn't make him notable.

For me, fails WP:GNG but perhaps I just lost steam researching him. SarahStierch (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Stutter Bunny with whom he has sourcability (but not enough for an independent article on him). The BAFTA Awards nomination[27] might be indicative of growing notability, but his career in film minimal enough to fail WP:ENT and WP:FILMMAKER.[28] Return only if and when his sourcable notablity meets inclusion criteria and, if that happens, the article will have to be purged of its promotional tone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing In Traffic Records[edit]

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

Non-notable music label. Their only group who appears to have charted seems to be Los Lonely Boys, who did win multiple grammy's, but well before their assoication with this music label. There appears to be little in-depth coverage that isn't an interview or read like a press release. PROD removed by creator with Removed proposed deletion. Playing In Traffic Records is the record label and management company for the Grammy award-winning, multi-platinum artist Los Lonely Boys, amongst other great artists. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:29, 26 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) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. No significant reliable 2ndary source coverage. References in article are not siginficant reliable 2ndary sources.Curb Chain (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Natural Chocolates[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable - of the three sources, only two work. Of them, the gourmetretailer.com is trivial, and the other is very unreliable. A search online doesn't seem to turn up anything of note. Bilby (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:Advertising and WP:Not a catalog. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the trivial and non-reliable nature of the cites provided, and could find nothing useful myself. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open a Door[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Deleted (via PROD) and re-created. GregJackP Boomer! 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable, unsourced. dci | TALK 04:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anca language[edit]

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

Unsourced, dubious language. No meaningful hits on gbooks or scholar. Cannot find an ISO language code for it. Note that Áncá language, which does have an ISO code [29], and currently redirects to Manta language is not the same thing. Áncá is an African language [30] whereas this article claims Anca to be a Latin cant spoken in Plzen. Spinning Spark 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally trust Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), but I literally cannot find a single citation anywhere online that is not obviously copied from us. Massive numbers of false positives, though, so I might've missed something. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami did it at the request Talk:Manta language#Anca, Czech Republic of the same editor who created the entry we're debating on Wiktionary. This edit certainly raises suspicions of a possible hoax. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be made verifiable.Citing (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single google.scholar hit - seems to be a hoax made by a language inventor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not alleging a hoax, only lack of notability. It was created by an editor in good standing and at least one other editor has expanded it. Spinning Spark 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is a hoax. It is very unlikely that a lanbauge with 100 speakers would exist in the heart of Europe and received zero attention from academic linguists. It is not at all unlikely that some language engineer would try to pass of his creation as real.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part about a Polish city developing a French/Spanish cant certainly would need some heavy explaining, not to mention the use of the letter Ç, which none of the local languages has, and the fact that it's used to represent a velar fricative, which would be unique among the languages of Europe. The alleged source languages and the local languages have ways of representing that sound- why would the speakers of this language use a letter everybody else uses for an s, ch or ts sound? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To confirm, this is indeed User:Farmadyll's baby, started at his request. I just copied my AfD notice onto his talk page. I have no idea what it is, or if it's real, which is why I tagged it for citation. As for the artlang in his sandbox, that is clearly presented as an artlang.

If we do delete, IMO it should be by reverting to the redirect (or by deleting and then moving the other rd here), since we usually accommodate diacritics that way. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is done then the link from cant (language) will need erasing entirely, rather than let a bot misdirect it. Spinning Spark 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From my poking around online, there appears to exist a Pilsen (or Plzen) dialect of Czech—but it is described everywhere as a dialect of Czech, not a Latin-based language. Would it make sense for someone who reads Czech to see if there is anything relevant on the Czech Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most large cities have their own dialect so that is not so significant. This debate started on Wiktionary concerning a specific word in the alleged lanbguage - they probably have a greater density of language experts and seem to be agreeing with this deletion. There is no entry for Anca on cs.wikipedia, the closest match is cs:Ančia, an article about a river which has Anča as an alternative spelling. Spinning Spark 06:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, then redirect the historyless page to Manta language. I disagree, however, with Spinningspark's assessment above, "I am not alleging a hoax, only lack of notability". Any verifiable natural language is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But this is almost certainly a hoax for the reason Maunus gave: even with very few speakers, there's no way a Latin-based cant in the middle of Europe would have gone unnoticed and unreported-on by linguists. Angr (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for verification#Çetler. Spinning Spark 06:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially OR, subject to re-creation when reliable sources can be located. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert di Sousa[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable unsourced blp--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is written in Portuguese. Anyone who does not understand Portuguese may want to view a Google translation of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd34 (talk • contribs)
Delete, not notable, no real claim to notability. Username also suggests an autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Menz[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; this player has not received significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG, and he has never played in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Hooray at the level of participation by the way. – Kosm1 fent 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bark Bark Bark[edit]

