< 2 September	4 September >

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acantelys[edit]

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

Very difficult to tell what the article is about, only one external link, no references, I doubt it meets WP:GNG, but not having enough substance in the article it would be hard to know what to look for. This needs major expansion and clarification. Otherwise, I'd vote to delete it. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? (Delete) - would suggest it almost qualifies for speedy ((db-nonsense)). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under ((db-g11)). This article serves no purpose other than to promote the subject, Acantelys Research Group. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion, but it was contested and removed by an admin and if I prodded it the creator would've removed it so I just streamlined it knowing there'd be overwhelming support to delete here. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense - I don't think it will be a struggle to get consensus on this one. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a private research group in Venezuela from what I an gather. They have presented a bunch of ppaers seems to be the claim for notability. I see no coverage about this group in reliable sources, and a google scholar search doesn't indicate that they have made much of a research impact. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - EL at the top of the page followed by promotional copypasta. – MrX 02:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRAAAAAINS![edit]

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

Non-notable card game which was apparently made available only a few days ago.^{[dead link]} There are no hits for "BRAAAAAINS!" "top media studios" on Google Books, News, or News archives, and the article was created by an account controlled by the game's publisher, Top Media Studios. CtP (t • c) 23:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N. After some searching, not finding any coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree entirely with Northamerica1000; fails WP:N spectacularly. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable new gaaaaaaaaaaame! Carrite (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and even BGG doesn't really have anything [1]. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, per nom, per not being notableCurb Chain (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Unreferenced and unencyclopedic in tone. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:01, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. No other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 04:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Harris (cornerback)[edit]

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

another player who had a page created largely due to potential NFL prospects, having been cut, he fails WP:NSPORTS and again, do legal troubles, an ESPN player card (that every NCAA player in the known universe has), and a recruiting page really allow him to pass WP:GNG or WP:ROTM? Go Phightins! (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a consensus All-American in 2010. That certainly makes him notable enough to have a page.--Yankees10 00:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: one, nearly a hundred different players are named All-Americans per year and not all have pages: by my count, 10 All-Americans from 2011 and 4 from 2010 don't have a Wikipedia page. Harris was an All-American, not at his primary position, but at kick returner, which though an accomplishment, is not as high as if he were an A-A as a QB in my book. and two do any policies (e.g., WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG, WP:ROTM, etc.) say that being named an All-American satisfies notability requirements? Seeing that just since 1990 thousands of players have been named All-Americans, and probably only half (these are just guesses) have Wikipedia pages, I just can't see that that is an end-all way to establish notability without additional sources and media coverage. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, my mistake. After re-reading the college athlete section and looking at the college football awards section, I see that being on an All America team is considered a major award. With that in mind, I withdraw my nomination because he meets WP:NSPORTS and therefore is deemed notable. Thanks for that comment, I didn't notice that he was on an All-America team prior to nominating. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed. Consensus all-Americans shows evidence of passing WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus All-American player. And a search of google news archive for ("Cliff Harris" Oregon) turns up over 1,000 hits including substantial coverage about Harris in national media outlets like ESPN.com and USA Today. Cbl62 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above by Yankees10, Paul McD and Cbl62, Harris was a consensus first-team All-American in 2010. In order the be recognized as a consensus All-American by the NCAA, the athlete must have been chosen as a first-team selection by a majority of the five major selector organizations: the Associated Press, American Football Coaches Association, Football Writers Association of America, The Sporting News, and the Walter Camp Football Foundation. This is not the equivalent of being named an honorable mention All-American by the Muncie Mullet-Wrapper; contrary to the nominator's comments, consensus All-American recognition really is a big deal and it is considered to be a major national award in college football. Typically, 20 to 25 college football players are recognized as consensus All-Americans following each season--one for each defensive and offensive position, plus kickers. Harris' notability is well-established by significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donte Paige-Moss[edit]

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

Fringe notability: fails WP:NSPORTS...I see how a case can be made that the articles about how he was a great prospect and his legal troubles allow him to pass WP:GNG, but I just don't think he quite clears it. I suppose that would be the purpose of the discussion. Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. College football players who receive significant non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources pass WP:GNG. If they receive such coverage in national media outlets, they also pass WP:NCOLLATH. Although either one suffices, Paige-Moss appears to have received enough coverage to pass both standards. He also played at the highest level of the college sport at North Carolina where he was named in 2011 to the watchlists for three of the most prestigious defenseive awards: Hendricks Award, Nagurski Award and Bednarik Award.[2] [3] Examples of coverage include: (1) Jacksonville Daily News, (2) ESPN, (3) CBS Sports, (4) The Sporting News, (5) Fox Sports, (6) Fox News, (7) Charlotte Observer, (8) Charlotte News Observer, (9) Greensboro News & Record, (10) The Herald Sun, (11) Jacksonville Daily News, (12) The Herald Sun, (13) WCHL, (14) WCHL, (15) Mocking the Draft. Cbl62 (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these located in the article? Go Phightins! (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG. References should be added to the article, but that's an editing issue not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | converse _ 16:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creepers (song)[edit]

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

Not a single or song charted and released. Not even confirmed SrGangsta (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the song appears to have received little coverage aside from this Vancouver Sun article and the sources confirming the tracklist at the album's page. I haven't found any evidence confirming that the song has charted. This may be a case of Wikipedia:TOOSOON. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant chart position, no significant sales, no awards, no gold/platinum certification...pretty much WP:NN. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abd (Arabic)[edit]

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

Article is a complete violation of Wikipedia's policy of not being a dictionary (another user even said that on the talk page back in December and the three references all say "dictionary"). Nothing in it is verifiable. Even if there is something encyclopedic about this "Abd" term, it is an Arabic word, not an English one, so it belongs in the Arabic version of Wikipedia, not this one. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable as a popular given name; I came across it through List of most popular given names (currently #4 for Muslim Israelis), where many if not most of the names listed have their own article. It should be moved to Abd (given name), though, and the "slave" stuff needs scrutiny. --JaGa^talk 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

The "slave stuff" is dealt with in the Abeed article, which is well referenced.
I don't believe that Abd does exist as an independent name; the mention in List of most popular given names is not sourced there, and is probably a misunderstanding based on the occurrence of (very common) names like Abd al-Rahman, which is a single name even though in transliteration it may be written using one, two or three words. So the suggested move would not be appropriate.
This article is a bit of a mess. There is overlap with Abdul and with List of Arabic theophoric names
'-B-D is a Semitic triconsonantal root that is an element of a large number of Arabic personal names, and quite a few Hebrew ones. One could use that as the starting-point of an article as is done with S-L-M for instance. Whether or not that is done, there needs to be an article that deals with the root well enough to create a focus for existing articles like Abdul, Abdu, Abdi, Abeed, Abid, Abida, Abidi, Ibadah etc. Possibly some of them could be merged in here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Hoffman[edit]

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

Autobiography with no evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR; claims of notability are sourced only by her own blogs and the blog of another crime blogger of unknown notability; can't find any WP:Reliable sources online showing notability. Lone boatman (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lone boatman (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Lone boatman (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lone boatman (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The novels are self-published, the blog is self-published, and everything I found is non-reliable social media by other self-published writers. And the original contribution seems to be autobiography with the accompanying WP:COI issues. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources provided are either self-published blogs or websites of questionable reliability, such as WordPress. I am not convinced that the subject passes the minimum standards for biographical notability. Super Mario Man 21:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:RESUME where the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this clear instance of WP:ADVERT per the policies in WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is clearly created as self-promotion by the author, as are most of the references. It violates WP:SPAM,WP:GNG, and WP:BK. This belongs on Facebook, not Wikipedia.StopYourBull (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsei Hapkido[edit]

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

The article's only source is the organization's home page. There is nothing in the article that shows notability, such as meeting WP:MANOTE. Article is also partly written like an editorial and uses plenty of peacock terms. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and has no independent sources. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no supported claims of notability and I found no significant coverage in any independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanmantrao R Gaikwad[edit]

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

As evident from the article creater's name, the article falls under WP:PROMOTION and should therefore be considered for deletion. Sesamevoila (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either 'innocent' self promotion or abuse-in-disguise. Could we speedy this? Austria156 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - as per nomination. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Lecture Fund[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article is partly promotional, partly an organizational directory, partly a list of past accomplishments. This fund has brought speakers to campus--great. That does not make it a notable organization by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perusing Wikipedia's records of similar articles for student organizations of equal and even lesser relative importance at Georgetown (Georgetown University Student Association, Georgetown University Improv Association) I can find no standard rule for when an article of this nature should be retained and when it should be retained. The Georgetown Improv Association's page has repeatedly been submitted as a candidate for deletion, but insofar continues as a fully functional Wikipedia article. Rather than delete this article, Wikipedia as a whole would be much more constructively served by editing for improvement, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater despite past precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortillaflat (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please do not delete this page. Students at Georgetown University desired more transparency on how Lecture Fund operates and what it has been doing. That is why this Wikipedia page has been made and that is the sole purpose for why it has been been maintained. Deleting this page will set back Georgetown University's efforts to increase transparency between it and the students it aims to serve. Thom-293 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page (quoting Thom-293). Begging for mercy is not a good argument. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, please see WP:MERCY. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Georgetown University. First let me say that we're not a platform for any sort of transparency. Just as we're not a forum for someone to push personal viewpoints, we're also not a forum for someone to use to show transparency or the lack thereof. If I may be so blunt, I'm not sure what transparency could be gained if the entire entry has been created by someone involved with the group. If all it takes to show transparency is an entry on a non-GU website, then I fail to see why this couldn't have been set up on some random wiki site that's not Wikipedia. As far as notability goes, there's nothing here to show that this fund has any notability separate from Georgetown University. There's plenty of mentions of the fund in relation to other things, but it hasn't been the focus of any substantial and in-depth coverage from any paper/news agency other than some of the school papers. That's not enough. Since redirects are cheap and the fund is briefly mentioned in the GU article, this could be redirected there but it does not at this time pass notability guidelines in order to merit an article. But like I said above, we're not some forum to prove one thing or another to any audience. We collect things that are notable per our guidelines. If the fund was notable outside of its association with GU then it'd merit it's own article, but it's not and we're not a personal website to post various promotional bits on. Arguments such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PLEASEDONT, and any variation of promotion is not what Wikipedia is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Thom-293. He's basically saying this is a blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- BenTels (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Keep~~: As I've iterated before, the Lecture Fund by no means is using this page as a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site. I was updating outdated information on the page in my last edits. Like other Wikipedia pages, the Lecture Fund wikipedia page serves to give a summary of what the Lecture Fund is and what the Lecture Fund has been in the past to students in the Georgetown community and beyond. Lecture Fund has its own website that the group directs students to for promotional purposes on campus (lecturefund.georgetown.edu). To say that the Lecture Fund is not notable outside of the Georgetown community is also misguided. While the Lecture Fund isn't a well known speaker agency like William Morris Entertainment or CAA Speakers, it is featured in media each year. Below is a list of links to confirm:

