< 11 February	13 February >

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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Badger (poker player)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. He won small amounts of money in minor poker tournaments a long time ago, and created a website. If we are to include every such person, there would be thousands of BLP's for poker players. DegenFarang (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep in line with the previous speedy keep where this notorious diruputive editor previously vandalized and tried have this article deleted. Subject plainly meet WP:BIO and Wikipedia Poker project guidelines for article creation as a World Series of Poker winner. Nominator has been barred eight times for long history of disrpution and vandalism in terms of this article, multiple other poker bios, other BLP's like John Roberts. 2005 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an impressive ad hominem attack, but you haven't addressed the issue at all. Please explain how Steve Badger is ""worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". DegenFarang (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per 2005. (NB Afd is malformed so may not show up on the Afd summary page).--ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as article subject meets all necessary notability requirements. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed lots of peacock statements. Please review the article again and see if you think he is notable. Outside of his one and only World Series of Poker cash, 14 years ago, he hasn't done anything notable. Winning a few $100 and $300 buy-in poker tournaments hardly qualifies. DegenFarang (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say keep. Badger has received coverage in a few poker magazines (although the two cited in the article contain dead links) but also in SF Gate, The NY Times and the International Herald Tribune. [For new crop of poker players, a good hand holds a mouse, International Herald Tribune--July 11, 2003 | Peter Wayner][Aside from his winnings he seems to be a minor but notable authority on the topic. That said, I would echo the request for editors to comment on the content and not on other editors. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article clearly and obviously meets notability requirements. Rray 18:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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 Israeli-occupied territories. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administered territories[edit]

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

POV fork of Israeli-occupied territories. What is the evidence that this is the term used to designate these territories in the discourse of international law? The generally accepted term is occupied territories. Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does seem to be a POVFORK. There's really nothing of value worth merging into the main article. - Mr X 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli-occupied territories as duplicate/WP:POVFORK. Google suggests it's a name that is sometimes used in Israeli sources for the Palestinian territories etc, but if the same thing is called multiple names it still only gets one Wikipedia article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli-occupied territories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:24, 14 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robo-FTP Server[edit]

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

Non-notable software by non-notable software company. Article contains peacock "first" claim but has no references to back this up. Bob Re-born (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSOFTWARE as evidenced by a dearth of reliable sources covering the subject in any depth. The article seems entirely promotional. - Mr X 23:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 06:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robo-FTP[edit]

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

Non-notable software by non-notable software company. Article contains peacock "first" claim but has no references to back this up. Bob Re-born (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSOFTWARE as evidenced by a dearth of reliable sources covering the subject in any depth. The article seems mostly promotional. - Mr X 23:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 06:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2013 (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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Flight 544[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Shootdowns of aircraft during a conflict, accidental or not, aren't notable unless someone themselves notable is involved. Which clearly isn't the case here....William 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC0

This passes the cited guidelines: This was a civilian aircraft owned by a private corporation on an humanitarian (i.e. non-military) mission. All casualties were civilians. No weapons of war or other implements of hostility, including espionage, have been reported on the aircraft. At over 7,000 kgs empty, the Mil Mi-8 does not meet "light aircraft" status either. If you want to cite (informal) WikiProject guidelines, at least be precise.

Anyhow, this event is not primarily notable from an aviation perspective, but from an international relations one. It is causing significant political tension between Russia, S. Sudan and UNMIS. Non-notability by aviation standards does not make the political event non-notable. If you object to the flight-number based title or infobox and kick it out of your WikiProject, please suggest a useable alternative. Keitsist (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, with significant news coverage of the resulting international affair. — daranz [ t ] 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although consider renaming to Shootdown of UN Flight 544 and making the article more clearly about the whole affair. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is a fantastic idea. Is "shootdown" a noun though? Would "crash", "downing," "shooting" or something similar work? Is there an aviation equivalent of "sinking"??Keitsist (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the aviation term would be Downing of UN Flight 544. But a look at Category:Airliner shootdown incidents suggests the term "shootdown" would also be acceptable. The word "incident" afterward also seems to have been commonly used. I don't think there is a distinction made (in this regard) between planes and helicopters, but I am happy to stand corrected. Stalwart111 07:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though I support the idea of amending the name to better reflect the event. Stalwart111 07:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough, rename is probably also good idea.--Staberinde (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (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. Blatant hoax. As an Alaskan this is perhaps more obvious to me, this is so full of errors and outright fabrications that there is no chance it is not just a ball of lies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cayperl plateau[edit]

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

This is a hoax. Unfortunately it has been here for over two years (congratulations to new user Praemonitus (talk), who tagged it), so mirrors have spread it quite widely, but I can find no independent confirmation. The name is not in Geonames, nor is it in the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. I have not found any record of the "East Alaska Oil Co." If their operations at Cayperl were "incredibly successful" and controversial, exciting "strong interest and campaigning", there would surely be some record on-line. The article author has only four other edits, none of them constructive. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2013 (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 per Criterion for speedy deletion G12. I just searched for the use of the word 'said' in the prose of the article, which is often the give away that material has been lifted from a news story (eg, when it appears in a format such as "an IDF spokesperson said..." or similar), and followed the links to the first ten or so news stories and several others selected at random where the links are still live. In the great majority of cases the material in the article had been lifted word for word from the news story. Google searching for other uses of 'said' selected at random from entries without a specific reference revealed similar problems. This was a simple test, and I imagine that checking each of the entries against the reference (including those which don't include the giveaway word 'said') would have revealed wider problems given that most of the entries were written in the style of news stories. As there is no good version to revert to in an article such as this, it's clearly a candidate for speedy deletion. If editors in good standing would like to work on this offline and provide me (or any other admin) with a commitment that they won't republish it until the copyvios are addressed I'd be happy to email them a copy - though this should still be available from Wikipedia mirrors for at least the next few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Gaza conflict timeline 2006–2008[edit]

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

The actual history of this article is a bit muddled, but its apparent creator has called it "all propaganda" and "not worth wasting time." See discussion at Talk:Israel–Gaza conflict timeline 2006–2008#Requested move. This may fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It's a somewhat arbitrary timeline in an ongoing conflict. Is every death in this conflict notable? Its purpose is unclear. BDD (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was merged from two different ones that detailed events during that time; the larger one seems to have focused on casualities. During November attacks when it was called Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict - and obviously was NOT that, I proposed on several relevant Wikiprojects/articles that it focus just on casualties. Hearing no objection, I thus renamed it to Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006–2008 per Talk:Israel–Gaza_conflict_timeline_2006–2008#Create_new_casualites_article_and_redirect_this.3F and started cleaning out the material irrelevant to casualties.

Soon after User:Greyshark09 came along, ignored the work I did and just changed it to the current name which I protested on the talk page here. Not knowing how to move it back (having done it wrong in the past), I then asked for move discussion but got little relevant feedback. It's obvious a casualties article will show once again the disproportionate number of Palestinians killed during this period; the new title obsfuscates this issue. Considering the opposition to the article spelling out this fact, and that there are better ways to dramatize the issue, I don't think this article is critical. However, I won't vote for AfD because I have such a big problem with the process by which the name was changed and the questionable excuses for it. I don't like to think a more important article also could be deleted this way. CarolMooreDC 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am concerned regarding what is written above, as this maybe seen as POV advocacy. It shouldn't matter whether one groups casualties is more or less than another. It should be that one is only concern about documenting casualties, period.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, it maybe as a scope of the article to be a WP:SYNTHESIS. Casualties within the conflict maybe notable, but a timeline of those casualties may not be. At the same time an AfD is not a substitute for clean up. Therefore, I am torn as to what my opinion what what the best outcome should be regarding this article. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Casualties during the Israel–Gaza conflict, and the list transformed into prose, and the content better summarized.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is just the 2006-2008 ("between the June 2006 end of a ceasefire and the beginning of the Gaza War in late December 2008. ") and I don't think anyone wants to do the work to expand it. There is another article Casualties of the Gaza War also. I see for the first time there also is a Category:Death in the Palestinian territories which includes casualties in First and Second Intifadas as well as Category:Death_in_Israel] which surely will include articles about Palestinians killing Israels. So a casualty article on both Israelis and Palestinians for a two year specific period would not be totally unprecedented. A timeline that is mostly a casualty list of course is absurd and worthy of deletion.