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

Band is by no means notable. No sources on article. No notable members going to other projects. Reliant article like Haunts (album) should be deleted as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "cut and paste" band? Non-notable. Wandering Courier (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this band in reliable sources; only social networking sites (e.g., YouTube, MySpace, last.fm, Vimeo) and the record label's site. This band does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 01:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band is notable because of the coverage it has received, e.g. (Allmusic, Stereogum) and because the band's only member (Jacob Cooper/Safari) is/has been a member of two other notable bands (The Mae Shi and Wavves). Deleting because it's described as a "cut and paste" band would be ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources aside from two random album reviews that show the band is notable?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as a non-random review then? They're just reviews. The band is basically one person, who by our accepted notability criteria is notable via his membership of at least two notable bands, in addition to coverage of his other work. I would suggest that we have one article about Jacob Cooper that includes details of this project and his membership of the three other notable bands that he is in/has been in (The Mae Shi, Wavves, and Signals).--Michig (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The man is not notable on his own, though. He's only notable as a member of other groups? It doesn't make this solo project notable by any means then.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from "delete") and rename to Jacob Cooper (or Jacob Safari) as per Michig's suggestion. Cooper meets criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO as a member of two or more independently notable bands, and he meets criterion 1 of MUSICBIO (and WP:GNG) with the Bark Bark Bark coverage at Allmusic and Stereogum; plus there's this Exclaim! article which reports on Cooper's reaction to the Mae Shi breakup, and this LA Weekly article which discusses one of his remixes. Gongshow ^Talk 06:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO per Michig and Gongshow. — sparklism ^hey! 07:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig and Gongshow, it meets WP:BAND. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC satisfied by evidence presented in this discussion. Chubbles (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Johns Creek, Georgia. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Creek[edit]

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

The stream is of negligible importance compared to the city of 76,728 with a per capita income of $66,000. A simple hatnote will suffice. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Speedy Keep - The nom accidentally AfD'd the disambiguation page. He needs to nominate specifically the page he feels should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page is the one getting deleted right? What should I have done? I don't know anywhere else that it would get much discussion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are two existing "Johns Creek" articles, then it is appropriate to have a dab page for it as that is the search term. If you'd like one of the articles to be deleted, then AfD that specific one. If you think both articles should be deleted, then AfD both of them, but in separate AfDs as they are two separate types of topics (one a town, the other a geographical feature). --Oakshade (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I understand correctly, Marcus Qwertyus isn't proposing to delete either of the articles. As such, I don't think deletion is appropriate or necessary here: assuming Marcus is right, then Johns Creek should redirect to Johns Creek, Georgia, adding a hatnote to that article pointing to Johns Creek (Chattahoochee River). It seems to me this could be accomplished by editing, without any need for an AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The intended outcome is for Johns Creek to redirect to the city without deletion. I just don't think RfD or any other processes are appropriate here. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as nom isn't actually proposing that an article get deleted, what he wants is a WP:RM. Bizarre. Giant Snowman 11:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Johns Creek, GA isn't getting moved any time soon. It should be like how Nashville redirects to Nashville, TN. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think what some voting keep are suggesting is that no deletion is needed to change the page into a redirect. older ≠ wiser 12:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to redirect to city article: I think this is what the nominator wants, and if it weren't for the AfD template I'd just go ahead and boldly do it. WP:SNOW perhaps? I've already put the hatnote in place on the city article, although it's not yet accurate! (I've also created a redirect from John's Creek, for readers who know their grammar but not the spelling of the town name!) PamD 13:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an AfD matter, nor an RM: it's a discussion of whether the city is, or is not, the primary usage of the undisambiguated term. The nominator thinks so, and from the evidence I'd agree. So if consensus is that the city is the primary usage, then the base term needs to redirect to the city - which, by US convention (?) is at the disambiguated name of Johns Creek, Georgia. Another approach would be to move the city article to plain Johns Creek (in which case, simplify the hatnote). PamD 13:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a move or a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurgen Margaryan[edit]