Perhaps the Wikipedia community could make suggestions as to how we might change the Lecture Fund page for the better, but I feel as though the Lecture Fund page does not merit a deletion. Everything is carefully referenced and sourced, and the page fits in line with other Georgetown organization Wikipedia pages. Thom-293 (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with many of those links is that while the fund is mentioned, it is not the focus of the article. Brief mentions do not count towards notability. Other links go to blogs and various sources that can't be used as a reliable source, such as the Blogspot blog. You need sources that actually talk about the fund in-depth rather than mention it was one of several groups that put on a program. That doesn't count towards notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a long run-down of the sources on the article:

Sources 1- 21 are either primary sources or link to non-notable blogs. Primary sources can never show notability for the subject. At most they can only back up trivial claims and that's assuming that there are multiple independent and reliable in-depth sources about the subject. The Hoya is a student newspaper for the college. That pretty much makes it a primary source as well since it's associated. At the very least it makes it a dubious source for the same reason. The Vox Populi blog is not usable as a reliable source. Blogs are unusable as a reliable source for the most part because unless they're written by someone considered to be an absolute authority, the blogs aren't able to be used. By "authority" I mean that they pretty much have to be an established source or person to the point where they're considered notable in themselves.
Source 22 is the group's facebook page. Facebook is not usable as a RS. Even if it was, again it's a primary source.
Sources 23 & 24 suffer the same issues as 1-21, being the student paper and an unusable blog
Source 25 doesn't even mention the fund. It's an article about a lecture that was held at the college. Even though the fund helped set up the lecture, that doesn't extend notability to the fund.
Sources 26-38 either don't mention the fund or mention it so briefly that it can't even come close to showing notability. Being briefly quoted does not show notability. And again, having a notable speaker does not give notability to the group that helps fund the appearances.
Sources 39-40 are primary sources.
Sources 41- 43 are another student newspaper and suffer the same issues as the Hoya.
Sources 44, 45 are the same non-notable blog, Vox Populi.
Source 46 doesn't mention the group at all.
Sources 47-49 are by the student newspaper. See above.
Sources 50, 51 is just a routine notice of a lecture. This never shows notability in any format.
Sources 52 is a non-notable blog.
Source 53 [4] does include more information about the group, but the group is not the focus of the article and the information isn't in depth enough to really show notability.
Sources 54-64 consist of another notification of an event, more student newspaper coverage, a source that is 100% primary, and a non-notable blog entry.

