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. Withdraw, pointed out sources I failed to com across, passes GNG. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Agawam[edit]

Camp Agawam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A search turned up primary sources only, matching names appear to not be based on this topic, contented CSD by author, removed by User:Espresso Addict as possible future notability. Brought for discussion as borders failing WP:GNG. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, yes...I don't think it should be deleted as I recently created the article and have not had time to grow it. There was an issue on notable sources and I have one ... ^[1]. I would like to further discuss the reasons for deletion. Mfribbs (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I deleted a version of this in 2007 and it was deleted again in 2012 for being promotional. Looking at the 2012 version, which was indeed a terribly promotional article, I think it is possible that the camp might be notable, even though none of the versions has successfully demonstrated this so far. It appears to have been in existence continuously since 1919, and is thus approaching its centenary. I'm completely inexperienced in this content area, but having trawled around most of the other camps in the infobox "Summer camps in the U.S. state of Maine" (eg see Camp Arcadia), it appears no less notable than the majority. I advised the creator to find independent reliable sources and feel that it would be helpful if s/he were given a little breathing space to try to find them. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Google News search turns up hits from independent sources including Boston Globe, Portland Press Herald, Sun Journal and Camping Magazine; I can't access the full articles for most of these, unfortunately. Google Books turns up [1], which claims to be listing only "the top fifty camps in America", plus a mention in Stephen King's novels, Pet Sematary [2] & Dreamcatcher[3], which tends to suggest it's well known. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per nontrivial national and local press coverage of the camp and its associated charitable programme uncovered by Mfribbs and myself, as well as the national award from the American Camp Association. Other not-so-Googleable sources are very likely to exist for an organisation founded in 1919 and continuously active since then. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I have found several WP:RS supporting WP:GNG, including "Turning boys into men; Camp Agawam in Raymond celebrates 90 years of summer tutelage" (16 September 2009, Portland Press Herald), and the Boston Globe's 1988 charming feature on the camp, in which the writer said it provided an anachronistic relief from "the age of ego and vulgarity". ("THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES", Peter Anderson, 26 June 1988, The Boston Globe) For me, the most convincing argument was made by then-Senator Susan Collins on the Senate floor:

  "Agawam has an exceptional history as one of the Nation's oldest summer camps. Founded in 1919, Agawam was owned and operated continuously by the Mason family until 1985. Throughout its history, Camp Agawam has provided a unique and exciting summer camp program for boys from Maine and from across the country. The talented staff and counselors at Agawam continue to carry on the Mason family's vision of providing a safe, positive environment for boys to make lifelong friends and foster skills through outdoor recreation and activities. Agawam has made significant contributions to youth in Maine's local communities. Strongly supported by camp alumni and parents, the camp's Maine Idea program highlights the impressive commitment by Agawam to provide free campership opportunities to Maine boys. This is truly a meaningful investment in Maine's most precious resource—our children."

  Andrew³²⁷ 05:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting has been notified about this discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep Suitable coverage certainly exists for a prominent 90+ year old camp. Now it appears that that has been proven out. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources are already plentiful, and there are one or two more on HighBeam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are, as I know of, approx. 7 resources. The article is much more expanded now than it was when it was proposed for deletion. I think if this article is deleted, than most of the camp articles in Maine should be as well. Also to note, I have several other sources that are notable when it comes time to add them to the article.Mfribbs (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears notable to me. --evrik ^(talk) 14:37, 14 March 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. Keeper | 76 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kike San Martín[edit]