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

The noteworthy element of this story is the extradition and pardoning of Safarov, no the life of Margaryan. Keep as a redirect by all means, but article unnecessary, and biography thoroughly unremarkable. Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a request to move the article of the killer to Murder of Gurgen Margaryan, as none of similar cases (see Afula axe attack and Bat Ayin axe attack) are called by the name of the perpetrator. I am strongly opposed to deleting the content about Gurgen Margaryan, but I find merging the two articles and saving the contents as such acceptable. Chaojoker (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before the repatriation and pardoning, I could have agreed with both articles being merged there: I think events have overtaken that, and that Margaryan is an incidental victim to the main story. Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have seen artivles with less importance, and the death of this soldier is quite known nowadays in our region. -Eino81 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before the extradition, Margaryan was still remembered as the victim and I think it would be best to keep these two articles (the victim and the perpetrator) in tandem, rather than merging them into a single article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MrArmJack (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote: do you wish to present a reason for keeping it? Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move merge with Murder of Gurgen Margaryan--Yerevanci (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur - move to Murder of Gurgen Margaryan. DS (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:1E. Note: not a single valid argument has been presented in favor of keeping the article. The arguments in the first two "Keep" entries are basically WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:MEMORIAL, respectively. GregorB (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move/merge into Murder of Gurgen Margaryan (or an equivalent article). Let me clarify my position: the event is notable, but none of the people involved in it are (except for their involvement in it). Not surprisingly, the two articles are bound to have 90% overlap, and that does not make sense. GregorB (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Obviously, the killing is the main story, not the extradition and pardon. The man was killed during fulfilling his official function. Also, the incident is throroughly motivated by politics and relations between two countries. So I don't see why it should be deleted. There might be reason to join the victim and killer articles, but I am not sure which is the 'main' one. I guess many killings have two articles - one about the victim and one about the killer. --Sasper (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person is only notable for being murdered, and all the relevant information is already mentioned in Ramil Safarov. Parishan (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Same reasoning can be applied to delete Ramil Safarov and keep this one. George Spurlin (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as enough notable especially after the last developments. Google has about 50000 answers only for one spelling of his name. OptimusView (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging of the articles will create a $#!* storm between the Armenian and Azerbaijani users. Both individuals have become famous after the heinous murder and both deserve their own articles. George Spurlin (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe the extradition and the pardon warrants a merger of the killer's and the victims articles. Ongoing events can easily be incorporated into each respective article and it's not like this is the end of it. Wiki is not a memorial but there are plenty of articles dedicated to victims. I would support a merger if there were multiple victims but since there is only one there's no need for an article for the actual murder.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to clarify one more thing, while there is significant overlap between both articles I would argue that readers would be interested to learn about biographical data outside of the scope of the murder, that although not notable in itself, is interesting nonetheless. For example the murderer is an 8th grade dropout while the victim was an engineer.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As his murder is a starting point of an international dispute. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and modify article as Murder of Gurgen Margaryan. The subject falls under WP:BLP1E, and fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER. That being said his death is clearly notable and passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, & WP:EFFECT; therefore the article should focus on the subject's death (as it already does), and not the subject himself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is encyclopedic and Gurgen Margaryan is a notable person.--Reality 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gurgen is important to Wikipedia.Nocturnal781 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His murder and the release of his murderer (and his condecoration by the Azeri president) has become an international scandal and a rupture of the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, so it is more than notable. It should be kept. --JewBask (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:Sasper's ideas. --Esc2003 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content should definitely be kept, as Margaryan is the victim of an internationally known crime case. As stated above, if the Ramil Safarov article would be moved to Murder of Gurgen Margaryan or Budapest axe attack (such as the articles Afula axe attack and Bat Ayin axe attack which are not called by the criminal's name), I might agree to merging the two, though in that case I'd have to agree with user George Spurlin, which makes keeping this article a definite yes. Chaojoker (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep- this case is a major international incident and the victim should be at the center of such cases V. Joe (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I am opposed to deleting this Article. ►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 04:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Carmona[edit]