Bluntly put, none of these can even come close to showing notability. The Cnsnews.com article is the only one that's somewhat usable and I wouldn't say it is in-depth enough to give notability and we need multiple independent and reliable sources that focus on the Fund in-depth. You just don't have those here and I want to repeat that helping to put on lectures with notable people does not give notability. That notability is not inherited by association with these people.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you know, linking to tons of articles does not make the article seem more valid and is just citation overkill that serves no purpose because it still won't show notability. A thousand brief mentions in various reliable sources does not show notability. It just cements that the Fund should be mentioned in the GU article and this used as a redirect. Also... are you related or involved with the fund in any way? There's no rule that says that you can't edit if you have a conflict of interest, but it is discouraged because it's so easy to see notability where it doesn't exist and can lead to some complications. Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Comment~~Keep~~: As soon as she started, Tokyogirl79 was clearly on a mision to eliminate every single source just to make a point. Please see the links I posted previously in this conversation as well. Lecture Fund may not have a piece written about it in the Times (was that what Tokyogirl79 was looking for?), but I don't think credibility is an issue. Last I checked, Lecture Fund has a lot more sources than most university organization wikipedia pages to establish notability. The number of sources alone that mention the Lecture Fund and its work should make it clear that Lecture Fund is notable beyond just Georgetown. For the record, I am not a representative of Lecture Fund. I am a member of the speech and expression committee at Georgetown which governs Georgetown's free speech policy on campus. Thom-293 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote twice. It does not count as two votes. As for the sources in you've listed here (some of which are the same ones in the article), none of those show notability either. I don't know how many times I can state this, but being briefly or trivially mentioned in any number of sources will not show notability, no matter how many there are. The sources above either don't mention the group in-depth. Some don't really even mention it at all. Again, just because the group has helped set up lectures that might be notable or people that might be notable does not mean that the fund itself is notable. I don't have a vendetta against the group. I just don't think that an article should be kept because your university wants to use Wikipedia as a website to promote a fund and because you feel that it could be "useful" to have it on here. That is NOT what Wikipedia is for and notability must be established through several reliable sources (none of the blogs you've listed have shown notability) that actually focus on the fund. That there aren't any funds shows that it's not notable outside of the confines of the university and does not deserve an article on Wikipedia at this time, if ever. There's no actual depth of coverage here, just passing mentions. No matter how many brief and trivial mentions you try to stack onto the article, this won't change the fact that this fund has not received any in-depth and reliable coverage about the fund itself. And yes, an article about the fund in the Times would actually be a good start towards notability. But we'd need more than one source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, promptly after stating that she has no vendetta, Tokyogirl79 fully explained her vendetta against this group. Futhermore, in what can only seem to be a strategy to damage my reputation on Wikipedia in any way she can, Tokyogirl79 filed a complaint on my user talk page stating that I was engaging in "conflict of interest" practices despite the fact that I am not a member of Lecture Fund in any way. The user did this right after an attempt at trying to shoot down my case. I don't need to be a Wikipedia admin to know that Wikipedia has done many good things for society both on purpose and inadvertantly. My goal was to update a page to give a bettter summary of what the Lecture Fund is and what the Lecture Fund has been in the past to students in the Georgetown community and beyond. While the Lecture Fund page may deserve more editing, I don't believe a deletion is warranted. Thom-293 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sighs) I'm bringing this up to the admin board. I do not have a vendetta. Regardless of how good your intentions are, you are creating a page for a college that you attend and as far as your purposes go, your edits could still be considered a conflict of interest since you are involved with a group that is directly or indirectly involved with the fund. You yourself have stated that you started this because you wanted there to be "more transparency" for the fund, which ultimately boils down to you adding a page because your organization wants more information out there about a fund that is run through your school. This does not mean that you cannot edit, just that you need to be careful because you could be (and are) seeing notability where there is none. A COI does not mean that you have to be a member of the fund. You can have a conflict of interest if you are a student at the school, someone who is part of a group run through the same school that wants to add an article, etc. Even if you had zero ties to the school or the group, the bottom line is that there is no in-depth coverage of the article in any reliable sources. No matter how much you might personally want this article to exist or how useful you think it might be to the students of your school, that does not exempt it from notability policies.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so anyone coming in knows, this is not decided on a vote. This is ultimately decided based upon the arguments for notability that follow notability guidelines. I encourage all new users to check out WP:NOT as far as what is not usable as an argument for inclusion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability of the subject cannot be established from sources. I've just cut out a bulk of the article which was sourced to various parts of the Georgetown.edu website that listed everyone who has ever been paid to speak at the university, and that seems to have cut out practically all of the "reliable sources" utilized on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected, most of the sources used on the page are in no way independent of the subject. There are also several sources used which do not even remotely mention the Lecture Fund in the article. Also the bolding of buzzworthy names in the section I've since removed is particularly telling that this is not a notable group.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Seems like Ryulong deleted the entire page so I guess the damage is already done. Please look at the previous edits to judge the validity of the page (and the sources that Tokyogirl79 disputed) since that was the page in question when we were engaged in discussion. COI seems weak at best here and should not be a reason to dismiss my argument. Kind of feel like I'm being bullied by the big guys at this point. Thom-293 06:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find news articles that are not from The Hoya, Vox Populi, or Georgetown.edu that prominently discuss the Lecture Fund, then perhaps it can be covered on Wikipedia. As it stood before I took out the puffery, the primary and secondary sources, and content which is just not relevant to discussion on Wikipedia, the article was not in line with the content policies anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted the page so that it is line with the discussion above and to help facilitate a fair admin review. Hope that makes sense. Thom-293 07:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such discussion that stated that you could undo the massive amount of edits I made to remove improper sources. However, will allow the closing administrator to view the page without the unnecessary bolding of people who visited or the entire run down of the E-Board.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 2cents: Having been to gradschool at major US university, I can relate that speaker-fee funds are extremely pedestrian. At bigger (than Georgetown) places, they're even divided by school or college, e.g. Engineering, etc. The list of blue-wikilink speakers that are funded by such funds and their internal procedures are generally not noteworthy or interesting for a Wikipedia article in my view. (Most highly notable speakers have been to each major US university at least once, so should we proliferate such lists on Wikipedia, they'd be extremely lookalike.) And you can bet that any major figure like a US president is going to attract outside media attention when going to a university. None of these aspects make the Georgetown Fund noteworthy in itself. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tijfo098's very persuasive argument just above. Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the subject has not been established using independent sources. (This is likely the case for several of the subjects included in the Georgetown University template, particularly the student organizations.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I've also restored the version of the article as nominated to AfD. Ryulong's edits were, though made in good faith, unhelpful to the progress of this discussion. The restored content may be stripped again (by undoing my edit) in case the article is kept.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 15:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I accept Tokyogirl79's research results and conclusions above (after a couple of random checks). My own search revealed nothing further and, bottom line, I can't accept that this topic meets the WP:GNG. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many universities have internal funds for whatever reasons. They are generally not notable, so the Georgetown one is no exception. Wikipedia is not an advertisement or promotional tool. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Note this is almost identical to the issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Student Association (2nd nomination). Basically, both organisations fail WP:CORPDEPTH and there are no reliable independent sources. As well-meaning as the articles might have been and as useful as they might be (see WP:ITSUSEFUL), this article fails WP:GNG I'm afraid. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Note this issue is also identical to the issues NOT ONLY with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Student Association (2nd nomination), but with the Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union page, the Students of Georgetown, Inc. page, The Hoya page, Georgetown's WGTB page, the Georgetown Law Weekly page, The Georgetown Voice page, the Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service page, the HOYA Clinic page, Georgetown's Delta Phi Epsilon (professional) page, the Philodemic Society page, The Georgetown Improv Association page, Georgetown's Mask and Bauble Dramatic Society page, Georgetown's Nomadic Theatre page, and Georgetown's United Students Against Sweatshops page. Let's get to work people! None of these groups have legitimate sources (they're just like the Georgetown University Lecture Fund page: one or two decent sources at best). We need to finish this campaign on Georgetown students and their stupid clubs once and for all! All these organisations fail WP:CORPDEPTH and there are no reliable independent sources. I mean, they may be useful, but honestly who cares (WP:ITSUSEFUL). Like Stalwart111 said, these articles all fail WP:GNG so kill them. Huntaman (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Suffice to say, please see WP:SPA. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Much as we'd like articles to meet notability requirements, I'm sure there's a less BITEy way of saying so! At least one article came via AFC. While some of the editors may not be around any more, I note the lack of welcome templates and don't think that referring to their stupid clubs is beneficial to discussion. Just my 2p. -- Trevj (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huntaman, you pretty much destroyed your own credibility with your reference to your "campaign on Georgetown students and their stupid clubs". •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd seen this discussion sooner. I'm one of the few editors who brought Georgetown University to featured article status, and have volunteered with the campus ambassadors program to foster Wikipedia editing skills. I'll also likely be the one having to deal with the PRODs that have now been brought against each of the articles Huntaman listed in their angry comment. I've had to deal with editors who oppose the use of campus news sources regularly, and though its always an uphill battle, Wikipedia does generally defend their inclusion as third-party sources. But an articles use of them is simply not enough reason to propose it for deletion. The student groups that got articles tend to be either the oldest or largest in their field, and that's the main source of their notability. I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on all "their stupid clubs" this week, and any assistance is appreciated!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, and I'm sure others, appreciate where you're coming from... but I can't really see how a student-run newspaper is a reliable independent source for a student-run fund or student-run association at the same campus. Likewise, the website of the university at which either organisation is based. Both articles (but am happy to stick to this one at this particular AfD) rely heavily if not entirely on material written by Georgetown students, about Georgetown students. I would certainly appreciate examples of where WP has, "generally defend[ed] their inclusion as third-party sources" - although WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a great argument, it might give these discussions better context. The alternative would be to find other sources (if they exist) and bring them here for consideration. If they simply don't exist then I think you'll have a tough time getting consensus for a Keep position. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with the Universities WikiProject for around five years, and the topic of campus sources comes up almost every time there's an article up for FAC or GAN. Certainly there's a strong preference for mass-media sources, but I've never seen there this sort of categorical attack on local publications as has come up this week. I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here about the nature of university journalism.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that those "sources" that do provide information about the fund are not considered "independent" of the subject and those that would be considered independent don't mention the fund at all (or only in passing, eg. "x person, a member of the lecture fund...") and so are not really sources. I have seen notionally non-independent / unreliable sources used to verify basic information in articles (it is contrary to WP guidelines but sites like IMDB are sometimes often used for basic biographic info) but these cannot be relied upon when determining notability. If you can produce multiple, reliable, independent sources that give significant coverage of the subject then it will meet WP:GNG. From WP:IS - "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject...". Can a student paper at Georgetown really be considered to have "no significant connection" to a student fund at Georgetown? Even the fact Hoya staff would be eligible to be fund general members (as Georgetown students, and I would suggest some would be) calls that into question. Also, I'm not sure that describing multiple AfDs as a "categorical attack" is helpful. That these articles suffer from the same problems is not the fault of the editors who noted that and then undertook a general clean-up by prodding them. Their argument, in doing so, is actually that the articles should never have been created in the first place and should now be deleted. I understand it represents a significant amount of work (I think everyone appreciates that) and it might be frustrating that these have all been "noticed" at the same time but you really do need to work on each of these individually rather than lumping them all together as an "attack" without actually addressing any of the issues. I'm sure other editors would be willing to assume good faith and allow you the time to address each one, as long as they can see someone is attempting to do so. Doing otherwise would be contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately, I think this article may have also suffered from some fairly extensive WP:LINKSPAMMING in an effort to "establish notability" which makes it difficult to establish what is worth keeping (if anything) and what is not. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. To be clear I'm not defending the Lecture Fund article here. Delete it because its not notable, but not because campus newspapers are unreliable. Again, suggesting that because students fund this group through their tuition, and somehow therefore have a "significant connection" is like saying that because citizens of Footown fund their government with taxes, those locals are therefore not reliable to write about what goes on in the place.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers and university publications can be reliable sources, but they should not be counted toward the WP:GNG Because of their intensely local focus, being covered by such sources does not indicate notability. If they did, then every single club on every singe campus, as well as nearly any student government president would be "notable" and would have a wikipedia article.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, these sources must be supplemented, or notability established through additional means.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Patrick, _oѺ^∞ IS COMPLETELY WRONG. ANNIHILATE THIS PAGE LIKE ALL THE OTHERS OF GEORGETOWN. These students probably worked really hard to get where they are but I don't want Wikipedia recognizing their accomplishments just like everyone else on this thread. Patrick, why are you acting so foolishly? If you want to delete this page dont defend the newspaper. If the newspaper is credible, it gives Georgetown University Lecture Fund notability no matter how much. WE WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT LECTURE FUND AND ALL OF GEORGETOWN'S CLUBS ARE NOT NOTABLE. --Huntaman (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. I was going to try to stay out of this but you need to calm down. This really, really comes across like you have an agenda against the group and I'd really like it if you could take a deep breath for a second. Patrick's argument is that the newspaper isn't an automatic non-notable source. College papers can be considered a reliable source if they are long running and reliable enough. Not a major-major RS, but still show some notability. The issue here isn't really about whether or not the newspaper could ever be used as a reliable source as much as whether it should be considered a primary source since it's reporting about the college that runs the paper and whose students make up the staff. My argument was that since there are so many ties to the college, it can't be used as a reliable source and should be seen as a primary source when it comes to articles that are about the school or their funds or clubs. No matter how reliable a source is, if it is primary it doesn't show notability. Period. A good example of this would be that if a CNN reporter were to write a book and CNN reviewed it, that review would be considered a primary source since there's a potential conflict of interest in CNN reviewing the book. That's pretty much the case here, but on a smaller scale. Defending the reliability of the paper as a source for non-Georgetown articles does not mean that the sources suddenly become usable as reliable sources for anything directly relating to Georgetown University.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you are spot-on, I believe User:Huntaman is being (trying to be?) sarcastic. User:Huntaman is (from his contribs) and Single Purpose Account, created for the sole purpose of commenting at this AfD. Neither of his substantive contributions have been particularly helpful and both have been aggressive and sarcastic. On the other hand, User:Patrickneil (Patrickneil_oѺ^∞) has demonstrated a willingness to assume good faith and participate constructively (as he has, I might add, since 2005) and I believe his comments/queries are genuine. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Across Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article does not establish any notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another B2B company (indistinguishable from the rest of them) with no notable products and PR noise instead of significant mention in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP and even WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dmitrij. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pennsylvania State University. It would also be perfectly acceptable for editors to change the redirect target to a specific section. If anyone strongly objects to having this page title as a redirect then we can work around that by using one of the steps in WP:MAD; if there are no other objections, though, it may be worth keeping this page as a redirect per WP:R#KEEP no. 4. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Medieval Studies (Pennsylvania State University)[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable group and there are few third-party sources aside from these articles from the Centre Daily Times (the university's newspaper). Aside from these Google News links, Google News also finds irrelevant links to University of Toronto's Center for Medieval Studies. Although there are several Centre Daily Times articles, all of them appear to be simply announcements of events (gallery shows, picnic, etc.) rather than significant information about the group. Additionally, the group's website never seems to provide a "history" section. Considering that several of those newspaper articles suggest this program has existed for 16 years or possibly more, I think the best option to save the article would be to move the content to Pennsylvania State University, where there currently is no mention of the group there. I should also mention that the article was deleted in April 2012 as an expired PROD but the article was restored by User:Toddst1 with the suggestion of taking the article to AfD. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~If you think the article should be merged (and Toddst1 didn't AfD it on his own), why did you nominate it for deletion?~~ There are other sources outside university publications, if you search with the common name for the university, "Penn State." Though, they are not exactly excellent coverage: [5], [6], [7]. I'm not sure where I stand just yet, though. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although different links, they continue to be small mentions and never focus with significant information about the group. To answer your question, I nominated the article here to receive consensus. I could've mention this at the talk page but this would be a better and faster way to gain consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge and redirect to Penn State is in order then. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested. This is not a headlining, major scholarly center, sorry. Now, UCLA, Grinnell College, UCSC, and Arizona -- those are notable centers of such research (outside of Ivy League of course). Bearian (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should note that I'm willing to merge the content myself but I'm curious where it should go. It appears that there isn't a list at Penn State's article and there is evidently insufficient content to start a separate section. Any thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania State University or Merge to a new subsection within #Campuses or #Organization and administration entitled 'Faculties' or similar. There is no sourced content, but the subject is possibly a viable search term. If SwisterTwister (or another editor) peforms the merge as indicated, the existing content could be retained, preferably when combined with the above sources. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Article title, parentheses included, is an unlikely search term. Therefore from a purely administrative point of view, redirecting isn't a recommended outcome. Relisting to discuss alternative solutions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 15:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as the reasonable solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article in some manner. Not f=sufficiently notable in its own right for a separate article. I;m not sure what the correct merge target it, abut the merge should be done so as not to lose the information DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Noreen[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Career as an actress/model is minor, GNews reveals no significant coverage. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no substantial coverage about her in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 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) 15:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came across two passing mentions in GNews ('Denver Post' and 'Daytona Beach News-Journal') but I found no significant coverage for her. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, and her roles to date don't meet WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 04:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand_Angel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grand Angel

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

From just reading the article they appear to fail WP:GNG. All of the citations are unreliable due to their nature (i.e. CDbaby) or just unreliable news sources (blogs). SarahStierch (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 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 08:18, 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) 15:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Bosniaks[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH violation, duplicating/combining Bosnian War and Bosnian Genocide. Author is WP:SPA KatrinaIvanovic (talk · contribs) who declined the previous WP:PROD without explanation or fixing the problem. Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 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 08:15, 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) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24translate[edit]

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

Non-notable company Jsharpminor (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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 08:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would think that the nominator's argument is not justified by anything and is hence invalid. Please explain as to why it is non-notable. See WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit like asking me to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? It's an argument to avoid in the discussion, not an invalid nomination. The burden of proof ought to be on anyone who thinks that this company is notable.