So the real question remains, should it be moved back to original title Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006–2008 which was passed by 2 wikiprojects and a couple article talk pages, or left with this one which was passed by no one. CarolMooreDC 04:25, 13 February 2013 (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. considering the sock puppetry, SALT for now Secret ^account 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald-Seer Computer Poll[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, no independent reliable sources. Article appears to be have been created and maintained by poll's creator Esprqii (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment The editor appears to be engaging in WP:SOCKpuppetry removal of AfD templates1 2, and blanking of this page.Martin451 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; no obvious notability. With time and sources, you might make a case for notability - but, at this point, an article would be premature. The sockpuppetry and shenanigans of the author don't help, either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:13, 13 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Spence[edit]

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

No references, may fail the general guidelines for notability. I did find this link that shows his filmography. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems like either a hoax or a pathetic attempt at self-promotion. I have removed the unsourced claim that he was involved with Game of Thrones. - MrX 00:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Self-promotion, probably. Hoax, not at all. I've restored the material about Game of Thrones. IMDB (adminttedly not a reliable source but usually fairly good) lists him as co-producer / producer for a bunch of episodes and I was easily able to verify (see [1]). As for actual notability, I'm still researching. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find his name mentioned as a producer, or co-producer, but there is no significant coverage about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. With the absence of any awards or recognition for his work, his being associate producer, executive producer, or co-producer fails WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 19 February 2013 (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 U-KISS. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jaeseop[edit]

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

Not notable outside of his band. All information in the article is available in the U-KISS article or can be included there. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U-KISS as a plausible search term, and as WP:MUSICBIO suggests for group members who haven't "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Gong show 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U-KISS. Lacks notability for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minesh Parikh[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this landscape architect under WP:GNG. Caveat: If there are non-English sources, it is very likely I would have missed them. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: The page is created for business promotion. Wikipedia is not developed for this purpose. Notability is not observed. Do not follow the criteria/guidelines of notability of Wikipedia. Jussychoulex (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite frankly it might be a case of the language barrier but I can't seem to find anything that would get this person past WP:GNG. The list of achievements is impressive, but we look for third-party coverage that could help us establish that notability. As far as I can see, that's not the case at the moment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:57, 19 February 2013 (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 and move. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atman (Jainism)[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources or references. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Ātman (Jainism). Just because it doesn't currently cite any sources doesn't mean it fails WP:GNG or meets some other criterion for deletion. If you have some specific reason why the page should be deleted, please state that: otherwise, why not try improving it by providing sources yourself? Also, please remember that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress: we don't need every article that is imperfect to be deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I should also note that I know nothing about Jainism. I just think that a reasonable case needs to be made if the article is to be deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Please see WP:DEL-REASON, #8 in particular. The article fails the notability criteria. Notability requires verifiable evidence Also, if you read WP:N, the very first line says that On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But you need to demonstrate that this subject is not notable in spite of the roughly 17,000 books that discuss Jainism and the atman. Please understand that just because the article doesn't currently cite any sources, it doesn't mean that no sources exist, and it doesn't mean the subject is not notable. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I do not have the burden to demonstrate this topic is not notable. The article currently have Dictionary definition of what atman is, followed by the claim that atman is one of the tattva. As far as I know, jiva is a tattva and not atman and there is a difference between both the terms. However, I may be wrong. If someone can not cite a reference that atman is also a tattva, and expand the article to be more than just a dictionary definition within reasonable time, I think the article should be deleted. Until then, lets see what others has to say on this. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN applies to inclusion of information in an article. You are perfectly free to delete questionable material that isn't sourced and that you think cannot be verified. However, deletion of the entire article requires evidence that it cannot be improved, and that sources cannot be found -- you have not done this. You can delete the claim that atman is also a tattva. (I have no training in Jainism, and what I know of Hinduism and non-Japanese Buddhism comes from books I read once almost a decade ago, so I actually have no idea what "tattva" is.) If someone has a problem with you deleting the claim, then the WP:BURDEN will be on them to find a reliable source that makes the same claim. However, at AFD the burden is on the nominator to demonstrate that the article has no place on Wikipedia. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, the article fails the criteria of notability (WP:DEL-REASON #8) due to absence of any sources at all. Lets wait and see what others have to say on this and have someone neutral close the discussion and decide the consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ready to guess that most Wikipedia articles cite either no sources or insufficient sources. This by itself is not a valid reason for deletion. You need to demonstrate that the topic is not notable and has not been covered in any other sources. I have already pointed out to you the thousands of books that appear to discuss the subject. I also notice that you have yet to contact the article's creator to see which sources they actually based the article on. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Ātman (Jainism). Agree with Elvenscout742. There are numerous sources on the topic which can be added, all that is needed is to tag the article appropriately. Articleye (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Elvenscout742 and Articleye. The user who has nominated this article for deletion is quoting wikipedia policies selectively without understanding.It can be expanded into a major article as the concept of Atman is fulcrum to the philosophy of Wikipedia. However, it is suggested that diacritics be avoided in naming the article as it will make the search difficult. Rather the popular spelling of Atman be kept.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics won't make searching any more difficult, as the current title will be made into a redirect. The relevant guideline is at MOS:FOREIGN: The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged [... and we should p]rovide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics. The fact that the other two articles on this subject as it relates to Buddhism and Hinduism both give a macron means that for consistency's sake it's probably better to do so. (Additionally, since every item on the list at Atman either currently has or probably should have a diacritic the redirect page itself should probably be moved.) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very important and frequently discussed topic in Jainism.Malaiya (talk)

Keep - We have articles on Ātman (Hinduism) and Ātman (Buddhism). This topic, too, is notable in its own right. As it stands, the article is nothing more than a stub. It should be expanded with sources and references, along the lines of the other two articles, to give it its own distinctive identity. Similarly, the title could be amended to Ātman (Jainism). But deleting it seems preposterous, if one looks at the other two articles. Notability is not really an issue here. Questioning this here is tantamount to questioning what Jainism stands for.--Zananiri (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Zananiri's reasoning. This is a notable concept in Indic religions, including Ātman (Hinduism), Ātman (Buddhism), and Atman (Jainism). Per WP:MOS, however, I would recommended removing the macron on the letter "A". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more information and references to the article on the how the concept of atman is unique in Jainism, as opposed to Buddhism and Hinduism. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 04:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, MOS says we can use the macron, and the other two articles indicate that we should move Atman (Jainism) to Ātman (Jainism) for consistency. How many more times am I going to have to clarify this? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should Atman be moved to Ātman since every item on the list has a macron? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 02:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Museum of Australia[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. No independent sources seem to confirm its existence. It seems to be a proposed project of the National Library of Australia, but does not yet appear to actually exist. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is a major digitization initiative of Australian museums and a registered charity in Australia. The existence of the museum can be verified at www.asic.gov.au, www.ato.gov.au and numerous other Australian government sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.94.236 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just run a search via ASIC on all gov.au websites: not much in the way of results. ATO doesn't have anything either. Please can you provide links to this content? It's worth noting that if the DMA is a National Library project, most government websites would not count towards its notability in any case, given that they are not independent of the subject. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. nothing on a major Australian news site [2]. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this actually had nothing to do with the National Library, or any other government organisation, but is part of the private Matilda Media/Alex Hartman/Peter Scarf conglomerate, that has embedded itself here, through a lot of WP:SPA/COI editing. Nice idea, but it seems to duplicate what Trove/NLA is already doing, and is not yet notable enough for an article. Maybe be suitable for a redirect to Matilda Media, but even that is a bit spammy/advertorial whilst it is in the startup phase. The-Pope (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH and regulatory or registration listings (ASIC/ATO) would not be considered "significant coverage" enough to confer notability. Stalwart111 07:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2013 (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:SNOWBALL, Delete, restore redirect. and protect. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heterophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Massively POV. Rife with soapboxing phrases like simply refer to marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, linked to the degradation of religious liberty, and imperialist agenda. Is there any conceivable good article that could be made out of this? It's within the realm of possibility. Is there anything salvageable in the page history? No. I'm half-inclined to G11 this as completely promotional of an anti-gay point of view. (Or would that be heterophobic of me?) Seeing as the far more objective Homophobia#"Heterophobia" already exists, I propose we revert to Sandstein's redirect to that section, and fully protect the page until and unless someone can propose an objective version that passes WP:42 (since really, the way I see it, the section in the Homophobia article does the job well enough). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is nothing more or less than an attack page. Additionally, the creator of the current article is user:3abos - assuming that they are also the Australian IP editor User:121.217.219.208, this is a pretty overt racist slur. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. POV, soapboxing, also it's a violation of WP:SYNTH, since it was cobbled together using a bunch or sources that don't even use the word "heterophobia." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding here that I support FPP if consensus turns this page back to a redirect. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if any users !voting to redirect are opposed to FPPing if that's the consensus, please say so. I'm just noting this so that if I RFPP after the fact, no one can say that there wasn't a consensus for it. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and SALT - violates so many Wiki guidelines and rules that I can't be bothered to list them all. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Unsalvageably biased. Sjö (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect this is subject to speedy deletion as a re-creation of deleted content that has all the same issues for which this article was deleted before. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Malik, the page does not meet G4. Oh, incidentally, editors should note that the creator, 3abos (talk · contribs), cannot comment here, as he's been blocked for a day for edit-warring on this article. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonnotableneologismomania. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not exist as an actual phobia. Much like "white history month", a protest-oriented neologism does not deserve a standalone article unless the term itself it the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect and protect from editing. Rubbish. All this discussion illustrates is that besides "exact recreation of consensus-deleted content," perhaps we should have a provision for "much worse than consensus-deleted content." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect and protect from editing - This article is going to be an attack page, neutrality is going to be a real big issue there. Unless the page reach a recreation consensus, and stand on protect status, it may remain offensive and blatant. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt per all above. Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect and protect from editing - as suggested. Just plain silly. Stalwart111 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete When I read the nom I wanted to vote delete, but then I figured given the unanimity of the !vote even without me it wasn't necessary. Then I checked the article. It really is a disgusting piece of propaganda, and I loved the sloppy/slightly plagiaristic quote-without-a-citation. I added the citation just for fun (I've seen similar problems on other articles, and I've gotten pretty good at finding the sources). Then I realized that if I didn't come here and !vote for deletion it would look like I was actively trying to improve/defend the article. So here I am. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2013 (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, no valid deletion rationale given, and what the.....? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Rawls[edit]

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

Reason Men2002 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 12:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: no rationale for deletion given. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No reason given; obviously frivolous or disruptive. An obviously notable figure, one of the greatest philosophers of his era, who has been written about endlessly.[3][4][5][6] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Colapeninsula. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Nomination appears to be one of a series of test edits by a new account. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (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 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. J04n(talk page) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Future football schedules. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. The logic of WP:FUTURE applies as well. GrapedApe (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. This is not the place for this sort of information, which is easily available on the net. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of information. This article is also a violation of crystal ball rule, WP is not a crystal ball. Future schedules articles receives a lot of pov and if-statements. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To address the previous comments:

1. This is not "trivia." Future schedules are legitimate and necessary sources of reference for anyone with an interest in such events; including, but not limited to: alumni, season-ticket holders, casual fans, and/or researchers attempting to gauge the future direction of the program. "Trivia" is a random collection of indiscriminate facts with no collective purpose. (See WP:DISCRIMINATE)

2. Regarding Wikipedia's "Crystal Ball" policy, it states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...] A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." These events are certainly notable, as they pertain to a sports team with a nationwide fan base, affiliation with a national broadcast network, and an annual profit of over $43 million. The schedule information is verifiable as every single entry has been meticulously sourced.