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

As always, a promising young footballer who did not make any professional appearances yet. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Luxic (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No professional appearances yet, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Although there are multiple independent sources mentioning his name, most of them are merely trivial mentions that fail WP:GNG. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Luxic (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Parcel Service hubs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is simply a list of business locations that handle packages. These are not "hubs" and the vast, vast majority of them are simply not notable. It is a directory, which clearly falls under WP:NOT. It is similar to listing every McDonalds restaurant or every bus stop in New York City. Major facilities (like UPS WorldPort) can be listed on the UPS page and the other simply do not need to be mentioned, let alone mentioning internal coding or naming for each location. Note that it was prodded way back in 2006. Ravendrop 07:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If you can source that any of these are major employers for particular localities, that might be worth mentioning in those localities' articles. Or if any of these are particularly significant to UPS operations, such as processing the most packages, the oldest, whatever, that could be mentioned in the UPS article. But otherwise this info should at most just be summarized in the aggregate in the main article, like "UPS maintains [###] hubs across all 50 states" or whatever. Listing out all of them like this does seem to me like an indiscriminate business directory. Not quite as indiscminate as listing McDonald's franchises, but still not encyclopedic.postdlf (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In its present state, the article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That being said, there are sources available about various UPS service hubs that could be used to source/rewrite this article, create an addition to the main UPS article, to create a new standalone article about UPS Service hubs themselves, if the main article would become too long with inclusion of the information. Here's an example source search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bub, but NOT trumps NOTE p b p 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you're saying here. A section that goes into some detail about UPS hubs actually exists in the main UPS article, located here: United Parcel Service#System design, and reliable sources about UPS hubs are readily available. My comment is simply a note that a rewrite in encyclopedic style could occur, based upon reliable sources. This could possibly occur in this article (possibly along with a renaming of the title), the UPS article or in a new article titled United Parcel Service hubs. Perhaps I'll spend some time updating and improving the section in the main UPS article about their hubs, or consider creating a new standalone article, when I have the time. Cheers! Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:DIRECTORY. This is way beyond what we should have on WP. We should stick to our knitting and try and make things easier for editors . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge: per not-directory. We don't need a list of all the establishments of a given company p b p 01:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indiscriminate directory of non-notable items. Of no possible encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article fails WP:DIRECTORY in its present state, and would require an entire rewrite and name change to exist in encyclopedic style. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Civic Culture[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Curb Chain (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not quite finished looking for sources, partially because there's just so many of them. From what I've discovered, this book is quite heavily discussed in political science classes at multiple levels of education, so it easily passes part 4 of WP:NBOOK and by extension, part 1. If anyone coming in after this is a poli-sci wiz, I'd appreciate someone with a little more experience in the subject adding to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or nom should be withdrawn. Also, should have PRODed first. Meets #1 WP:NBOOK. See reflist. See also multiple reviews, and scholarly coverage and citations of it. --Lexein (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no big worries. The initial state of the article was pretty bad and this did get the article some much needed TLC.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Pottenger[edit]

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

This article is about a pairs figure skater for which I cannot find significant coverage; only results reports from competitions. Looking at WP:NSKATE, I don't see that any of the criteria to establish notability are satisfied. He has competed in only one senior event (US Champs) finishing 11th. All other competitions are novice and junior, and none of those are the Junior World Championships. Whpq (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 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) 03:25, 26 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as nominiationCurb Chain (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NAG.TV Media Oakland[edit]

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

could not find any references for this group, and none exist so far. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged as un-notable and unreferenced for almost a year, without progress. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 19 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) 03:21, 26 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Skylar Grey. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Dark:Thirty EP[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NMUSIC, the guideline for notability on music-related articles. While the artist themselves are notable, the information in the article isn't. Simply listing a tracklisting which is taken from a primary source does not warrant a seperate and individual article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 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) 03:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey. A good review here, but the source might be too local, and I can't find anything else but listings and a handful of forum posts — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I came across a few passing mentions like this one but I'm not finding enough significant coverage for the EP to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Skylar Grey. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Buried Sessions of Skylar Grey[edit]