All that notwithstanding, the most basic Google News search turns up exactly 2 articles. Immediately fails the extensive coverage under multiple sources test. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:48, 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) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering that the article claims the company is Hamburg-based, it is not surprising that Google News archives provided several German sources. It is crucial that we search farther than English-based sources such as Google US if the company is not American. Granted, several of those sources appear to be press releases but I wouldn't know if they would be sufficient, considering that I am not fluent with German. However, other users are welcome to scan those articles for suitability. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After discounting the comments not based on Wikipedia deletion policy, there seems to be a rough consensus to delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fazhengnian[edit]

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

Non-notable. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While obviously this is currently just (mis)using primary sources, including from Chinese government propaganda websites and Falun Gong websites, that itself is not grounds for deletion, because there is the possibility that it could be rewritten with good sources. However, through a quick check through two of the most authoritative books on FG practice and teachings (David Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China and Penny's the Religion of Falun Gong), I can't find reference to this; it thus seems to fail the standard for notability, and seems it would be impossible to edit the article in order to have it meet content standards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable & original research.--Shujen Chang (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there're numerous sources from FLG's website. Beside, it's also mention in an edu site and a Chinese gov site. The corresponding article on zhwiki was nominated for deletion; the result was "speedy keep".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) FLG websites and Chinese government websites don't particularly contribute to notability. 2) The decision on zhwiki has no bearing on the proceedings here. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government websites and falungong websites are primary sources and cannot be regarded as independent on this topic. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources is very clear that articles need to be based on reliable, published secondary and tertiary sources. "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The entire page runs afoul of this policy.—Zujine|talk 16:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Having a lot reliable sources, I do not know why is non-notable & original research.乌拉跨氪 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources cited.—Zujine|talk 16:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiwind.com is clearly not a "Chinese government website".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is. It's run by an organisation that reliable sources have identified as being tied to the Chinese government, specifically the 6-10 Office. Also, there was an RS discussion about it, in which it was found to be unreliable.—Zujine|talk 19:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book, in Chinese though. And "发正念" has lots of result in google books too.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And more of those are unrelated to falungong, or if they are related, they mention the term only in passing (for example, as part of a list of terms censored in China). Still not enough to base an article on.—Zujine|talk 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Shujenchang and TSTF. Page presents serious problems complying with with WP:N, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SYNTH. There do not appear to be enough (or any) reliable, secondary sources available to establish notability of the topic, or even to describe what it is. Is it a form of prayer? a religious ritual? Even having read much of the academic literature on Falungong, it's unclear, because this topic has gained negligible attention from independent sources.—Zujine|talk 16:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We might have to consider WP:COI regarding this case.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you have a conflict of interest on this topic? How, precisely? If you suspect another editor of a conflict of interest, perhaps the best forum for that would be the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, where you could present your evidence and seek the opinion of other members in the community (of course, you would first have acquainted yourself with WP:COI). I'm not sure how such cases usually go, but if for example there was a finding that a certain editor in this discussion had a COI... well, I'm not exactly sure how it would impact the issue at hand. But perhaps it would mean that their "vote" here was not counted. (Though this is the issue: this is not actually a vote.) Either way, the question here is the notability and sources for the "Fazhengnian" FLG ritual, which remains unaddressed. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't yell. I was not suspecting anyone, just giving an advice.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then... TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: i think you may know Fazhengnian takes an important role in the theory of flg, so it's very necessary to introduce Fazhengnian. also, i should say it's ridiculous that shujenchang decribed this article as OR since many sources are taken from flg official sites which means they're acknowledged by flg. - Dr. Cravix _{♪Eternal Reminiscence} 03:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We still need quality, third party sources to show notability. And please don't make personal attacks. How did you learn about this AfD? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is one academic event devoted to its psychology effect[8]. We don't have the transcript for the event online but surely there are some academic attention. I couldn't find another reliable source on the subject, but this[9] is a repost of a Kaiwind article criticizing the practice on a gov.cn web site. at least someone in the government thinks the idea is notable--Skyfiler (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the sources in both en and zh Wikipedia are from FLG sites or anti-FLG sites run by the Chinese Communist Party. I don't know whether it meets policies of Wikipedia. --王小朋友 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Skyfiler. And [10] [11] [12]. The article needs more sources anyway. --Makecat _Talk 03:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, not notable and unreliable sources.Righteousskills (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant in its own right; discuss in the article on the group. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acclaro[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article does not establish any notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 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 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company sounds sizable, but I could not find any significant independent coverage so it fails WP:CORP. Google News shows mostly press releases (note that some things which appear to be articles are actually reprints of press releases). --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 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) 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Field (pub)[edit]

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

No indication that this San Diego pub is notable. Unreferenced since 2006. Google News Archive search found only routine mentions. MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage found in reliable sources to warrant passage of WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 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) 03:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a really hard name to Google search. It looks like a cool place, but as a single, smallish bar, there isn't likely to be much outside of the brief restaurant and bar guide entries that I'm seeing. There is a chance that there's some authentic media coverage relating to the bar's establishment, assuming it was imported piece-by-piece from Ireland... Carrite (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just scanned through the most recent 50 items in the San Diego Union Trib archives (I have access). Pretty much just routine mentions, the "where to celebrate St. Patrick's Day" kind of stuff. I couldn't find a single mention of the bar being imported piece-by-piece from Ireland. The only thing at all non-routine was that a waitress from the pub was on American Idol.[13] --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 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) 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I took another fresh go at this with different Google parameters. Many hits, but as nearly as I can tell they are from (a) their own site; (b) social media generated by the establishment; (c) common business and guide listings typical of all established businesses; (d) YouTube videos of music at the club. Nothing I could see in the way of the type of sourcing which we seek here — and I looked with a sympathetic eye. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Does not appear notable at this time. Searching on Google Books, News, and News archives for "Official Taekwondo Hall of Fame" yielded only this (which is probably a false positive because of its age) and this (which only includes a brief mention disambiguating the OTKDHOF from another Taekwondo Hall of Fame). CtP (t • c) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This seems like something that should be notable, but the article has no sources. My search turned up some nice coverage at lacancha.com, but that site is run by Gerard Robbins, who is the founder of this HOF. I couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. Perhaps there might be coverage in some taekwondo magazines, but nothing I could access. Papaursa (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Fram (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Marriage[edit]

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

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

Non-notable foundation and non-notable researcher. Both topics appear to fail WP:GNG.

I encountered these two articles while doing a DYK review of Edmund Marriage. Both articles have been created by the same editor, who appears to have a WP:COI, but has decided to "excuse" himself from COI restrictions on the grounds that his "interest simply involves saving the Garden of Eden". COI is no reason to delete an article, but it does encourage me to scrutinise a topic's notability.

Edmund Marriage is the director of the Patrick Foundation, and the two articles use an overlapping set of references, which I have examined against WP:GNG:

A mention in the report of Parliamentary Committee, which sounds impressive until scrutinised. It actually amounts only to a reprint of the submission to the committee which Edmund Marriage on behalf of the Patrick Foundation. This is self-written material, which fails GNG's test of coverage "Independent of the subject"
a passing mention in an article by Duff Hart-Davis in The Independent newspaper. This fails GNG's requirement for "Significant coverage".
3 secondary references, all by the same journalist in the same newspaper within 2 months of each other (Geoff Ward, in the Western Daily Press). I have searched the WDP's website for these articles, but find no hits for "Patrick Foundation", and the 6 hits for "Edmund Marriage" are all from what's-on type listings.
I AGF that the three referenced articles do indeed exist, but have no evidence either way on whether they are more than passing mentions, and whether they are just reprinted press releases like the "hound limit" article below. There is also a question as to what extent contemporary English local newspapers meet our criteria for reliable sources, because they have few journalistic resources and little opportunity for fact-checking.

Further searches throw up little:

A Gnews search for "Edmund Marriage" gives several false positives, and AFICS only one real hit: Hound limit 'is crueller to foxes', another local newspaper article. It appears to be a summary of a letter by Marriage, and contains no journalistic assessment or third-party views ... so it is not "independent of the subject"
I also found a passing mention of the Patrick Foundation in a book called "Resurrection Initiation: The Process and the Joy", which does not look like a scholarly reliable source.

Sorry if I have missed anything in my searches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is fantastic reviewing and scrutiny. Thanks so much, it will really help my future writing. You've raised some very valid points. The three articles written by Geoff Ward and the passing mention by Duff Hart-Davies are questionable regarding GNG requirements. I considered the Parliamentary Committee report as the primary source of notability, which would fail notability requirements if only based on the memorandum on p. 259 you have linked. Fortunately, I based the notability requirement on the lengthier and later section on p. 265 covering both Edmund Marriage and the Patrick Foundation, which is written "independently of the subject". I hope this will meet the guidelines, but let me know if you think this, along with the other bits and bobs don't for any reason. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, please take a closer look at what is actually on page 265. It is a continuation of the section beginning on page 259, and consists solely of the "Memorandum from The Patrick Foundation". That is definitely not "independent of the subject".