3. Nothing in this article represents a "point of view." Everything is factual and sourced.

4. "This is not the place for this sort of information, which is easily available on the net." Simply not a true statement. One can see from the plethora of necessary sources that an individual could spend hours if not days scouring the Internet in an attempt to collect all of this information.

5. Almanacs are printed for handy reference to dates of future events in lists precisely like this one... and one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars states that Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis mine) Therefore, this is exactly the sort of notable information that is appropriate for Wikipedia, and if this page is deleted no other similar compendium exists.

6. This article was already nominated for deletion last year and the consensus was 4-1 in favor of keeping it (with three votes that were mixed/ambiguous). All of those arguments still apply. Nothing about the content of the article has changed in the interim. Why are we rehashing this again? Do those in favor of deletion just get to keep forcing a vote over and over again until they get the result they want? -- Trowbridge (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is nothing indiscriminate about this list, per WP:DISCRIMINATE. It specifically focuses on future football scheduling for Notre Dame football. The list is clearly organized, structured, up-to-date, well-kept, informative, and (gasp) widely discussed in the national media as the boatload of sources provide. Sources are reliable and information can be verified. Also, this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because the future schedule has actually been announced. While there may be changes in the schedule, there is no speculation or guesswork here on the part of editors. Further, the topic clearly passes WP:GNG due to its wide discussion in national media. There have been no new arguments introduced to delete, and if anything the article is better than it was the last time we had this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possible Merge with Notre Dame Fighting Irish football or even split/userfy-transform into primordial separate season articles. As is, it is a non-notable rotating calendar of future scheduled events that is not encyclopedic per nomination. This article is also duplicative with 2013 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. The authors would be better off creating individual future season articles that would contain permanent information. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I sound cynical, but thus far all of the votes in favor of deletion have been arbitrary statements in the form of WP:Just unencyclopedic or WP:Not notable. I'm not seeing any arguments in favor of deletion. Not to mention that the nomination itself uses only WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FUTURE as the basis, both of which (IMHO) have clearly been shown to be misapplied. -- Trowbridge (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am somewhat new to editing Wikipedia articles. Although I was initially stunned that this webpage would be considered for deletion due to its usefulness and the importance of the information it provides many people, I feel that after researching Wikipedia policy that this web page is absolutely appropriate Wikipedia content.

-The original arguments for deletion include that the page is an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia, WP future logic (crystal ball rule) is violated, this is not an encyclopedic topic, and the information is easily found on the “net.” The argument that “future schedules articles receives a lot of pov and if-statements” is a generalization and does not apply to the article in question, as anyone would realize that read the article. I have now taken the time to become familiar with Wikipedia policy and I believe a neutral observer can only come to the conclusion that the page is not sports trivia, it follows specified Wikipedia policy concerning future events, is appropriate anticipated encyclopedic content, and all of the information is NOT easily found on the “net” on one webpage, other than this Wikipedia page.

-First, the definition of trivia pertains to insignificant matters. If one believes that Notre Dame football or its future games are insignificant, one obviously has no knowledge on the general subject of college football and should therefore recuse oneself from this current deletion discussion.

-Specifically referencing “Crystal ball” rules (which is the same as WP: Future logic), current policy states “all articles about anticipated events must be verifiable,” which the article in question heavily relies on a multitude of different independent websites, news organizations, and university pages to bring all of the verifiable information into one easily viewable and referenced form to provide anticipated game information dissemination to those seeking it on the internet.

-The content on the webpage is worthy of an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia policy states for future events, “the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.” There are many current Wikipedia pages that pertain to Notre Dame football games that have already occurred and the interest in Notre Dame football is as popular as college football is itself. Further Wikipedia policy states, “individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.” Nearly all, if not all, of the scheduled games on the Wikipedia webpage will occur, with actual fan attendance expected at a minimum of 60,000 people, and millions more watching the games live on broadcast television would definitely count as notable. The policy pertaining to sports teams schedules specifically state to “avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative.” The Notre Dame scheduled games referenced in the article are verifiable and not speculative as individual agreements and contracts with specific teams and the ACC have been signed and widely reported upon. Wikipedia specifically states, “a schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.” I don’t think I have to state again that the games are independently verified with a multitude of sources.

-In terms of if this information is easily found on the “net”, I would not have wasted nearly a hundred hours researching Notre Dame future schedules for the past 6 months to provide this information for everyone that wants it and needs it to plan their future if I found it all on one page to begin with.

-The 2013 schedule will be deleted from this page, when appropriate, as it will become the current football schedule in the upcoming season and therefore not a future schedule.

-The only question I have about this delection discussion is why actual people are wasting their time trying to delete this content when it has already undergone consideration for deletion and was deemed appropriate? This current deletion discussion is circuitous and Wikipedia should improve policy to prevent such events from occuring in the future for this webpage and others that undergo the same needless repeated deletion discussion.

--Raddok (talk) 4:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment FWIW, User:Trowbridge canvassed for votes here, here, here and here. Most had voted keep in the original AFD and one is a primary contributor to the article in question. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing I was one of them, but I didn't think anything of it because I constantly monitor the American Football deletion sorting and this page itself, so I would have gotten here anyway and would have provided the same response I did above. Many people think so, but I don't hold to the believe that "canvassing" is a crime.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bigtime Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Filibustering going on up in here.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please encourage full discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. Content is notable and verifiable, but not substantive enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The content of this list/article should be included in a "Future non-conference opponents" section of the parent Notre Dame Fighting Irish football article, as is the case for the overwhelming majority of other Division I FBS team articles. I note that this article is one of only four or five remaining CFB "future schedules" lists; in all other instances, similar material has been merged/incorporated directly into the parent article regarding the particular CFB team. And for the record, I also share the WP:CRYSTAL concerns expressed by others above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (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 Colorado Buffaloes football. Although there is only one !vote to merge there are three other very similar AfDs where consensus is to merge. Either way consensus at this discussion is not to keep, so merging some of the material is a viable option.. J04n(talk page) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Future football schedules. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. The logic of WP:FUTURE applies as well. Also, material is not being kept up, since the "future season" of 2012 has already occurred. GrapedApe (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the creator of the article. No new arguments here since the last time. This is still referenced information. "Not kept updated" is a terrible reason to delete something. Would President Obama's article be deleted if it wasn't updated? It's no less important if it were. I spent 10 minutes doing 2 edits to keep it updated which was probably a lot easier than nominating for deletion. MECU≈talk 14:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. This is not the place for this sort of information, which is easily available on the net. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has the same issue of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule, wikipedia is not the right place for this content, football games don't have a fixed date many games get canceled, which is an event we cannot predict, hence WP:CRYSTAL. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you want to find a future schedule of some sporting events, you check the team or league website, not the Wikipedia. First point from Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL applies here as well. Ezhuks (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced and notable. No new deletion arguments are raised, and the Wiki community has shown its ability to keep up with this particular article. The "not encyclopedic" argument is a classic from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and has no relevance here. Also, the WP:CRYSTAL argument also does not apply--although the events are "in the future" they are scheduled as of now (as the sources indicate). Crystal states that if the "event is notable and almost certain to take place" then it can be considered. While one may argue that this game or that game may or may not take place, it is reasonably certain that the University of Colorado will have a football schedule in 2014 and 2015.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorado Buffaloes football. Content is notable and verifiable, but not substantive enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of this list/article is redundant to that already included in the "Future non-conference opponents" section of the parent Colorado Buffaloes football article. I also share the WP:CRYSTAL concerns voiced by others. Furthermore, I note that this article is one of only four or five CFB "future schedules" lists; in all other instances, similar material has been merged/incorporated directly into the parent article regarding the particular CFB team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (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 BYU Cougars football. J04n(talk page) 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Cougars future football schedules[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Future football schedules. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. The logic of WP:FUTURE applies as well. GrapedApe (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. This is not the place for this sort of information, which is easily available on the net. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR, point #4. Sorry, but this is not an encyclopedic topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BYU Cougars football. Content is notable and verifiable, but not substantive enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The content of this list/article should be included in a "Future non-conference opponents" section of the parent BYU Cougars football article, as is the case for the overwhelming majority of other Division I FBS team articles. I note that this article is one of only four or five remaining CFB "future schedules" lists; in all other instances, similar material has been merged or incorporated directly into the parent article regarding the particular CFB team. And for the record, I also share the WP:CRYSTAL concerns expressed by others above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2013 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Floppix[edit]