Kike San Martín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

advertisement The Banner talk 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.- This biography seems to be adequately referenced, from a diverse selection of sources. Any concerns about the article being promotional can be addressed by copy editing. (As an aside, the nominator should take a little more care in explaining the nomination rather than using just the one word exclamation "advertisement".) - MrX 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my frustration got the better of me after seeing the maintenance templates being removed three times in rather short succession. That gave me the impression that it was advertising/selfpromo without any attempt from the other side to create a proper article. I am only human and have my bad days. The Banner talk 05:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, a lazy nomination. That said, it does seem to be a highly dubious article. I started by removing some promotional language, but after that took a quick look at two of the "sources". One didn't say what the article implied that it said (and looked like a crap source anyway). The other had a Spanish title, not the English one that was claimed for it; and the English title wasn't even a decent translation of the Spanish. (Even without a knowledge of Spanish, one can see that "El famoso fotógrafo de las estrellas" would be something like "The famous photographer of the stars", not "Kike San Martin, a famous photographer".) Votes to retain or delete this article should follow a thorough investigation of its claimed sources. (Neither knowing Spanish nor trusting Google Translate or similar, I don't claim to have checked the content of "El famoso fotógrafo de las estrellas".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. I fixed the two above. I thought I'd look at one or two more. The third one I looked at was http://www.hispanicmpr.com/2007/03/07/sbs-el-circulo-begins-new-season/, described (within quotation marks!) as "SBS El Circulo begins new season with pictures of Kike San Martin". Ha ha: The actual title is "SBS El Circulo begins new season". And it has a total of one (1) photo attributed to KSM, who is not otherwise mentioned. There are a short Fox News Latino story and a short Latin America Herald Tribune story cited, and at first sight this looks slightly impressive -- but actually they're the same (both deriving from EFE). So yes, The Banner is certainly onto something here. Meanwhile, MrX's statement that This biography seems to be adequately referenced, from a diverse selection of sources is becoming harder to believe. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On request, user Fadesga checked the given sources. According to him, the sources back up what is claimed. The Banner talk 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. With the exception of some "branding" story, which is not clear, so The Banner suppressed that part. --Fadesga (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, the sources in Spanish must be very different from those in English. I've already cut some crap "sourcing"; but the further I look, the more I find. New example Later, he also started working in the entertainment industry, with assignments like soap opera posters and shows for international TV networks like Telemundo, Univisión, Mega TV[reference 4] and América Tevé[...] Reference 4 is this. (Its actual title: "SBS El Circulo begins new season". Its fictional title when first introduced to the Wikipedia article [and for a long time thereafter]: "SBS El Circulo begins new season with pictures of Kike San Martin".) Now, I'd take this to mean that:

1. This source states that KSM was assigned to take photos for soap opera posters.
2. Telemundo, Univisión, Mega TV and América Tevé are international TV networks.
3. This source states that KSM did something [what?] for Telemundo, Univisión and Mega TV.

In reality, the source says nothing whatever about KSM, so (1) and (3) are out. Oh, except that he took the photo the article uses of the host of El Circulo. (Incidentally, it's competent but humdrum. In any reasonably sized town, we can find a photographer who will take a similar photo of you or me. Though the host is far better looking than I am.) The source says nothing whatever about Telemundo or Univisión. It does talk about Mega TV (which it also calls "MegaTV"): MegaTV reaches viewers in Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. So the claim that this is "an international TV network" gets no support either. -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete almost a speedy delete under G11 promotional. He probably is borderline notable, though I am in some doubt about whether the sources are essentially public relations. But the style the article is written in is so unacceptable and the intent so entirely promotional that the only thing to do with this is to remove it and start over. I'm basing my delete on the grounds that when a promotional article would take extensive rewriting, it isn't worth it unless the subject is clearly notable. I wouldn't have said this a year or two ago, but the flood of promotionalism has increased. This isn't part of the new flood; it's been here a while, but our standards have risen. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DGG has conveniently articulated for me what I had been thinking, or something close to it. I regret my inability to read material in Spanish. But for every "source" in English I've looked at, the source has at best said something that's not incompatible with the aggrandizing use made of it in the article. As for the matter of Wikipedia-style notability there's very little about him (and some of this looks as if it could be uncritically recycled PR puff); in terms of real-world notability there's no claim that he's won any award, that any of his work is held by a museum, that it's been discussed in any book about photography, that there's any book published of his work, or that his exhibition history extends to more than one in 22 parts of a single exhibition. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article was created by User:Misty2010 (contributions), and worked on by User:Misty2011. The latter has created a number of bio articles, most recently Leonardo Rocco (creation). He's been the only substantive contributor to the article on Rocco, from which I quote: Rocco recognizes that his passion, enthusiasm, energy, commitment and strong work ethic have allowed him to capture the attention of perfectionists and this is reflected in his celebrity clientele. His clients seek him when making a change to their image and the driven stylist that attains his inspiration from film, people on the street, shows, and other professionals, manages to consistently satisfy the exquisite tastes of those that request his services. (I'm about to remove this flatus.) The article on Rocco is illustrated with three photos, each attributed (with OTRS confirmation) to "Horacio Cambeiro", clicking on which takes the reader to Misty2011. Wikipedia has an article on Horacio Cambeiro, who is described as (A) "an Argentine-born American journalist, a radio and television presentator [sic]", and (B) "Broadcast journalist / Author / Aviator / Pilot". The article was created by User:Misty2010 and later worked on by User:Misty2011. En:WP seems to have a pile of promotional articles by Cambeiro. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC) .... PS no, the article on Rocco is so grotesque that I changed my mind and sent it to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 18 March 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. Keeper | 76 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Velástegui[edit]