The fact that this theory about the Garden of Eden has been, as you assert, largely been ignored by the corporate world of academia since then undermines any claim to the notability of that work. Similarly the self-styled "quality driving initiative" has been ignored by academia and the news media and by book-writers. It has also been ignored by the rest of the web: its website at http://speed-watch.org has only 2 incoming links

This whole thing looks like part of a promotional exercise for a range of non-notable ventures related to Edmund Marriage. For example the http://www.britishwildlifemanagement.org site is linked to only by The Patrick Foundation website ... but you still linked Marriage's article to that non-notable site.

It is also regrettable that you have not paid closer attention to WP:AVOIDCOI. Your history of sockpuppetry doesn't help me to sustain an assumption of good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I honestly hadn't realized that p.265 was the same memorandum as p.259 due to the third-person writing style of the text. My apologies and well noticed, the article does not meet notability requirements in my opinion either due to this. This is not a promotional exercise as I hope my being the first to vote on this will show I was being honest about my COI. The DYK exercise was entirely to encourage someone like you to review the article better than I could, thanks again for that. I hope this will restore some good faith as I would prefer for my work to be recognized instead of non-notable pages and suspected sockpuppetry, for documenting the archaeology behind O'Brien and Marriage's theories and drawing attention to the 45 sites of the Heavy Neolithic Qaraoun culture (the Elohim in the Bible) on Wikipedia and moving on to the Shepherd Neolithic sites (when the Elohim domesticate animals). Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This page has also been listed here. Bwrs (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above, esp as Paul Bedson agrees. I had hoped that Paul had stopped working in the area where he has a COI. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - delete I should declare that Doug asked me to have a look at this, presumably because he's seen me trying to salvage bits from articles with theories about rediscovered cruses of self-producing oil from Solomon's Temple and people using en.wp to market silver trumpets ready for the Third Temple, and this isn't in that league, but there is a large and very obvious big COI problem compounding the Notability problem here, it sticks out a mile just walking into the room on this cluster of articles. In all fairness we cannot keep these articles. We'd have to restore all kinds of similar ones. And BLP material cannot (as I understand the rules, I may be wrong) even be sandboxed, it has to be shredded. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marriage, but merge the foundation into OBrian. BTW, I know of no rule or practice that BLPs can not be sandboxed--except of course if the violate the specific prohibition against unsourced negative information. I don't see any such here. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Tactical, more advertisement than notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no independent sources and its topic is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Tactical. The lack of both notability and sources, in addition to being redundant, support deletion. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per notes here, it may be that sources exist to support this article, but not APA Tactical - the company run by the individual who developed the system. I will have a look for some references (and I understand the original author has said he would provide some). The original author has a clear conflict of interest and has openly (to his credit) acknowledged that in the AfD for APA Tactical. I think part of the issue may be that the original author could be considered an expert editor - one of the few people with expertise in this particular field. As such, he has created this system, developed this system and is providing information to the public about this system. That does not make his system inherently notable, nor does it circumvent WP:COI issues and it gets very close to WP:PROMO. But I think we do need to be careful about how we approach this. The product itself (the company) may not be notable, the person who invented it may not inherit notability from it but the system itself (in a non-commercial context) may be notable (which is what I understand the original author has suggested). I think any proposed references provided in an effort to justify Keeping this article should be verified by non-COI editors. Given the original author's conduct and approach thus far, I can't see that suggestion being a problem. If sources cannot be provided that allow the article to meet WP:GNG, then it should be Deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles appear to about the same thing. There's no mention of a company at APA Tactical which starts "is a tactical force response and force protection system". The APA article starts "is a proven special force response system". 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the distinction they are trying to make it that one refers to the system / theory and the other is a commercialisation / training program for that system. I think. It is a little unclear. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there may have been an attempt to distinguish the two, but the lack of independent sources (a link to wikibook, the organization's site, and a youtube video) fails to show me notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and given the commitments to repairing the articles and the lack of activity since, I would be inclined to think that both cannot be fixed and so should be deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of good faith, I already userfied the other article for him, so he will have every chance to try to turn it into a real article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good way forward I think - thanks. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As such, Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to support notability claims. This and APA Tactical are the same subject. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect because no one else could be bothered, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major seventh sharp eleventh chord[edit]

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

It's a disambiguation page with two options both leading to the same article Ben Culture (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lydian chord - outright deletion would not be appropriate in this case. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lydian chord. Per WP:SNOW this doesn't have to go though the full seven days of AfD; the correct course of action is clear. CtP (t • c) 14:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lydian chord, no point in having a dab pointing twice to one page. PamD 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was not needed - mistake nom. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Ulfat[edit]

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

An editor (Aniruddha.khosla) has expressed concern that the article is not sourced, so rather than have the article go through repeated blanking, I'm proposing it for AfD. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Turns out Aniruddha.khosla created the page. I'll ask them to speedy per G7. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ[edit]

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

Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website and to the article creator's blog. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Serious COI, in so far as the article creator claims on his blog to be a "knight" of this order. [14] Ravenswing 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without any intention of sounding peevish, "proclaiming" an order reestablished, then "Knighting" yourself within it are, indeed, serious conflicts of interest - WP:COI (admittedly not the world's strongest rationale). The defunct house from the 13th century may have had significance in that era, but that infamy remains with the defunct house and is not inherited by incarnation of the "new" entity. Having members who claim prominence of various other active/inactive "houses" does not change the status of the defunct entity. Would consider this WP:NN until it's currency and notability as vested can be distinctly providen. Basically what I'm saying is they may be trying to reestablish the name, but the history does not transfer to contemporary times just because someone wanted to recreate it today. It would be no more valid than calling yourself a "Knight's Templar", finding people who can attest that there were some long ago, buying a plot of land by the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and then self-Knighting/anointing to currency. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources (RS) whatsoever. If RS are found, please notify me on my talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Crown of Georgia[edit]

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

Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Ravenswing 08:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without any intention of sounding peevish (again - this response is simply a copy from the other "House of Georgia" AfD being considered as it seems to apply similarly), "proclaiming" an order reestablished, then "Knighting" yourself within it are, indeed, serious conflicts of interest - WP:COI (admittedly not the world's strongest rationale). The defunct house from the 13th century may have had significance in that era, but that infamy remains with the defunct house and is not inherited by incarnation of the "new" entity. Having members who claim prominence of various other active/inactive "houses" does not change the status of the defunct entity. Would consider this WP:NN until it's currency and notability as vested can be distinctly providen. Basically what I'm saying is they may be trying to reestablish the name, but the history does not transfer to contemporary times just because someone wanted to recreate it today. It would be no more valid than calling yourself a "Knight's Templar", finding people who can attest that there were some long ago, buying a plot of land by the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and then self-Knighting/anointing to currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren99 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After source searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources at all. If any are found, please notify me on my talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, notify us here ... Ravenswing 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here too! (Although this is already implied, being the actual AfD discussion for the topic). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't forget me! I need all the help I can get :) Яεñ99 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus over the boundary between "independent" and "affiliated" sources and therefore on the application of WP:GNG. Since the vast majority of the article is certainly verifiable, default to keep. Der yck C. 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ColdBox Platform[edit]