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

Nonnotable software Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about one of many bare bones Linux distributions. No showing of technical, historical, or cultural importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - I am not able to find reliable sources about this peculiar Linux distribution; it lacks notability and there are far better alternatives like Damn Small Linux, Puppy Linux or similar. Toffanin (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PetrOS[edit]

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

Nonnotable piece of software Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no showing of encyclopedic significance. Full text: PetrOS - Commercial, 32-bit operating system, develop by Trumpet Software. Under premise was to be compatible from Microsoft Windows 95 but than version 1.0 can just run application win32 in TUI. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references except to the developers' web site; no evidence, or even claim, of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable software. No verifiability to sustain its maintenance or existence on wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Numerous Google News searches didn't provide much and there really isn't much about the product such as when it was released. A Google News search with "PetrOS software Tattam" provided three results from 10+ years ago and a different search here provided another link (Polish, Monitor - novice - Operacijski sistem, združljiv z Windowsom). The osnews.com link from the first search mentions the parent company's director, Peter Tattam, who was the architect for PetrOS. Even the non-English links are brief paragraphs and nothing detailed but I'm happy to reconsider if other users find better links. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I already "PROD'ed" the article a few weeks ago. mabdul 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first experience connecting to the internet was in '95 using Windows 3.11, Netscape and Trumpet Winsock; the latter is from Peter Tattam, the same creator of the aforementioned PetrOS (as stated inside the OSNews interview discovered by User:SwisterTwister). According to a blog post from Peter himself (see [7]) and the official forum of Tattam Software Enterprises (see [8]), PetrOS is undergoing an heavy re-factory and is now called ClassiOS, but is far from being usable or complete. Since OSNews coverage (dated back the end of 2001, see [9] and also [10]), PetrOS / ClassiOS never reached notability, neither media coverage (oppositely to ReactOS which shares the same goals), hence is not worth keeping on Wikipedia. Maybe a bio about Peter Tattam could have the chance of standing on its own merits, due to extensive media coverage, but not an article about PetrOS / ClassiOS. Toffanin (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2013 (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 BoA. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special Live 2013: Here I am[edit]

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

So what? I hesitated to speedy this but saying it is the first "solo" concert could conceivably be a claim to significance, well delete because: trivial, unencyclopaedic, non-notable. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information into the parent article, the singer is notable so this is the correct move. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:46, 12 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 02:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skream![edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This article is wholly unreferenced and there is no evidence of notability. Having a music video on YouTube does not confer notability. Fails WP:BAND. Giant Snowman 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my WP:HOAX senses are a-tingling... a band active for two years only with a tour that was backed by Backstreet Boys and Peter Andre at the start of their career, and Gemini (who don't even appear to have been properly active at that time) smells like a rat. I do see conducive evidence that Skream! exist, and that they do have a single called Day In Day Out (and even that they were signed to Telstar: [11][12]), but I see no evidence that they produced anything at all called Wishing. Or that they ever appeared on TV, or that this tour ever existed. Article produced by an SPA that has only ever edited this article, bar 1 edit to Telstar Records - to promote Skream! by putting them in that article. I will admit that the DJ makes searching for Skream! the band hard, but the hard truth is this: nothing anywhere shows this band to pass anything other than WP:ITEXISTS, which ain't no grounds for inclusion.</American voice> Lukeno94 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Obvious hoax is obvious Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or not, I am unable to find coverage for this subject in reliable sources. Gong show 06:17, 13 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 02:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TGen Drug Development[edit]

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

press-release-driven article, lack of notability. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a press release driven advertisement. Clinical drug trials are apparently the latest hellhole for back-office spammers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is written as a advertisement, wikipedia is not a ads ballot. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain per the fact that this was a non profit organization that created the first line treatment for prostate cancer and has done more than you ignorant pieces of shit. I'm out, if wikipedia is run by uneducated tards, keep your digital space. All the people who couldn't gain information and died from prostate cancer that could have been treated is on you.

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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges[edit]

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

Non-notable college consortium: does not appear to have achieved anything, no real indication of lasting importance and influence. GrapedApe (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some coverage found via GNews, GBooks (I added a couple), and a bunch of references to assorted studies and projects of this organization can be seen at GScholar. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consortium is notable, it has a variety of articles and books produced. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:44, 12 February 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Paris Yarleque Naranjo[edit]

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

I've tried searching his name in various iterations, and can't find RS coverage to support a claim to notability. Tagged for notability for close to five years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He exists, but I couldn't find any indication of notability. Additionally it's likely that the article is misnamed; if we do establish notability than maybe the page should be at Cesar Paris Yarleque? squibix (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (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. Although numericaly the opinions to keep exceeded to delete AfD is not a vote. The delete opinions were more policy based. As suggested by AdventurousSquirrel, I would be happy to userfy the article to anyone who wants to work on it without the spectre of AfD hanging over their head. What this means is that the page would be moved into your user-space where it can be edited freely. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla)[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)

Fails WP:ORG, relies heavily on self-published sources, search didn't provide significant, reliable, independent coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep that's the only ashram in europe about Sant Mat, home of the only european guru of this path... why remove it? there are books about it and various websites about this place...--GurDass (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the article there are lots of references from various independent sources! --GurDass (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the page is not ok now but it was ok for years and with the help of many wikipedia users and administrators that improved it! --GurDass (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I beg to differ. The page's edit history reveals its major contributors to be you, and other users who seem to be closely connected to the subject matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep why remove this page? the place is known and significant--MarcoG83 (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) is a public place in Italy. Sirio Carrapa is a teacher known by many from Europe to India to South America. When I was preparing to interview him on my inter-faith radio program I used this very page as a resource to help me learn more about this particular teacher and school of philosophy. Why would anyone want to delete this entry, which has been present for many months or years? The spirit of Wikipedia is access to knowledge about many subjects from various points of view, not that of vandalism or censorship by those less sympathetic with one topic or another, or political party or another, or religion or another, etc... Making legitimate entries disappear for less that clear reasons should not be a routine occurrence here, I would hope. Third party arbitration can be useful. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who uses Wikipedia articles like this one to gather information and inform your listeners, you should understand that Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies are of the utmost importance to maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If you want a collection of ideas from self-published sources, you can simply visit the organization's website or subscribe to the "Sant Bani Magazine", which this article uses as references. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the world there are several Sant Bani Ashrams - but it does not mean they are belonging to the same organization. Most of them are independent from each other; belong to different, separatley operating organizations. This Magazin that is mentioned, it is and indepent media from the Sant Bani Association that is running the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla. It is not a self publication, but was published by a totally other organization. So, it is an independent source of information.

Moroever, related to magazins; I have a question to more advanced wikipedia users; there is a Hungarian magazin, that is called LIFE magazin. This magazin was reporting about the existence of the Sant Bani Ashram in its issue July 2012; and published some interviews with Master Sirio. But it is not available as a free of charge digital media. Anyhow; once they even put the photo of Master Sirio on the cover of the magazin. But how could I mark it as independent reference; what is the correct way of it? Could you give me advice? Thanks a lot. This is the link for the covers of the magazin, where it is visible, Master Sirio was on the cover recently, (also talking about the ashram in interview): http://pozitivemberek.hu/kategoriak/49 . D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Sirio Carrapa Most of this material is already in the guru's article, and GHits (particularly GBook hits) seem to make it clear that this ashram is of interest only because of him. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry don't agree... Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) was active before Sirio Carrapa become a master, and will (i hope) be active after... that place has an history also for followers of Ajaib Singh. On italian wikipedia there is no problem for these two pages....--GurDass (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was founded by him in 1979! Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is stated in the "The foundation of the ashram" section of the Sirio Carrapa page, the ashram was founded in 1979 under the tenure of the previous guru, Sant Ajaib Singh, who was guru at that time, and passed on 18 years later, in 1997. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the two entries would be like merging the entries of 'Liberty University', 'Thomas Road Baptist Church', and 'Jerry Falwell'. If someone argued for such a merger in that case, would the motivation be to save space at Wikipedia? Or might we speculate that it's more likely to be for some other reason perhaps such as a value judgement? There is a entry for 'ashram' that might also be good for pro-deleters to thoughtfully consider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashram Santmatradhasoami (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also references at Wikipedia to the Sant Bani School and Sant Bani Ashram in New Hampshire, USA. These have their own histories in connection with Ruhani Satsang and Kirpal Singh, as does Sant Bani Ashram Ribolla. To take away the entry for the one in Italy would be ill-advised. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I find strange to consider removing the page about Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) as this place is an existing public place, known by lots of people around the world, shown on so many photos that it is an existing real place. I know myself that it is not a fake article, since I have been visiting this place personally many times, and meeting there with people arriving from all corners of the world, from UK to USA and Canada, from Mexico to Venezuela; from almost all countries of Europe; and even from India.