Cecilia Velástegui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I discovered this page through one of the entries for a recent book she wrote and redirected the entry to her page. I initially thought that she passed notability guidelines, but a closer look revealed that almost all of the sources on the page are unreliable. Most of these are the same types of sources that were on the articles for her books. A rundown of the sources are as follows:

1. [4] ReaderViews is pretty much a non-notable book blog for all practical purposes and cannot be seen as a reliable source. This site was heavily linked to in all of the articles, especially to their reviews, which are all done by volunteers.
2. [5] Non-notable and non-reliable news site. Anyone can approach them for an interview, so this seems more like a PR site than anything else.
3. [6] This is one of several official websites run by Velástegui, and as such, is primary at best.
4. [7] This is slightly more discerning than ReaderViews, but still has the problem of being non-usable as a RS.
5. [8] This is one of several reviews done through Kirkus Indie. The difference between this and the regular Kirkus Reviews site is that authors and/or publishers pay for KI to review their works. This makes any review from that site unusable as a reliable source.
6. [9] Non-notable review blog.
7. [10] Press release, making it primary at best.

I did a search and was unable to find anything to back up claims of notability. She won an award, but the award doesn't appear to be so notable that we'd keep her based on that win alone. I'm not trying to disparage the award, but I'm doubtful as to how notable in general it is considered to be. On several of the articles it's mentioned that it was "nominated" for several awards, all of which are the type of awards where anyone with a spare copy of the book and some postage stamps can submit an entry. I'm aware that several notable awards use this process (notably the Stoker Award), but this decreases the importance of a nomination substantially. It also claims notability for being chosen as a book group focus, but that's not really something that gives notability. It might if it was the Oprah Book Club, but that's still not a guarantee of notability in that situation. I did some editing to diminish some of the puffery in the article and I note where the original editor uploaded a bunch of copyvio, but I do think that this was created in good faith. It's promotional, but I think that this is just the case of a new editor. Regardless, this person is not notable and has received no coverage in English or Spanish language sources that I could find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Delete all her books have scattered holdings in Worldcat in Spanish and English, but they won't be representative for this particular niche. My book review sources also don't work well here. On balance, I'm saying delete on the basis of it being a highly promotional article--if the author were clearly important it would be worth rewriting; if the article had not so clearly had a promotional intent, I would look harder. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I edited the article so I can respond to some of the initial concerns of notoriety. The International Latino Book Awards is a distinguished award. The majority of authors nominated have Wikipedia pages including all in the category Cecilia won: [11]

I've reviewed several author pages and see many of a similar age and level of acclaim that were nominated for an ILBA award: [12]