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

I would normally nominate an article of this sort of speedy G11 as highly promotional, but there seems as possibility that it might actually be notable enough to be worth sourcing and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I found no reliable sources covering the topic. I would note, that there is a book on topic, but it written by software's main developer and published by the company behind this software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to note that as of this revision I still consider the sources too weak for even borderline keep !vote. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ColdBox is a popular MVC framework, widely used by CFML developers and has existed since 2006. Every other major CFML framework is on Wikipedia as I think they should be (CFWheels, Mach II, FW\1, ColdSpring, FuseBox, etc) ColdBox is in use by many large companies such as NASA and the FAA. CFML is more of a niche market, so there's not typically a lot a bleed-over into the normal techie sites probably deemed as "notable", but there is exhaustive documentation and many blogs about ColdBox from authors who are notable within the CFML community. There are some good external references that mention ColdBox that we can add to this page from mainstream sites like adobe.com: http://cookbooks.adobe.com/post_How_do_you_build_a_RESTful_service_in_ColdFusion_u-17901.html Also, there are some good third-party case studies: http://www.amcomtech.net/whitepapers/MVC%20Framework%20Analysis.pdf This page can probably be edited to remove wording that seems too promotional, but I'd say the ColdBox page is definitely worth keeping with some clean up and reference additions. I am Brad Wood, the platform evangelist for the ColdBox framework and I'm pretty certain I've edited the ColdBox page a couple times in the past (updating release versions). — 99.13.192.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- I don't see how the reviews of the developer of closely related product (Adobe benefits from promoting software depending on their products) and a recommendation by one IT consultant (who earns his living by deploying this software) contribute to this product's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited this article to make it more objective and remove promotional sounding verbiage. I also cleaned up some redundant text on the page and supplied a couple of external references other than the project's main site. -- Brad Wood. — 99.13.192.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrij, you tried the same nonsense on the FuseBox (programming) deletion page and were told by Rlendog that you were misapplying the independence clause of WP:N. It is only logical that sources of information pertaining to a CFML framework are going to come from people and companies bearing some affiliation to ColdFusion. You aren't going to find articles about ColdFusion in a .NET magazine. Neither of the links I provided were written by people directly "affiliated with the subject or its creator" which satisfies the independence requirement. Dismissing a source because its business uses that technology is also silly, and WP's notability guidelines say nothing about that. Neither of the sources I posted are promotional material either. I would definitely say that Adobe.com would be a notable source-- they have no affiliation with the ColdBox framework. ~Brad Wood — 64.126.7.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- So you think that calling my position "nonsense" makes it weaker? Not actually, as the validity of my point is obvious — these sources financially benefit from coverage of the topic and thus have inherent bias towards finding this subject worth notable. As the whole notability thing revolves around the connotation that reliable sources do a good job of unbiased judgment on notability; thus biased sources are not reliable in context of WP:N, and taking biased judgment in account defeats the very purpose of the policy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't need to call your comments nonesense to make them weak. They already are what they are. Nowhere in the WP notability page is it said that any source must be dismissed if it can possibly be construed that the livelihood of the author can be tied to the success of the subject they are providing information on. You are extending your own interpretation of the WP:N guidelines to exclude a significant number of sources on Wikipedia subjects everywhere. The independent requirement of the notability guidelines are related to self-promotion. Here is a quote about the kinds of sources that are not independent, "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies". Just because a company uses ColdFusion does not place them in any of those categories. ~Brad Wood — 64.126.7.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    - WP:N disagrees with your: '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.' Benefiting from something is a strong affiliation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Negative. "Affiliated" is a broad term and you are stretching well beyond the intent of Wikipedia. It is clear that Wikipedia intends affiliation be someone directly involved with the creation or maintenance of the subject. Just because someone uses a technology hardly makes them affiliated at that level. That's a weak affiliation at best. Please refer to my quote above of actual items used by Wikipedia as examples of affiliation. "Uses the product" is not in the list. Not even close. Therefore WP:N disagrees with you. ~Brad Wood
        You know, when the list starts with "For example", it is generally considered non-exclusive. I see, your personal belief is that people earning on your software are not biased in favor of it. OK. You may even want to yet again call my argument nonsense, I'm just bailing out of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because a list is non-exclusive does not imply that it automatically must include your interpretation. My assertion is that the examples in WP:N categorically show a higher degree of affiliation than simply using a product or the language a product was written in. I agree that a person using a product can have a bias, but it would be a fallacy to then assert that all users of a product (or the language used to create the product) do have a bias and therefore are acting on bad faith and incapable of being neutral. And to be clear, we're not even talking about "users" of a product (ColdBox). We're simply talking about sources in the ColdFusion community. These are experts in the language which was used to write ColdBox. Both of my references above which you would like to discount were written by ColdFusion experts who were not using the ColdBox framework. The notes on independent sources caution against "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them". I would submit to you that a "strong connection" has not been demonstrated which is why these sources are independent. ~Brad Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.192.9 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ColdBox is affiliated with Adobe in the same way that [any .NET development tool] is affiliated with Microsoft. -- Peter Boughton (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This is quite a stretched analogy, though Microsoft's .Net resources are indeed not independent from .Net frameworks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With those thoughts in mind dimitry I think pretty much the majority of CFML, php, java, groovy and ruby programming framework references should be removed from Wikipedia as only 1% off them have external references that do not concern their audience or language focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmajano (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not very comfortable with connotation that this would make a priori negative impact on Wikipedia. BTW, we are generally expected to avoid arguments about other articles in AfD discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated my keep preference, but I wanted to add some additional links here to support the notability of the ColdBox Framework for ColdFusion. I feel these sources represent reliable second or third party information pertaining to the existence, features, and use of the framework. I realize some of them might appear less reliable than others, but I've included them based on the expert reputation of the author or the reputation of the publishing site. I hoping the assertion of notability can be cumulative, meaning a single reference might not hold a lot of weight, but each one can add some value to the total. Please note none of these references are first party to avoid any self-promotion, and some of them are from resources outside of the CF world. I am open to discussion and feedback on these. I think many of them should be added to the main article to improve its sourcing. (I had to remove several links from DZone-- apparently that site has been blacklisted) ~Brad Wood

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has been modified according to standards with even more external sources attached and all wording of self-promotion removed. I find no cause for deletion according to the stated article. — Lmajano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I must agree. I see both a large list of outside verifiable sources and removal of any self-promotion and don't see any reason now for removing this article. Coldbox is from development point of view probably the most known and sophisticated MVC framework for coldfusion. The article is pure understatement. Everything written is verifieable anyway. No reason to remove this article. — 77.56.125.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I agree that this article should be kept. I hope the links provided above satisfy the requirement. - Aaron Greenlee — 24.92.171.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

There are over 1500 pieces of software for CFML available in assorted pockets of the Internet. Most of those, nobody (except their author) cares about - there are maybe two dozen of them that CF devs generally pay attention to. ColdBox is one of those <2% of CFML software packages where you will not get a "what's that" when you mention it to the average CFML developer.

The ColdBox article is (still) not very encylopedic, but the software is well known (amongst those for whom it is meaningful for it to be known) and used by a range of companies, so the article should be kept and fixed - not deleted.

(I have no affiliation with ColdBox/Ortus and don't use the framework.)

-- Peter Boughton (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, it's better not to remove other people's comments. Your edit history does in fact resemble an SPA- which is perfectly okay as long as you take care to avoid COI. It looks like consensus is going your way, in either event. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarity, what I removed was not a "comment" but the SPA template text, because stating "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" is (at best) misleading. All except two of my edits are outside this topic. I have no COI because I have no interest/affiliation with ColdBox at all. I'm here because it is an article which falls within my area of expertise. As per WP:SPATG, editing within a single broad topic does not identify a single-purpose account. -- Peter Boughton (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage of ColdBox in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - this fails WP:GNG. The sources linked above in the "keep" votes don't look like they qualify as "reliable" as defined in WP:IRS, and the sources in the article don't look any better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for weighing in on this article. Could you elaborate more on the reliability of the sources please? WP:IRS does state, "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Luckily this article doesn't claim that cold fusion is a viable alternative energy source, but rather that ColdBox is common ColdFusion MVC framework that is notable for anyone using CFML. :) While I agree some of the links may seem lightweight, they do come from some of the most prominent and respected resources in the CFML world. (with no direct affiliation to the subject) ~Brad Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.7.35 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about a selective merge to ColdFusion framework (currently redlinked)? I couldn't find anything in reliable sources, although did spot ColdBox Helps Government Rape Awareness Campaign, which could have perhaps been made more of in the media by Gencia. -- Trevj (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors should feel free to renominate after a couple of months if they still feel there are problems with the sourcing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level[edit]

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

This list is based on the results of a single study, it seems to me this fails WP:N. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article that the list is based is a paper in the Journal of Economic Growth. The Journal of Economic Growth is a peer-reviewed journal, with one of the highest impact factors in the field of economics. The paper itself, although authored only by Dr. James Fearon, incorporates data from many different authors (please see the Sources section in the paper for a full list of data sources, paper can be found here: http://telematica.politicas.unam.mx/biblioteca/archivos/040107017.pdf). 2) The paper has been cited over 700 times since its publication in 2003 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=james+fearon+ethnic+diversity&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44). I dont think the paper can be considered Dr. Fearon's point of view, since he relied on so many different sources (which he references) and since his paper was peer reviewed. 3) There are many lists that are based on the results of a single study, examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Innovation_Index_(Boston_Consulting_Group), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-Life_Index I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passing peer review doesn't mean that the peers doing the reviewing necessarily agreed with the paper's conclusion or are co-authors in any sense. It just means that they vouched for the integrity of the author's methodology and agreed that the paper was a constructive contribution to the field. I suspect you believe it's far more rare to have a paper published in a peer reviewed journal than it actually is. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it is a fine paper, but the entry is based on a single paper. If other articles are based on single papers I think they ought to go too, but, the existence of other stuff is not an argument at AFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

postdlf, I just got my PhD, so I do know that publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not a rare thing :) But like you mention, it does mean that the research is credible and contributes to the field. However, in this case there is also the matter of 700+ citations, which is a rare thing and implies that this research is seen widely by the academic community as useful and reliable. I am not insisting that this list be the only one present on the page, we can certainly add more once we find credible ones (see for example the lists for GDP per capita on various basis). I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