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) is the biggest Surat Shabd Yoga meditation centre; or with other name, Sant Mat ashram in Europe. This place is operating in a fully nonprofit way; making it possible to so many people every year to practice Surat Shabd Yoga there with one of the living great Yoga Masters, Master Sirio. Even about these programs held there, one could find so many documentary photos, proving the real existence of the place, and that a number of people go there to visit it and attend programs from all over the world. Also, there are a number of other (non English language) independent (third party) websites referring to this place; reporting about programs held there, articles written by attendants of the programs etc. I do not fully understand the base of the proposal; and also that upon one proposal the page could be removed. I find this policy very strange and fully agree with Santmatradhasoami, in hoping that this page can remain on the wikipedia, after so many years, giving relevant information to all those about this place who was looking for it. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep this ashram is situated in the Italian landscape of Toskany. It was founded by and for the Indian spiritual master Ajaib Singh, who is a direct successor of Sant Kirpal Singh, former president of the World Conference of Religions and first asian bearer of the orden of Malta. Thus this Ashram is famous for itself and not an advertisement for the european Sant Mat master Sirio, who just had and has his private house there as well. On the contrary, this Ashram provides shelter and information about several other spiritual Masters of different Sant Mat lineages, as I can witness, being a disciple of the mentioned Sant Kirpal Singh and because in this Ashram there are books in its small library for example from Maulana Rumi (Sufi-Master and poet), Baha Ullah, Hafiz, Sawan Singh and Kirpal Singh. Thus this Ashram is unique in Europe and I am sure, there will be many more arguments to keep this Wiki-page separate to the page of Master Sirio Carrapa. (Dr.med.Dietrich Klüber).

Moreover we find similar examples in all fields of life in Wiki: The White House and pages for its presidents, The Vatikan and pages for the present pope, the Kaaba and a page for Mohammed, and last but not least Graceland and its inhabitant Elivs Presley ! So dear Squirrel, page patroller and member of the welcome comittee, please reconsider your task and be fair...Dr.med.Klüber (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While this topic is clearly of great importance to you and your friends here involved in the discussion, unlike the easily recognizable locations with a wealth of coverage in reliable sources, I respectfully submit that this location is of questionable encyclopedic value. If you feel this article should be retained as it is, you can help your case best by familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies, and adding information from reliable sources independent of the subject matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would personally never want this page to be deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richamystic (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here you can see an article about the Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) on the CESNUR website... Cesnur it's the center of studies on new religions, an independent, famous, authoritative source... it's in italian so I was not sure to link to the english page about the ashram, but it is linked in the italian one... GurDass (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian and other non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, so long as they fit the description of reliable sources. Please feel free to add any you find meet such standards. It is necessary to demonstrate significant coverage in such sources. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reference added to the page. I still don't understand why all in a sudded the page become non enciclopedic while in years it was good. Sant Mat in europe is located only here, this place is not the most important Sant Mat place in europe, it's the only one! --GurDass (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe not the only place of Sant Mat in Europe; but definitely it is the biggest center of Surat Shabd Yoga or Sant Mat in Europe. Here is an other reference to "talk" about independent "cover": http://aranyhegy.com/sirio-mester#ashram ; I am going to add to the references. Thanks for letting know not only English language references are accepted. ((Above in a comment I wrote not correctly "greatest centre"; sorry I am non-English, I meant biggest.)) D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I find it strange to first question the relevance of the page; then suggest merging it into an other page. The Sant Bani Ashram itself - the public place - is the property of the Sant Bani Association and not Master Sirio. He has his own property, that is separated from the Sant Bani Ashram; moreover he is not even living on the property of the Ashram. I really agree with Dr.med.Klüber; to my eyes it would be the same thing like proposing merging the wiki page of the Vatikan with that of the present pope and so on... By the way, this is a fully independent site from Sant Bani Ashram: http://aranyhegy.com that is also referring to and telling about the Ashram; it is in Hungarian; but still an independet source of information that is confirming the real existence and usage of the public place in question. There are also other independent websites telling about the Ashram - but in Hungarian. Anyhow; I will collect them then later on and add to the reference list. I did not think of doing it before, as they are in Hungarian. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was looking once, over the internet, for any of the Ashrams located in Europe that propagate teachings of Santmat and was pleased to find this page - it is great to know that there are centres in that part of the world who do so much to preserve & propagate the priceless esoteric wisdom of sants (saints) from all across the globe. Santmat is a completely secular, harmonious, syncretist, non-sectarian and purely spiritual school of thought which is doing so much to spread positive feelings so very essential to bring about real peace in a world that is torn by so much of strife, ill-will, animosity & hatred. All such centres are places are a great relief for the humanity at large and, hence, any attempt to notify or publish information about such places should be strongly encouraged and supported by all well-meaning sections or individuals.

So, personally I consider it a verily unfair and biased idea to delete a page like this, and, therefore, very strongly recommend that the page be kept. - Pravesh K. Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveshksingh (talk • contribs) 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ - Dear All, I was editing the article; also adding one more new reference for the sake of "significant cover"; and adding new - in my opinion - more informative photo montage also. I was pondering over all the pros and kontras of this discussion, and I made these changes in the article about the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla, after understanding (hopefully) why it could have been proposed for deleting or merging. So, please, AdventurousSquirrel and all others taking part in the discussion, go and see the page now, if in your opinion all the information are more understandable now to describe and give information about this public place, called Sant Bani Ashram - Ribolla. If you have any further advice to improve the page, please let me know.

In my opinion the information that is on the page is trustworthy, hopefully detailed and informative enough for everybody who would like to know about this place. I really disagree with merging as well, since the place in a way is independent from Master Sirio Carrapa, SSYoga master, as the public place, Sant Bani Ashram - as written above - is the property of the Sant Bani Association, so I do not see the point in merging the two pages. One is representing a public person; and the other is representing a public place, that has its own history. I myself am the vice-president of the SBA Association, knowing the ashram and its history very well. So, I cannot accept the deleting of the page upon the given reasons, but of course I am ready to edit the content and reference list upon good and useful advices from expert wiki users. My activity is fully nonprofit in it, such as that of anybody for the ashram and the all operation and running of the place. So, please respect the noble purpose behind the case, and instead of propsing for deletion, help to improve the page to those people who were creating it and who may be less knowledgeable in wiki terms then other expert ones. Thanks a lot. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I truly applaud your efforts and thank you for your polite discourse. I understand that this is a subject matter of great importance to you, but must I ask you to please review Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of topics, identifying reliable sources, and also the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest, and let me or another uninvolved party know if you have some specific questions about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. On a side note, although an AfD is not a popular vote, please make sure that you "!vote" only once, as voting more than once can lead to the false impression that you are attempting to unfairly influence the decision making process. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can I know when and who fill finally decide about this page? I really think that there are good reasons (and good sources) to keep it, and I still don't see anybody saying and proofing the opposite (except you, but with no elements to support your opinion). Let's end this story in a way or the other! --GurDass (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the normality or precedent of an entry for a spiritual teacher AND another page about the ashram associated with the same path or philosophy: Jai Gurudev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_gurudev Naam yog Sadhna Mandir ('mandir' is another term for ashram): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naam_yog_Sadhna_Mandir No, deletion is not always the answer. In this case it seems unreasonable to assume no improvements can be forthcoming. The default position should always be to seek to improve articles. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the three of you talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. But in the end, Jai Gurudev is sourced from newspaper articles and the like, not from his books or those of his supporters. You do the same, and this article can stay. The more words you pour over us, the more it is obvious that you cannot do this thing. You have to do research in secondary sources like everyone else; I would like to think that, as adherents, you might have a better idea where to find them, but if you cannot produce them, then we shall be forced to conclude that the ashram isn't notable (which is to say, nobody outside its own little world cares about it), and the article will be deleted. Quit wasting our time by going on at length with WP:WALL's of text which don't address the core problem. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for your anger here dude. One person has made some additions to the page in question and says he will add more. In good faith let's see if this happens. About this page for discussion it says: "You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome." "Please share your thoughts on the matter." We have been doing just that. OK, and if I feel to need to make other comments.... I will. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked in the page the center for studies on new religions. That alone is surely enough. So now we can remove this discussion and the page can remain. --GurDass (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I linked the reference of the Hungarian Golden Mountain Association - that is a fully independent organization with more hundred followers. Still some users talk about "talking". So, what is the point in that we are editing and trying to improve the page - upon your useful advice, if you do not even take them into consideration or check it up? Of course, again you may say i keep talking. But I do not feel to get relevant helping attitude feedback on the improvements that we made on the page. Could you please do? So, there are the new references from the center for studies on new religions; the Golden Mountain Association... Thanks a lot for your help. Maybe we are not notable in using the wikipedia yet (as being beginners); but it does not mean the entry that we made is also not. We highly appreciate your helpful positive attitude in improving the available content on WP. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one week passed. So? --GurDass (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one week passed or not - I think the article about the Sant Bani Ashram improved a lot. So I must acknowledge, for this reason this discussion around the topic was for good reason, thanks for all those taking part in it. Moreover, I, myslef understood, that we have to add more independent cover to show the notability and significance of the entry. So by now some more independent references were added; and in a short time - after understanding the motivation behind the proposal of deletion - I am sure more relevant, significant references will be available. Anyhow, I would kindly ask other more expert users, to be more patient - in their communication as well - with other less expert ones. Definitely, the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla is not a global multinational organization - and it never wants to become one. But still, it is the biggest center of Surat Shabd Yoga in Europe, and more hundred people know about it and in the chores of time a growing number of people go to visit it every year to attend programs there, so I would never say the place as a public place is not notable. So, after adding new references, I would suggest to close this discussion, and with good faith, remove the proposal for deletion from the article, as according to the standars of WP the article could be accepted very well, and let us see if by time it keeps improving, as I am sure, it will, since everything has a starting point in life. Thank you. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for a final decision on this deletion. I really think there is no element to delete this page. It is well sourced with links taken from newspapers, indepentent sant mat websites and the Center for Studies on New Religions also talks about this place. That is a not-common place, free and non-profit. A week is passed and nobody except for the user that originally asked for deletion agreed with him... --GurDass (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The majority of the keep votes are formatted in the same unusual way. Not that I'm paranoid or anything but... most have little to no contributions outside this article and/or this deletion discussion. I think it's fair to suspect either WP:SOCK or WP:MEATSOCK - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see the notability of the subject, sourcing issues also Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting: While the effort of our new users should be applauded their connection to the subject can not be overlooked. Would like to see an assessment of the recently submitted sources/external links before this discussion is closed. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J04n; could you please explain to me what it does mean? D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply that I would like folks without an association with the subject to comment on the sources provided. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree, the article has external and reliable sources, and this is a fact: magazines, books with ISBN, CESNUR... this is a fact and can't be contested. So this deletion process is based on opinions or facts? I have hundreds of edits on both english and italian wikipedia since years.GurDass (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable CORP or ORG, stablishing a book with ISBN is not a reason to sustain verifiability or notability, as all of theses seem to be primary sources, all of them seem material produced by the company itself. Wikipedia is not a directory for every single SPA/Yoga center in the world. Also search does not prove its basic statement biggest functioning Yoga center in Europe. A search for the book with the respective ISBN also do not bring any result as per Special:BookSources/8888282556. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