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

While the artist might be notable, and the songs covered are notable in their own right, this article is not notable. The subject did not recieve any chart information and beyond a track listing there is no sustainable information. this could be easily written in two sentences on the artist's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 19 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) 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey. Apart from a few sites giving a tracklist and what's in the album, a Google Search returned little to no significant discussion from reliable sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While there isn't much in terms of critical coverage post-release, which may be in part because the EP consists of three mainstream songs that have been reviewed separately elsewhere, I find the available coverage to be enough to satisfy notability (see [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). Note that I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, I just doubt that the parent article it is the best place to deliver this information, as limited as it may be — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Skylar Grey. As said by Frankie above. Not enough information on the article. It may need some expansion. Bleubeatle (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Skylar Grey. When there is no new information present, the article can be restored as a stand alone. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invinsible[edit]

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

The article is lacking in depth that warrants an individual page per WP:NMUSIC. Unfortunately the album has no confirmed release date, nor does it have a confirmed completion. The subject has been quiet in nearly a full year and actually when looking at the sourcing there's few sources: one youtube video, an LA times article and a press release - the latter of which is not really an independent source. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 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) 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I considered suggesting to temporarily incubate and merge/redirect, but there is a really significant amount of ongoing coverage available, dating from one year ago, and with that level of expectation together with the question of when it will be released (if ever; this interview is the latest I could find about it. The short answer: no date yet), I think that the reader is better served by the article as it stands now than by a simple mention at the parent article — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey. There is potential to beef up the article with sources like these [37][38][39][40][41], but over the past couple months there does not appear to be new information on this upcoming release. This info might best belong in the artist's main article for now, at least until the track listing and release date are confirmed. Gongshow ^Talk 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skylar Grey. I agree with Gongshow that this material best belongs in the artist's article until we have a release date and a track listing. We can always split it back out again when it looks a little bit more like an actual album and a little bit less like speculation. And it's not as if the artist article is particularly long, so I don't think space will be an issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StarTech.com[edit]

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

Promotional, fails NPOV and mainly relies of primary sources afiliated with the subject TheChampionMan1234 02:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. While the current version is promotional, it is salvageable, and notability doesn't seem to be an issue. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 4 references, 3 are newspaper articles. I do not see how most of the sources used to write this article are affiliated to the subject. The content and headlines used in this article are very similar to the content and headlines used in articles of other technology companies such as Apple Inc., Dell and Belkin. Obviously, there is less information available about StarTech.com as it is a much smaller company. -- Copypasteguru - timed 11:28pm, 1 September (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copypasteguru (talk • contribs)
Keep - while large parts of the article are unsourced, or sourced by primary sources, the two non primary references, and other sources such as this and this help establish notability. NB: This was originally tagged as a G11 speedy but declined. Also deleting based on NPOV is only valid if removing every non neutral statement from the article would leave it blank. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been copy edited to eliminate promotional tone, and has also been cleaned-up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Woodroffe[edit]

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

No sources. Minor roles in few movies. BennyXavier (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only minor impact on the movie scene - fails WP:NACTOR. Dolphin (t) 01:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly referenced and no evidence to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Crooked Codpiece Company[edit]

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

Non-notable group and there seems to be few sources to establish notability. The links I found here, here and here focus with a play rather than the company itself. There is a brief mention of the company here. Aside from these links, there appears to be little coverage to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some local coverage is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 21 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:33, 25 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telltale (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF: an unreleased short film that has no reliable sources. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 01:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Film has not yet been released and we lack any reliable sources speaking toward it or its filmmaker. Allow back when it receives coverage enough to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP: NFF. According to Wikipedia policy, all information that could possibly be challenged needs to be sourced, and the plot isn't sources, which brings WP: CRYSTALBALL into the picture. Electric Catfish 14:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FILMPLOT, plots generally do not require sourcing... but as we do not have ANY reliable sources speaking about this film, the issue is less about CRYSTAL and more about lack of any verifiability. However, searches DO show the filmmaker Venkatram Harish Belvadi to be a photographer and creater of minor films... so this may (or may not) be sourcable when finally released. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hall (lawyer)[edit]