711 papers cited the one the list is based one. If even one of them questioned its conclusions, you would be justified in asking for modifications or even removal of the list. But as of now, I dont see how one can conclude that nobody apart from the author agrees on the list, when 711 papers have cited that paper.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without a discussion of why the paper was cited or for what purpose, or whether those 711 citing papers substantively discussed his cultural and diversity indexes, or whether those citing papers repeated this table in whole or in part, throwing that number out there is meaningless in and of itself. So try harder to dig beneath the surface. Do you have an argument for making an article about the cultural and diversity indexes (i.e., how are they measured, critiques of the methods, impact of the rankings, etc.), or a substantive argument that this particular list is somehow a notable standard and ranking? postdlf (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Technically, it fails WP:GNG (which says 'reliable sources' in plural for a reason). Not so technically, the article represents such a list as a commonly accepted list, which is (lacking other references) it is not; it is just one study, even if summarizing other studies. Mere number of citations is not a valid argument, as some (and even all) citations may be arguing with the results of the study, and reference it exactly to argue with it. Bottom line: unless addition references are provided - delete. Ipsign (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt from a paper by a group of different authors:"The raw data originally used by Easterly and Levine (1997) come from the Atlas Narodov Mira, a compilation of ehtnolinguistic groups present in 1960 based on historical linguistic origin. A first weakness of this data is that linguistic heterogeneity does not necessarily coincide with ethnic heterogeneity. For instance, most Latin American countries are relatively homogenous in terms of language but less so in terms of “ethnicity” or “race”. Fearon (2003) and Alesina et al. (2003) have compiled various measures of ethnic heterogeneity which try to tackle the fact that the difference amongst groups manifests itself in different ways in different places. The two classifications are constructed differently. Alesina et al. (2003) do not take a stand on what ethnicity (or language or religion) are more salient than others and adopt the country breakdown suggested by original sources, mainly the Encyclopedia Britannica (See the Appendix for more details). Fearon (2003) instead is trying to construct the ”right list” of ethnic groups which ”depends on what people in the country identify as the most socially rel- evant ethnic groupings” (page 198). This approach has the advantage of being closer to what the theory would want and the disadvantage of having to make judgement calls (or adopt others’ judgement calls) about what is the ”right list”. The sources used by Fearon (2003) are carefully described in his paper ..." Here is my proposal based on this excerpt: 1) I will add the list developed by Alesina et al. (2003) to the current page. 2) This way we will have two lists on the page, one corresponding to the direct data, and a more sophisticated one, closer to what conflict theory would want. 3) This way we will have multiple points of view and multiple references on the page. I hope people realize the importance of having such a list on wikipedia, both for students of conflict theory and the general public. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What say, people ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me three more days, I am in the middle of moving. I will add the data by Alesina et al and more references. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember WP:SYN when you do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page with multiple lists and more reference is now up. Comments will be appreciated.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:33, 24 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) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like two or three good and worthwhile pieces of economics research converted into a Wikipedia article with no secondary sources. Which means that, just to take a couple of flaws as examples, Fearon's measures of "Ethnic diversity index" and "Cultural diversity index" seem to have been accepted uncritically, ~~and Fearon's unaccountable failure to include the United States or Canada in his list of countries has been perpetuated in the Wikipedia list~~. It seems to me that we would have a good and worthwhile topic here if there's been further, subsequent work by other scholars that's critiqued and added to these studies, and could be incorporated. It also seems to me that in the absence of such further work, what we have falls short of a reliable encyclopaedia article. It should be incubated or userfied for improvement.—S Marshall T/C 08:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, both the USA and Canada are on the Fearon list. Please take a closer look. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I see ctrl+F looking for "United States" was insufficient; it's called "USA" in the Fearon list and "United States" in the other one. Stricken the invalid portion of my remark, which (you'll note) does leave some exceedingly grave concerns.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry S Marshall , I dont see what your 'grave concerns' are. Please give some examples. Why do you think Fearon's list is accepted uncritically ? In fact, both the lists are criticized in the excerpt I have quoted from the other article by Alesina.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has more sources, but I don't see any secondary sources. It is now a case of WP:SYN I am afraid. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrodbeck, there are two articles by Alesina used as references. The one by Alesina and Ferrara qualifies as a secondary source for Fearon's work. I need to find a reference to Alesina et al's paper which does not involve Alesina. Am I right ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I don't want to vote delete because the article is as good as, and as well-sourced, as many on WP. On the other hand, I have to say that as it is now it is almost meaningless to the average reader. (I'm taking myself as average, educated but not an expert in this field.) ~~So I can't really vote to keep either.~~ No real reason to delete, so keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On one list the USA is in between Guatemala and Georgia, on the other between Nicaragua and Georgia (in one aspect). What does that mean, and how are we going to use the information? Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kitfoxe. The basic thrust of the article is as follows: "Fractionalization measures are computing as the probability that two randomly drawn individuals (from a country) are not from the same group (ethnic, religious, or whatever the criterion is)" In the Fearon list, cultural fractionalization is estimated imperfectly by a measure of similarity between languages, using 1 = same language, and 0 = they speak languages that are completely unrelated. So, the short answer to your question is that as per the Fearon list, the probability of two random individuals belonging to different ethnic groups is higher for USA than Georgia. Of course, this emphasizes linguistic variation more than racial and other variations. In the Alesina list, the fractionalization is computed directly from whatever the Encyclopedia Brittanica lists for ethnic groups. This is more coarse and biased by how the Britannica chooses to list ethnic groups. For example, consider India, Pakistan and USA. The major Christian denominations in the US are treated as different religions (eg Protestant and Catholic) whereas India is more than about 80% Hindu, so by this reckoning it looks less diverse. For Pakistan they probably distinguish between Sunni and Shia as different religions. However, there are many denominations and castes within Hindus, and the Sunni-Shia difference is present within Indian Muslims as well, both of which the EB doesnt list, so they just dont get factored in and India ends up listing as less religiously diverse than both the US and Pakistan, a statement that many scholars would dispute. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kitfoxxe, are you satisfied with the above explanation ? Let me know. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you. I understand the concept of the lists much better now. I still don't see how useful they are. Especially since, as you mentioned, the standards are different in different nations. Besides that some nations have only a few thousand people while others hundreds of millions, plus differences in area. So how can the ratios have the same meaning or value in all? Or could even be compared in a meaningful way. But still this is not a reason to delete the article if the topic is notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kitfoxxe, the standards are of course different, and indeed economics/sociology are imperfect sciences. What this list does is give the reader an idea of how the composition of different countries vary. So one can clearly see that countries like South Korea, Japan, Norway, China, Australia are similar in the regard that they are not very fractionalized. On the other hand, countries like Uganda, Liberia and Togo are very fractionalized, which can give the reader some hints as to why they face internal conflicts and political instability. The exact ranks themselves dont matter that much, but the rough position of the countries on the graph of diversity tells us a bit about the kind of politics we can expect there. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think we (the USA) were less diverse when we had our Civil War. England too. Japan also had civil wars. And China has different languages and religions, even if they all call themselves Chinese. (Also civil wars there too, and in least-diverse Korea.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep. No reason not to include this information on WP, even if "I don't like it" very much. Other people might find it interesting or useful, if only to see the limitations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All, I have added secondary sources and criticisms of both lists. I have also added a brief explanation of what fractionalization is. Thank you for your inputs, I think the article is much better referenced and presented thanks to your questions. Please take another look at it and let me know if it is satisfactory, or if it needs more work. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, just a reminder. The page is ready with all the references, criticisms and explanations. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:04, 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, Wily D 08:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:LISTN, WP:GNG (the few sources cited by the article). Inclusion elsewhere would be WP:UNDUE. The information is sourced and appears to have been discussed in reliable sources. I wikilinked to the 2 topics, per WP:BOLDTITLE and note that perhaps the article should be moved elsewhere for further clarity. -- Trevj (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still on the fence, but I can say for sure the article now is much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dbrodbeck, can you be a bit more precise ? How can the article be improved, and what wikipedia guidelines does it not adhere to ? Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, Criteria 5, page is linked on main page. Page can be re-nominated once this no longer applies. (non-admin closure). JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Penguin colonies[edit]

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

Delete. A list of this type is not possible without some sort of inclusion criteria. See the talk page comments. The tourist attractions can be added to the Little Penguin article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Woodgate[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability guideline. Some claims of significance/importance, but I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to back it up. (I think there are multiple Derek Woodgates in the sources, so that confuses matters.) Also vaguely promotional. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an autobiographical and promotional article about a non-notable individual. Mephistophelian (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 04:55, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other persons of this name seem to be (1) a co-founder of Wellnx Life Sciences and (2) a marketing director of jeans. AllyD (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added two references to the article. The first is a June 2000 quote from the subject in Advertising Age (via Highbeam, subscription reqd); the second an April 2012 New Straits Times article based on an interview with the subject. Taken together, I don't think they meet the WP:BIO criteria. There are also 3rd party views on the subject in the paragraph "In the foresight world..." If - and it is a big if - these could be seen to be clear independent WP:RS statements about the subject's notability, then the sum total might amount to a Weak Keep. But it falls short on that on material to hand at the moment. AllyD (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation Road Map Magazine references a book review via Amazon, a source that is unreliable and prone to widespread manipulation.
During the publisher's section in Amazon's entry on Future Frequencies, the quotation from Markley appears in its entirety: 'The creative bridging of progressive culture's provocative thinking and practical business innovations reflects the genius of Future Frequencies,' and signifies that the reference isn't reliable or independent from the promotion of the book.
In Advertising Age, the journalist's coverage of Woodgate isn't substantial, and the quotation: 'We'll take into account all the changes in the landscape, new [competitive] players, changes in the economy as well as social and political changes,' is wholly insignificant.
While the New Straits Times article is reliable and independent, a single interview isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, or otherwise WP:BIO, and there's nothing whatsoever that substantiates Woodgate's personal claims regarding his contributions to the field. Mephistophelian (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete; deleted as A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). CtP (t • c) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jerrad Vunovich[edit]

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

His mention on IMDb for a single bit role appears to be user-generated. I an unable to locate any reliable secondary sources that would indicate that this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Secondary Sources: Celebrity Tweets Celebrities Help Out Troops — Preceding unsigned comment added by JERRADV (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to IMDb, he's in 2 as-yet-unreleased films. No evidence of press coverage or significant roles in major and released films. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). CtP (t • c) 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mark Edwards (harpsichordist)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. He's won a non-notable music award, but that doesn't seem to have got him more than blurb-length coverage, far short of that required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC standards of musician notability (criteria 1, 9 and 12), Mark Edwards is a notable musician. First, the links in the article show that Mr. Edwards meets with criterion no. 1. Second, as for criterion no. 9, the Bruges Early Music (or Musica Antiqua) competition is the most notable early music competition in the world, its longtime judge and "spiritual leader" being Gustav Leonhardt. Please consult the Dutch MA Festival Wikipedia page I have cited in the article; you will find that the career of many a notable musician started by obtaining a prize in this competition. As for criterion no 12, Mark Edwards's concerts and recitals have been featured on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), although I cannot find an online record of the broadcast, and on American Public Media, for which I have given links to the radio program Pipedreams, which can be streamed online. Thank you Stuartyeates for pointing out some of the article's previous weaknesses. The article is now in my Watchlist: links will be amended as information on websites are archived. Please withdraw your proposal to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDaoust (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In total agreement with JasonDaoust. One must be far remote from the musical scene, more specifically from the harpsichord and from the competition world, to propose this article for deletion. Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article, the winner of that prestigious competition is notable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he clearly meets WP:MUSIC (as pointed out above). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. This isn't a "garage band" --Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as per the current evdience in the article and the hard work of the above editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern dictators[edit]

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

Most entries in the namelist are unreferenced. This is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Most likely original research. There is no purpose in keeping such a unneutrally written and largely unreferenced article. And exactly what is the definition of dictator? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra one comment This is far too subjective. You can never really define what's a dictator. My teacher can be defined as one too. ;P. You get my point. The contextual meaning of dictator can have many variations. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list is problematic and potentially defamatory. One can expect the kind of sources available for supporting entries on this would likely be opinion editorials. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BLP violations in spades, as well as running afoul of WP:NOR & WP:NPOV.--JayJasper (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere? I agree this is not a good article, but wondering if we could redirect this somewhere that would provide more NPOV information (note that list of dictators redirects here and would have to be retargeted or deleted). Democracy Index is currently subject of a copyright inquiry, or I'd suggest redirecting there. Could redirect to List of freedom indices. Simply redirecting to dictatorship is an option, as that provides various useful wikilinks. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear-cut violation of WP:NOR and WP:BLP. -Zanhe (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Brohard[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Biography of person who does not appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her roles to date do not appear to satisfy WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She is noteworthy because of her contributions to the field of MMORPG and other game journalism, particularly as the host of Free to Play Weekly for MMOBomb, one of the leading MMO sites - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5A59F63275A5C11D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources about her, please add them to the article. (YouTube is not usually considered a reliable source, and in any case the link you provided above is a primary source, which is not sufficient to show notability.) Note that the MMOBomb website does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia's definition, so being a host there does not seem to be something that would confer notability on a person.--bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I earlier PROD'd the article, but the notice was removed by an IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2013[edit]

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL JetBlast (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the date of the Miss Earth 2013 on the official website. If the events preceding Miss Earth 2013 are notable, IMO they need to be in an article that will not change when the event occurs. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Even if you don't see the date of Miss Earth 2013 on the official website, it will be held definitely. Because Miss Earth is being held annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.54.79 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 30 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITEXISTS, then?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITEXISTS, Then huh? The Bushranger, you are rude, arrogant and sarcastic!