these links are not produced by the "company" (there is no company!):

http://www.cesnur.org/religioni_italia/r/radhasoami_02.htm http://aranyhegy.com/sirio-mester#ashram http://www.abc-of-meditation.com/view-refer.asp?id=12839&ReturnPage=%2Ftps%2Fpresentation-preview-short-retreatcenter.asp%3FTP_ID%3D12839 --GurDass (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is true. The Sant Bani Ashram is owned and directed by a fully nonprofit association that has no payed employers and nobody is earning any profit through its operation. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and nobody claimed this is the biggest yoga center in europe, this is the only Surat Shabd Yoga place in europe with a living Guru of this specific path/faith! --GurDass (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is true, I must agree with GurDass concerning this: "Also search does not prove its basic statement biggest functioning Yoga center in Europe" - I am sorry, but nobody claimed it. There are many types of yoga in the world. there are basic groups, or lets say types of yoga, like hatha-yoga, bhakti yoga etc... And those have many ramifications, different Yoga traditions grew out from these base elements. Surat Shabd Yoga or Sant Mat is one of these traditions that has so many followers around the world; more hundred thousands of people who gather around living Masters. Sant Bani Ashram is not a yoga center in the way as any westerner would think after hearing the word 'yoga'. It is not a place like yoga centers in the cities where people go to have kind of training. This public place is a place where regular mediation retreats are organizad, that includes certain kind of elements, but not physical training for what peopel pay. With other words we could say, it is a nonprofit place (not like any yoga center where people do physical practice; here it is not done) that could be cathegorized as recreational center, meditation center, pilgrimage (of Sant Mat), health center, Ayurvedic center, personal develeopment center and so on. These are all included. And about telling it is the biggest: its land is 17 hectars big, that has 4 main builidings (inculding separated man and woman dormitory with several independent bathrooms), a meditation hall: indoor and ourdoor as well; an artificial lake; its own solar panel system and piped water system, electricity and so on and so forth - though it is really located in the nature. I have never heard about a bigger public place like this in Europe used for the purpose. As far as my knowledge goes, it is a fact - and nobody every proved the opposite - that Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla is the biggest public place in Europe where Sant Mat is practiced. Moreover, as I wrote, it is not a simple "yoga center", but a public place that is running in a fully nonprofit way with the noble purpose of bringing peace and improvement in the quality of life for those visiting it. Actually, probably that is one reason why nobody cared of "significant cover" before, because it is fully running in a nonprofit way. So I really find it strange to kind of attack the page about this public place like this - as I wrote before, that from now on, care is going to be taken of this aspect also - mean "significant, independent cover". Moreover there are a number of publications (but not all in English) reporting about the Ashram and the spiritual work done here, but unfortunatelly a big number of them is not digital media; and also it takes some more time to collect everything in a well arranged way. As I wrote once before Sant Bani Magazin also has nothing in common with this Ashram in Europe. That Magazin is printed in the USA, and lets say it is one of the biggest magazin of Sant Mat, like a professional media of the case. I hope I expressed myself well enough in English. So, it is also a fully independet source of information, this Ashram itself has nothing to do with the magazin - has no effect on what is printed or written there; so if they reported on the Ashram, it means they - like professional media of the case - found it notable, significant and relevant. Sant Bani - means the teachings of the Saints or the voice of the Saints and many public places wear this name where Sant Mat or Surat Shabd Yoga is practiced - though they are fully independent from each other, belonging to totally different, separate, independent organizations or persons. So, again thank you for your poinitngs out, but also, I would like to ask to remove the deletion proposal, as the article was edited and shaped; and also independent references were marked, and as was said, will be added as well. So, more references will be add by and by; but seeing the good efforts of the editors of the page, please remove the proposal for deletion. I must say, there are some wikipedia articles that are even less supproted by references, and they do not have such a detailed description, but nobody ever questions their relevancy or notability. I wonder why. Thanks for your help.D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A comment to our two wall-of-texting extremely involved respondents: first, it's blatantly obvious that one of you has a very close and direct relationship with the ashram, given that you are providing us with images from the ashram's website which you claim to have taken yourself. I have to believe that the other has a similar if not as obvious connection. Second, your attitude towards the place is plainly promotional: you want it to be documented here because it's important to you, and you want it documented in a way that you think would attract others to it. Most people write about things here that they love, but to be successful they (and you) need to write about them in some other fashion besides as lovers. Third, running on and on and burying us in words is not the way to positively influence people here; neither are threats/demands of process. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way of putting it. But it was written, it was a wall of discussion. So what is a discussion, if not discussing the topic. Then I find it strange to be blamed of trying to go into a discussion to better understand the case. And on the other hand, I would think that is how WP improves and groves, that people, who has knowledge of a given topic, they create a descriptive article, documented with pictures and supported with references, independent as well. So again, I find it strange to be instead of thanked to make an article, that gives information about a public place, and again working a lot with it, in trying to improve according WP standards, to again be blamed, because of being linked to it in any way. I wonder, who else could write better on a public place but that, who likes it, so, for this reason studied it, visited it... As you also wrote Mangoe: Most people write about things here that they love. That is how information is created all over the internet; and if somebody knows eg a public place better, the information may be more reliable and relevant. I do not think that tha article is trying to convince anybody about anything - but it is a descreption, telling about the present conditions and details of the place, telling the history of its foundation, reason, development, purpose etc. So, please, then instead of only referring to it, let me know which is the part exactly that you think is not descriptive, but propaganda. In my editings I really tried to focus on the facts - but since we are all different - maybe to others it does not seem like. Anyhow, to conclude, I do not take your proposals at all as being opponents, but I really take it as a useful help, and I am very glad that the description of this public place did improve. As I wrote before, I, myself understood what was meant under "significant cover" - and be sure, by and by, -as soon as possible- it will be listed under the article. So, thanks for your helping cooperation.D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I love the subject of the page and I'm involved with it. But this does not mean that I can also talk on the subject in an enciclopedic way. The sources are provided, I listed some links some comments ago and I can repeat them:

CESNUR page, not affiliated with the subject, super partes organization

another website that refers to the place, not affiliated to it

same here

To this we can add lots of numbers of "Sant Bani Magazines" printed in america by another association that refers to this and this only place as the only place in italy about Surat Shabd Yoga (Ajaib Singh branch).

So these are external sources, not involved with the subject and not in control by me, the owner association of the place.

These are facts. If you find some part of the article that is not in good form, we can improve it. But the place remains relevant as the only Sant Mat ashram with the only Sant Mat Guru in europe, that is also one of the EIGHT Guru all over the world on this branc as you can see on Kirpal_Singh#Legacy_and_succession. This place is unique as Vatican or Kaaba. The numbers are different, but not the relevance for adherents of this path/faith (also called Radhasoami ). --GurDass (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: I nominated this for deletion because IMO it doesn't meet the requirements of a mainspace article, but the argument could be made that it is a good candidate article to userfy rather than delete. I still am not convinced that there are enough reliable sources that exist on this topic to make it possible to save as a standalone article, but there are clearly a few new editors involved here who are undeniably committed to improving/saving the article. If such an action were indeed to take place, however, I would again encourage the new editors to really make an effort to familiarize themselves with: WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:COI (including the COI guide. It looks like they might not be exactly the same as they are on English Wikipedia, but please note that these documents should exist in several languages in the interlanguage links along the side of the page to make them easily accessible to users most comfortable with languages other than English. (Nominator) AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (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 G11. Alexf^(talk) 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importers of machines in Bangladesh[edit]

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

Completely unessesary list. I would speedy it but I'm not sure under what rational. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The list lacks selection criteria.--Make cat 12:55, 12 February 2013 (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 Gangnam Style#Other parodies and covers. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carrier style[edit]