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

WP:BIO, WP:NOT - Notable? No valuable sources PeterWesco (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Friends of Animals is notable but I don't think that being their legal director is enough on its own. I found some press stories quoting her in that role, but they said nothing nontrivial about her, so there is no sign of WP:GNG notability. Academic impact seems low, or maybe this is just an area that the tools I usually use to test that are bad at, but it doesn't matter, either way it means there's no evidence of notability there. And I can't find enough mainstream attention to her books for her to be notable that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 29 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (1) Hall has not been a scholar or professor at Vermont Law School, contrary to the implication in the article; she only spoke at a symposium there, and I find no evidence online that she taught as a tenured professor at Rutgers, the catalog listing her as an adjunct, thus the subject fails the professor test, and (2) also fails my test for notable lawyers. Perhaps the subject may become notable in the future, but is not yet there. Right now, this page is merely a resume of an up and coming lawyer. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WeiweiCam[edit]

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

The website for that this article describes was only active for 46 hours, and was used for the sole purpose to publicize a dispute with the government. The few facts in this article can be merged into the biographical article Ai Weiwei. Senator2029 • talk 20:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Not independently notable of Ai Weiwei. Content best handled by merge. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I distinctly remember this from AFD before, but see no record of it in the article. Weird. Maybe there were multiple articles. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article should be kept as is. This is a specific project that is separate from the artist's page. It would be no different some other well known artwork having a page like other notable artists. For example Damian Hirst created The_Physical_Impossibility_of_Death_in_the_Mind_of_Someone_Living. Jon Phillips (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It looks like an art work. Shouldn't be measured(?) by duration.--王小朋友 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Weiweicam is a notable artwork by Ai Weiwei. Along with Sunflower Seeds, it is one of the artist's most-discussed works to date. It deserves its own article. Christopher Lee Adams (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found two more references for the article, April 15, 2012 Daily News & Analysis and Globe and Mail May 29, 2012. With the sources in the article, meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite having a short life, WeiweiCam received over 5 million views. Many significant artworks have a limited duration, but few become as popular. WeiweiCam is a critical turn for both the artist and art history, the ramifications of which are still being sorted out. It deserves its own article. Ozarkshark (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Mall[edit]

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

Partial title match. Neither mall is called just "The Great Mall", nor does either seem to be commonly abbreviated to "Great Mall" in parlance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get different search results. As to the Great Mall of the Bay Area in Milpitas, the first sentence of the lede states that it is often called "Great Mall", the official website uses the short name[42], the sign in the infobox photo uses the short name, and Google searches[43] seem to reflect any number of sources that just call it the "Great Mall", e.g.[44][45]. On the other hand, The Great Mall of the Great Plains in Olathe appears to be more consistently referred to by its full name, but the short form does appear to get occasional use, such as in the headline of this story[46].--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. There are indications these may be known by the shortened name. I'd be fine with changing this to redirect to the bay area mall as primary topic with a hatnote to the great plains mall. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of "Great Mall" being used as a shorthand for the The Great Mall of the Great Plains [47], but I agree that the Bay Area mall would be the more appropriate redirect target if we use that solution. We also have existing articles for Great Mall of Las Vegas (never built, but well-sourced) and Great Mall / Main Transit Center. For completeness I'd also note that there are also at least a couple of malls commonly known as the "Great Mall of China": Beijing's Golden Resources Mall, the infamously vacant New South China Mall in Dongguan, and San Gabriel Square (no article yet, but the nickname is well-known and is mentioned in the San Gabriel, California article.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a logical search term. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plausible search term. Dough 48 72 04:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GroundWork, Inc[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. "Unecyclopaedic". It is referenced but it is way below what we should have on WP in terms of articles about companies. It is essentially spam by stealth and confers the company an unfair commercial advantage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep What a worthless article - it says absolutely nothing. But the sources look marginally qualifying for wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan Liefting, though I wouldn't state that references are of no concern – the only source that could be considered reliable is a ZDNet-hosted blog. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]