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth. The thing about upcoming events is that even if they seem like they're 100% likely to happen, there's absolutely no guarantee that they will. Stuff happens. Companies go bankrupt. Scandals tear apart corporations. Many things can happen to where an event won't happen, despite it being "guaranteed" to happen previously. There's also the potential that for some reason, the next Miss Earth pageant won't get the coverage necessary to show notability enough to have it's own article. The thing is, this is over a year away. It has received no coverage in any independent and reliable sources, at least not anything in-depth enough to really show that it needs it's own article at this point in time. Will it likely happen and have coverage to show that it's notable? Probably. But we don't keep articles based upon "probably will be notable". It has to be notable now and have multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability. This does not merit an article at this point in time. Now that being said, if someone wants to move a copy of this to their userspace to work on until the reliable sources become available, I have no problem with that. But for right now this should either be deleted or the name serve as a redirect to the main Miss Earth article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyogirl79's redirect sounds like the best solution for now. Mabalu (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UnQL[edit]

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

Repeating the rationale from my earlier prod: This has been flagged for notability and primary sources for eight months with no improvement. The only source appears to be a set of web deadlinks (unqlspec.org resolves but goes to a blank page) and a press release. Google scholar finds highly cited research on something called UnQL, dating from the late 1990s, but it appears to be unrelated. The prod was declined, with the suggestion that this instead be merged with NoSQL, but I think this is a bad idea because the two subjects are at very different levels of technicality (one is a specific access language, the other a broad class of approaches to database organization) and because the same lack of reliable secondary sources that make this non-notable as a standalone article also make it non-notable as information to be kept by merging elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article be merged and redirected with NoSQL; not deleted. The majority of the article can be left in the history, with the single paragraph [intro?] merged. Alternative/additional merges can be to SQLite and/or CouchDB. --J. D. Redding 04:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC) [P.S. there seems to quite a few mentions for notability in the Google Books search.][reply]

Are you sure those book mentions aren't for the 1990s UnQL? That one is indeed notable, I think, but unrelated to the subject of this article. Almost all the hits I see when I search books for UnQL are pre-2011. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little more refined search

Again, I would recommend a merge somewhere. And upon a further look, I'd merge the article into Apache CouchDB (most applicable, as most references today include mention of that software) and make a disambig for the AcDB' UnQL and the 90s UnQL. --J. D. Redding 16:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent source to establish notability. Blanked project pages make merge to NoSQL inadvisable. --Kvng (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (failing enough wp:weight for a merger). There is an older language with the same name that might be marginally notable [15] [16], but the one described in this article is only briefly mentioned in a Ubuntu 2011 book along the lines of "not yet ready for use". Given that there seem to be a at least a dozen NoSQL-related books out there, this seems to be too trivial of a mention even for a merger. If you're feeling magnanimous, you could write a sentence along those lines in the NoSQL article, but I don't see what contents from this stub justifies merger. Also, this seems to be at the specification stage, with no word on any implementations, so merging with any actual products like SQLite and CouchDB because they are projects on which the authors previously worked seems downright wp:speculation. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm convinced the thing exists (I just stumbled on the research paper). But my concern is whether it has gone anywhere. I cannot find anything about recent developments and the spec site is down. So I'm wondering whether the initiative hasn't simply petered out and died (without reaching notability). Oppose a merge, by the way: NoSQL, CouchDB et cetera are different things. -- BenTels (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amusingly enough, this aimed to put back "QL" in NoSQL (according to that source I found, which clearly described it as an "interesting development in the NoSQL world" before saying that it's not yet useful), so it might be worth mentioning there, but with only one independent source and unknown current status, it seems a stretch... Tijfo098 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concealer (Jeffree Star EP)[edit]

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

This is the second time that I've nominated this article for deletion. The first time was here. The EP has not been released yet. There is no reliable sources on this article. There's no confirmed track listing. It doesn't comply with WP:NALBUMS just yet. Devin (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 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) 03:56, 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) 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it has not been released, it cannot in and of itself be notable for sales, chart positions, awards, certifications, major label affiliation, etc. - demos are generally considered not notable, so the recording really does not meet any WP:GNG criteria. The artist does not have a track record for notability and would not meet WP:MUSICBIO, but for that matter the demo wouldn't inherit anything from the artist were they notable anyway (unless the pervasive and overwhelming fame of such bands as Guns & Roses Chinese Conspiracy release applied here, which it does not). All-in-all and at this time WP:NN. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood Company[edit]

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

Non-notable company and Google News produced two relevant articles here and here, and two links here (press release) and here focusing with the company's products. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. My search results were similar to nominator's: One article in Direct Marketing News and a few press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 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) 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Waaay below what I would consider suitable for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DadLabs[edit]

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

Non-notable and it seems the company has never received notable news coverage as shown by Google News. The only links I have found are either primary or simply videos, the only link I found that wasn't primary or videos was this blog which would provide minimal support for this article. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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) 03:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. All links are self-referential, except one which is supposed to confirm that they won an award but actually does not even mention the company that I could find. Here's how promotional it is: "DadLabs is most likely searching for their own corporate backing/acquisition. With this financial boost, DadLabs would be able to increase its reached market through an enhanced advertising strategy, thus making it a major player in the realm of fatherhood resource sites." In other words: please buy this company! --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 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) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's gotten some attention by way of the sources I've added to the article and it even got a Webby nod at one point (but didn't win), but there just isn't enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show that this website has notability. It's fairly close to where I'd say it'd be notable, but there just isn't enough coverage at this time to merit an article. Most of the sources I discovered were primary sources or are sources that aren't considered to be reliable per Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Deleted and salted 22:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC) by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Diaz[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources, previously deleted and recreated 3x, recommend delete and salt. GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per CSD A7, and salt. This subject is wasting valuable wiki-resources, and does not assert or satisfy the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - This article is currently also a copyvio of http://www.musica.com/letras.asp?info=75376&biografia=41539&idf=5 . -- WikHead (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewed new sourcing that shows subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO Dlohcierekim 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

coverage not significant to meet WP:GNG Dlohcierekim 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the artist seems new and has not yet established enough notability to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Bleubeatle (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Old Bridge, New Jersey shooting[edit]

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

This page violates WP:Not News. Possibly merge to Old Bridge Township, New Jersey. Tinton5 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the reason mentioned above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough evidence of notability (extensive coverage on local news does not merit notability. The event must be covered nationally or globally like in the Evening News). Shootings like this happen every day. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually did make national news: [17]. It was also on HLN the day it happened. And CBS News. Tinton5 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there has to be constant coverage of the story, which I have yet to see. Those articles are written like Breaking News, which many newspapers and stations make, regardless of location. The CBS News one is less than half a page long. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE or enduring significance. I doubt mention at Old Bridge Township, New Jersey would be appropriate. Perhaps a line in the Community and historical information section, but that's a rather messy section as is. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont think user BDD own a crystal ball so he/she can not know about WP:PERSISTENCE or enduring significance after just a few days. Also the subject is within WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article lacked persistence or enduring significance, just that it lacks indications of such. Gun murders will always attract news attention—do they all deserve Wikipedia articles? What makes this one so special? See WP:EVENT. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:EVENT always trumps WP:GNG. nothing unusual about this gun murder. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely a ONEEVENT deal. And, indeed, none of us own crystal balls ... which means we cannot claim that this shooting at all means our standards of notability absent any proof that it will do so. Ravenswing 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, Raven? Tinton5 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad, but run of the mill crime in Chris Christie's state; New Jersey has had lots of these attacks or going postal incidents recently. Delete with sympathies to the victims. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Avenue (Kansas City, Missouri)[edit]

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

Non-notable street. Nothing but trivia. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple off-line sources exist. Clearly surpasses WP:GNG. Subject is verifiable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable street. There has to be some sources that establish some notoriety. I have not found any for this. Tinton5 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prospect Avenue appears to be a fairly notorious street in Kansas City; this article explains its decline, and provides some very thorough coverage. This article and this article also provide coverage of some revitalization efforts. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prospect Avenue, the subject of the article, is a slab of asphalt, so it can't really "decline" or "be revived" (other than developing potholes and being repaired). Certainly, the neighborhood around it can, but that's tangent to the subject of the article. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst. Specifically reject Scott5114's argument as flawed. The neighborhood around the street is known by the street name. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur The argument about the physical street itself should not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we are going to have an article about the neighborhood around the street shouldn't it be merged/moved to the applicable article listed on List of neighborhoods in Kansas City, Missouri then? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would be against merging to that article, but I would support its entry. That's a list, and it would be appropriate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical city street. Dough 48 72 04:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City street that gets the routine coverage any city street gets; not a numbered national or state route, so not applicable under the gazzeteer clause; article appears as if it were created to be a business directory. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 5 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.