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

WP:NOT plus a smattering of anything else you can think of Petebutt (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:NOT encyclopedic piece of quickly-forgettable trivia that seems to have flashed briefly across the media. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Gangnam Style#Other parodies and covers. Not that there's much that needs merging, but WP:CHEAP is valid for a redirect that some people may well use. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creater of the article. Passes WP:Notability and WP:IINFO. 069952497a (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gangnam Style#Other parodies and covers per WP:NOPAGE. The casual coverage from major news sources might merit notability (assuming it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS), but the Gangnam Style article provides better context to place this content. Diego (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's fairly well-reported as parodies go, but no evidence of lasting importance, long-running coverage, substantial critical comment, or anything to indicate it's more than a little joke. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gangnam Style#Other parodies and covers - This stuff comes and goes, and I haven't heard anything lately about it. However, it is pretty well-reported, and it could merit notability, but Gangnam Style appears to have better context for this stuff. Zappa O Mati 03:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus O'Kelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Hasn't played a significant role nor does he have a large fan base. Hard to find reliable sources - the Radio Times ref merely confirms he played in an episode of Father Ted Gbawden (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person's filmography does not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm not locating any significant coverage (WP:GNG) for him, either. Gong show 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACTOR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:04, 19 February 2013 (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 Johnny Rocco. Even though I opined below, I choose to be a bit bold and am closing this discussion about the "duplicate" Johnny Rocco (1958 movie) as sensible per the observations below. No merge is necessary as the (formerly identical) target now has more content and context than it did when this discussion began. Per consensus and common sense, I am closing this discussion as moot, and am redirecting both the one brought to AFD and Johnny Rocco (1958 film) to Johnny Rocco. If anyone wishes to nominate the target article, we can have a new discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rocco (1958 movie)[edit]

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

Same content of Johnny Rocco (1958 film). Duplicate page. atnair (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one into the other and leave it as a redirect. Maybe even redirect both to Johnny Rocco as it appears to be available and there is little point in disambiguating for the sake of it. Keresaspa (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The (1958 movie) version should be deleted immediately, leaving the (1958 film) version intact. The wrong version was part of a page that I clicked on and didn't catch it, and I would've deleted it myself had I known how. Kultoa (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No reason for merging as it is the exact same thing JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect - why the nom didn't do this boldly is beyond me. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close AFD as a moot discussion. No need to merge, as the target is now better.[13] A redirect is a consideration... as pointed out above, the disambigs "movie" or "film" are unnecessary for this film/movie. I suggest we simply move suggested target Johnny Rocco (1958 film) to Johnny Rocco. Toward my addressing its earlier lack of content, it was not difficult too begin adding content,[14] and I would appreciate assistance in further expansion and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I acknowledge the difficulties as this is a 1958 film, but under different language titles, the film had multi-country release through the early 60s:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any and all assistance would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flippa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company, not the subject of multiple third party press mentions. The company bought Mark Zuckerburgs' first website. Relentlessly promotional with numerous non-notable awards listed. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Because they bought Mark Zuckerburgs first website might suggest notability, but other than that not much JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They didn't actually purchase FashMash but rather Flippa was just the website on which it was sold. That's not enough per Wikipedia:EVENT. This is a non-notable company. Schenka (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annotary[edit]

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

Non-notable company, subject of one passing press mention. Company was created 4 months ago. Maybe it'll be notable one day, but it's clearly too soon. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a social bookmarking and web annotation platform for creating collections of articles bookmarked from the World Wide Web. References are to its Alexa ranking and self-generated material, including TechCrunch coverage that the business had been launched. This doesn't yet count as significant effects on technology, history, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As we lack a sensible notability guideline for software, we have to rely on WP:GNG, which this fails to meet. The coverage by sites like TechCrunch at this point is essentially routine; they'll write articles about anything that looks remotely like a startup or a product put out by one. I look for more widespread coverage in tech rags, or basic coverage by more mainstream media. I'm not seeing either. It was created less than six months ago, so it's perhaps too soon, but right now it's a nope. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:10, 19 February 2013 (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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noise (signal processing)[edit]

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

There is already an article with title [Noise] which covers signal processing noise. atnair (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the talk page, the general sense of "noise" is very different from the technical sense in signal processing. (It is hardly the only example of a common word being borrowed to name a technical concept that has only a vague metaphoric similarity to the original common meaning.)
There is a lot of material on each articles that is not pertinent to the other one. For example, the article about [[noise]] in the common sense must cover aspects such as health, work safety, legislation, human hearing, psychology, etc.; none of these have any relevance whatsoever for signal processing "noise". Conversely, amost every topic relating to signal-processing noise is irrelevant for the common sense of noise, and would be out of place in the [[noise]] article.
Moreover, as you can see in [[noise_(signal_processing)]], the list of such technical topics is very long (and there must be several that I missed). Merely listing them in [[noise]] would completely swamp that article. This is not surprising since "signal processing noise" is a fundamental topic in signal processing. It would be really weird for Wikipedia not to have an article for that concept, only a short section in an article about something else entirely, when it has millions of articles about obscure albums, videogames, politicians, etc..
The mere list of the topics organized by [[noise_(signal_processing)]] would be too long even for noise (disambiguation), and would not fit there anyway because of the strict rules about disambs; for one thing, [[noise_(signal_processing)]] must link to many articles that are not "other meanings of Noise".
Also, there are many non-trivial things that can be said about "signal processing noise" in general, that are better said there than being scattered (and duplicated) over many sub-articles.
Finally, note that the article is reasonably well structured, has some real information, serves some purpose, has no objectionable contents, and was created less than 24 hours ago. Shouldn't people wait a bit longer before summoning a fellow editor to defend the life of his children before the Holy Inquisition? 8-)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page differs from Noise (disambiguation) by being a set index covering noise purely from a signal processing angle. Template:Noise and Category:Noise both cover the topic but not as comprehensively, nor in a list format. Unless another page already exists covering this information, I don't see a reason to delete. Funny ^Pika! 05:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't put it any better than the two who commented before me. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the arguments already advanced by Jorge Stolfi and Funny; the breakout article for noise in the context of signal processing is well justified here. --Mark viking (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is another page Noise atnair (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that noise page is very generic. This is a big enough topic on its own to deserve to be spun out. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given above. The article noise is too generic for this. This is a needed set index. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2013 (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Savoir Beds[edit]

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

I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should be merged with Savoy Hotel or deleted. There are some passing mentions of this company in reliable sources, but the article is promotional in nature. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading the article, though it started as the ed supplier to the Savoy, it has since become of independent notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five solid references, is clearly notable. There is no reason to delete. There is a pattern with the nominator. See User_talk:CitizenNeutral --Nixie9✉ 14:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company is clearly notable. Good references, plus a quick search shows many others, such as this one in the NY Times. This entry could easily be improved. --Bernie44 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (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 East Carolina Pirates football. J04n(talk page) 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina Pirates future football schedules[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Future football schedules. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. Material is not being kept up, since the "future season" of 2012 has already occurred. The logic of WP:FUTURE applies as well. GrapedApe (talk)

Delete not because of the reasons above, but because it is woefully out of date and not kept up. This does not mean that "future" schedules could not be a good article, as it is obviously a WP:DISCRIMINATE list and not an "indiscriminate" one. Fix the article, get it up-to-date, and I'll change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, the current quality of an article should not be a deciding factor in an AFD. In an AFD we should ask ourselves whether the article should exist even if it was well-developed, well-formatted, and well-cited. This confusion has contributed to the lack of consensus on these articles in the past. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes and no. Sometimes an article is so bad that Wikipedia would be better without it, even if it is a notable subject. If an enthusiastic editor wants to jump in and take over, that's fine. I'd be okay with Userfy. This one is so out of date that it leaves a bad impression and for that I maintain my position. No prejudice against recreation thought.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge future seasons into East Carolina Pirates football. This is useful information, but not as a stand-alone article. Most other football programs that include future opponents have it near the bottom of the team page. see The Citadel Bulldogs football, Clemson Tigers football, South Carolina Gamecocks football, or North Carolina Tar Heels football, for some regional examples. Billcasey905 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main ECU football article. Not worthy of a stand-alone list. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Originating editor with heavy interest in ECU abandoned Wikipedia a year back; no use in keeping for a mid-major program. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD ought to be expanded to a group nomination to include BYU Cougars future football schedules, Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree This should not be a group nomination because each of those articles has differences that make them unique from this one. BYU's page, for example, is very well kept up, as is Notre Dame's. Unless they are being deleted for exactly the same reasons, this should not be a group deletion. Also, BYU and Notre Dame's schedules are unusual in that they do not have preset, conference schedules because they play as independents. Whereas other schools have only four or so games to schedule per season, BYU and Notre Dame have an entire 12-to-13-game slate to fill. As such, the receive far more attention from the press. Scheduling decisions at BYU and Notre Dame, unlike those at East Carolina, are regularly followed by national news organizations, as evidenced by the sources used in their articles. If you look closely there, you will see citations to ESPN, CBS, NBC, USA Today, and the Associated Press. You will not find these kinds of sources for East Carolina. Wrad (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also remind you, GrapedApe, that last time you tried to do a group nom, it backfired, and nothing got deleted, because Notre Dame and BYU have more sources and citations than Colorado and East Carolina. The group nom complicated the debate too much, and it was impossible to reach a decision. Perhaps if you limit your targets, you will succeed this time. Just a suggestion. Wrad (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrad, the fundamental issue at question here is: do future schedules for NCAA Division I FBS football teams deserve their own article? Granted BYU, Colorado, and Notre Dame garner more coverage at a national level than East Carolina, but WikiProject College football generally considers all programs at the same level of play to be of the same tier of notability with respect to article structure and inclusion, i.e. they should have an analogous set of articles detailing them. The issue of article upkeep and the particulars of the citations are secondary details, perhaps of no real relevance at all to the central question posed here. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jweiss11, you're making stuff up, here. Wikipedia believes in nothing of the sort. What it does believe in is respecting the sources, and the sources respect the future schedules of BYU and Notre Dame more so than Colorado and East Carolina. It seems unfairly discriminatory to me to suggest forcing these two independent football programs to conform to some undetermined norm when they are obviously and demonstrably outside of the norm in the way in which their schedules are created, compiled, and reported on. If you want to try a group nom again, go ahead, but I guarantee you it will fail, just like last time. Wrad (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrad, I'm not "making things up here" any more than any policy or position is "made up". There are plenty of reliable sources for the future schedules of Colorado and East Carolina. If we are going to have future schedule articles for Notre Dame and BYU, then I'd like to see them for all 124 DI FBS programs. So, the group nomination failing wouldn't be such a bad thing. That lack of parallelism is what I find most problematic. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Two things: 1) Show me the policy that says that all college football articles of all kinds, everywhere on the site, have to be the same for all 124 schools, despite the fact that many of the schools' programs have significant differences that are reflected in reliable sources nationwide. At this point I'm incredulous, but seeing that policy would certainly help me believe you aren't making it up. 2) It seems unfairly discriminatory to me to suggest forcing these two independent football programs to conform to some undetermined norm when they are obviously and demonstrably outside of the norm in the way in which their schedules are created, compiled, and reported on. I find it incredibly ironic that you are being discriminatory in the name of fighting discrimination. Wrad (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrad, what I'm talking about is implied by the importance scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment along with many other de facto conventions at WikiProject College football. I'm not fighting for or against discrimination. I'm in favor of parallelism. Reliable sources are only one part of how we frame an article on Wikipedia. We have to use some sort of convention beyond the sheer existence of reliable sources to decide where one article ends and where another begins. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure it is (or at least hope it is!) not just an implied or de facto convention, but a policy at the Wikiproject to respect reliable sources. It certainly is on the rest of Wikipedia! Secondly, parallelism is discrimination when it forces things to be parallel which demonstrably are not so. It seems to me that merging future seasons onto the main BYU and Notre Dame articles would be unwieldy, since so much information would have to be transferred, whereas for other schools it would be a very simple matter. Wrad (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It ought to be pretty obvious from that importance schedule, or by digging around and looking at structures like navboxes that have been set up for the topic of college football, that WikiProject College football has established conventions to par out programs that play at the same level. This, among others things, helps combat the historically rampant problem of fanboy-ism on the topic. BYU and Notre Dame may indeed garner more significant coverage of their future schedules. Accordingly the appropriate sections, all supported by those reliable sources, of the main program articles ought to be a bit more extensive than for say the East Carolinas of college FBS football.Jweiss11 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to point out that WP:NOT does not say anywhere that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia." Here, however, is what WP:NOT actually says: "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic." In other words, if it has the sources to back it up, it has the right to exist. Nothing new there. Wrad (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Carolina Pirates football. For what it's worth, I'd also support analogous merges for BYU, Colorado, and Notre Dame. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Carolina Pirates football, but leave BYU and Notre Dame alone for reasons I have expressed above. Wrad (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No group nomination I'm against group nomination as well. They can each have their own AFD, it's not unwieldy at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Agreed with the above that a merge would not be altogether inappropriate — a freestanding article, not so much. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not put information in 2013 East Carolina Pirates football team, 2014 East Carolina Pirates football team, etc. where the final schedule will ultimately be anyways? We are creating too much work for ourselves creating holding articles such as this one or moving it to a temporary place like East Carolina Pirates football.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bagumba, WP:CFB policy is not create season articles more than one year into the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As there is verifiable information available and the season is 99% certain to be played, an exception seems warranted as opposed to moving information around from article to article year-to-year.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I've been thinking about this "future schedules" issue since this AfD was started a week ago, contemplating the best way to approach this. My conclusion: the content of this list/article should be included in a "Future non-conference opponents" section of the parent East Carolina Pirates football article, as is the case for the overwhelming majority of other Division I FBS team articles. I note that this article is one of only four or five remaining CFB "future schedules" lists; in virtually all other instances, similar material has already been merged/incorporated directly into the parent article regarding the particular CFB team. I also share the WP:CRYSTAL concerns expressed by others above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Community Against Violence[edit]

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

~~Organization doesn't seem close to being at all notable and all sources are primary sources. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Admin note: The AfD nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The organization is not notable enough for wikipedia and doesn't receive significant coverage. All sources are primary and article doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. IronKnuckle (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD nominator has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of this account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above and per nom JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did anyone perform a basic WP:BEFORE search here? Note the copious references at GNews [15] and this recent article [16] that discusses this organization's battle with the National Rifle Association and that that points out that the organization is now called the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence which in turn takes us to hundreds more GNews references[17]? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep, I found it to be not notable. And the article is using all primary sources. GladiusHellfire (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Another bad faith AFD nomination from a recently arrived SPA with a political agenda. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Wolfowitz, please assume good faith! WP:AOBF How about you give a policy based reason to Keep(if you can find one, I cant.) and less of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the surprise of, I suspect, virtually no one, the nominator here has been exposed as a sockpuppet of IronKnuckle, who posted this nomination in violation of their community-imposed topic ban. It's more than fair to say that the inference of bad faith, per WP:NOTSUICIDE, is more than amply justified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG J1nx1337 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — J1nx1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and clean up Meets GNG but needs work as do most articles. Insomesia (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:ORG Dinkleberger (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC) — Dinkleberger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This AfD was created by a confirmed sockpuppet account that has been indef'd. Bad faith nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the organization has received a multitude of mentions in multiple reliable sources including in news and book sources. The organization has not been the primary subject of most of the published sources, but I can see it argued that the multiple mentions can add up to significant coverage of the subject, sufficient to meet WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only person saying delete that hasn't been blocked as a sockpuppet, has only one edit ever, and that for this AFD, so obviously they are also a sock. Can someone just speedy keep this already? Dream Focus 18:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still the nominator so letting the discussion run is advisable. Insomesia (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he was blocked also. Dream Focus 20:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops, didn't notice that, sorry. Yes then, a snow close would seem appropriate here. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2013 (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) -- Cheers, Riley 23:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alopua Petoa[edit]

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

Player has never played in professional football The Banner talk 00:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article subject has played international football at 2011 Pacific Games. This is a FIFA recognised competition and served as part of the OFC qualification process for the 2014 World Cup. As such, player fulfills WP:NFOOTY and is thus considered notable. The requirement for international appearances is noted before the requirement for professional league appearences and it is clear from the guideline that notability is generally agreed on an "either / or" basis, the player does not have to fulfill both. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in fact, he doesn't even have to have played in the 2011 Pacific Games. He's played for his country; that's automatically enough. The Pacific Games is just a bonus on top of that. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY as this player is shown to have played at senior international level. C 679 07:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving to bring up to WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2013 (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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaisua Liva[edit]

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

Player has never played in professional football. The Banner talk 00:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article subject has played international football at 2011 Pacific Games. This is a FIFA recognised competition and served as part of the OFC qualification process for the 2014 World Cup. As such, player fulfills WP:NFOOTY and is thus considered notable. The requirement for international appearances is noted before the requirement for professional league appearences and it is clear from the guideline that notability is generally agreed on an "either / or" basis, the player does not have to fulfill both. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY as this player is shown to have played at senior international level. C 679 07:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving to bring up to WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

André Coimbra-Boas[edit]

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

Hoax, copy of André Villas-Boas with some of the information changed. Other pages created by User:Jacob cannon are also hoaxes and need deleting. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2013 (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 move to Battle of Chaliyam and redirect to Vettathunad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chalium[edit]

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

Cut down article originally wholly copied from Vettathunad and attempt to raise an obscure, non-notable skirmish at a fort to a battle standing. There was no "Battle of Chalium". GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC) GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There seems to be a spelling error in the article title; it's Chaliyam not Chalium. There are five books that discuss "Battle of Chaliyam" as can be seen here. Salih (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good catch, Salih! There are even more references when one looks farther afield, for example, searching for "fall of Chaliyam". In so far as these books are secondary references, and at least to a non-historian like me seem reliable, the topic is above notability threshold and would suggest that the article be kept. Mark viking (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still remains that the article is practically a word for word copy of part of two sections of the Vettathunad article that deal with the fall of the Chalium/Chalyum Fort: Battles at Chalium Fort and Smoothiris' second attempt (1571). As a minor event in the Portuguese–Indian conflict, does it not serve Wikipedia better to remain as a sub-heading in the article as it is already, albeit poorly, written? I will look at the references as noted above by Salih as to the use of the term "Battle of Chalyium." Maybe the western history book bias is at play here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going back and forth between the Islamic calendar and the western calendar takes some doing. If I have it right, there was apparently another "battle of Chalium" 19–20 years after the 1571 event. Also, the targeted Wikipedia article also mentions a "battle of Chalium" which took place 1538–1540 (maybe actually a siege of some sort?), which I am finding impossible to source. So, my next question is, IF there was a "Battle of Chalium", which one of these three is it? And why is there no consensus by the eastern historians as to which one is it in the few works extent that mention Chalium? Food for thought. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct the spelling error and redirect to Vettathunad, this seems to be the most logical decision until there is more info added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of consensus, I would support a move and redirect as well, as this preserves the history of the current page for a future article. It is outright deletion that I think is unwarranted. --Mark viking (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom, I could support Move & Redirect. It is already a word-for-word content fork of Vettathunad, so the merge would both make sense and be relatively simple. In which case, I would happily withdraw the proposal for deletion. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:55, 12 February 2013 (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.