I am a first time editor and I should have removed the promotional content. I'm happy to rewrite further. Would the removal of promotional content and better adherence to Wiki guidelines provide a better chance of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktbunch (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would help it get taken more seriously, but it doesn't really address the issues of notability. I'm willing to compromise on the awards and say that they could help contribute towards notability, but they don't seem to be enough to show notability for those alone. That's the biggest issue here: we have a lack of coverage overall. If we had a few more reliable sources then it could be a different story, but she seems to have been somewhat overlooked by the sources that Wikipedia would consider usable. It's a fairly common problem with indie and foreign authors as a whole, especially for people who fall into both categories, but one that still needs to be overcome to pass notability guidelines. What I can suggest is maybe moving this into your userspace so you can keep polishing it and looking for sources? (WP:USERFY) What this means is that you'd have it in your personal userspace and while it wouldn't be visible from the main Wikipedia website, this would give you more time to work on it as there would be no immediate fear of deletion from your userspace. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• By the by, the existence of other articles on Wikipedia doesn't really mean that the award is seen as big or notable enough to pass notability guidelines on that aspect alone. It might just mean that those pages haven't been noticed and listed for deletion. I don't mean this as a slur against the awards, but most awards aren't notable enough to show notability enough for that award alone. The awards that usually show that level of notability would be something along the lines of an Oscar, the Pulitzer, or a Newberry Medal. Even then you have people who sometimes argue the point on those, if the award was received in a team or in a smaller and more obscure field of the awards ceremony. Navigating what is and isn't usable and what does or doesn't show notability can be confusing, to say the least.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:19, 13 March 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per the comprehensive nomination. There are quite a few PR mentions of this author, and some self published sources, but nothing that I could find from any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - MrX 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertisement. Even minor authors get media coverage in some corner somewhere, so if all you have to cite a press release, then that tells me this author is not notable. Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 20 March 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nellikunnu Muhyaddin Juma Masjid[edit]

Nellikunnu Muhyaddin Juma Masjid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One of the sources is an official website for an affiliate body of this organization, and the other is the personal blog of one of the many accounts used to promote this organization and its affiliates. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator per the discussion below. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. I tagged this for notability some time ago; I would have PROD'd it if it were an English language topic. I'd ask the closer to wait as long as possible in case a someone with the language skills can find sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - oh come on, if this was a church in Iowa we'd keep it. The issue is WP:NOTHERE article creators who leave locally notable articles without sourcing. Let's try a few more direct appeals (talk not templates) to the article creator. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which explains why this is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. You're welcome to nominate some churches in Iowa articles for me to take a close look at. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By which I mean the problem as you yourself have pointed out is language. Iowa sources will be in English not Malayalam. It doesn't help that the Malayalam speaking editors on en.wp are mainly St Thomas Christians so unlikely to be able to help either. I've left messages at ml.wp Embassy. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - the creator seems inactive now. It has apparently been tagged for notability before; despite by own noob-ness in this subject, would you suggest retracting the nomination or waiting for someone with skills in south Indian languages can comment? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the time-being honestly, withdraw it. Tagging for notability is a big step lower than AfD. However in fairness I consider AfD much less disruptive than what another editor called "drive-by-PROD-tagging" PROD tagging never even gets the chance of AfD, so no damage done. I have left a "please help source" at WP Kerala. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although the nomination has now been withdrawn, this deletion discussion cannot be closed as there is an outstanding delete !vote. I have left a message on that user's talk page asking him to reconsider his !vote, but he is completely free to stand behind his !vote, in which case this discussion will remain open. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:54, 5 March 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect to Nellikunnu unless more in the way of sourcing can be found, however, I'd prefer this be left open longer (at the very least through the 20th that this relist would normally provide) in the hope that In ictu oculi's attempt to get assistance will pay off. I'm not willing to ignore notability standards (or for much of the article, WP:V) indefinitely, either, and the article as it stands has a non-encyclopedic promotional tone ("huge", "famous", famous"; and that's just one sentence) that's difficult to correct due to lack of sourcing. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:47, 18 March 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Movement[edit]

Archimedes Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed, group is a minor, nonnotable political action group. A source search shows some cursory mentions, but more in the context of the activities of the person who formed it. It already has a mention in the John Kitzhaber article, so this is duplicative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I've added four new citations to independent reliable sources (there are now seven total). I will try to continue to expand the article with well referenced citations during the discussion, and suggest that participants keep an eye on improvements in case it helps inform your position. In addition, please bear in mind that the organization changed its name in 2011 to "We Can Do Better," so more recent news coverage will not typically come up under a search for "Archimedes Movement." -Pete (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. The organization has been profiled in a variety of news sources, both in and outside Oregon, over a 7 year span, meeting the notability threshold. -Pete (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which profiles are you talking about? We should probably add them to the article if they exist. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant coverage and multiple non-significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources to indicate group is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which significant coverage do you refer to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the news sources and book sources. The are multiple mentions, and some significant coverage where the subject is the primary subject of the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have. The mentions in reliable media are pretty much entirely in the context of the governor, and not about the group. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still view the group as having significant coverage; however, as a compromise I can see the content merged and redirected to the article about the governor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no substantial reliable sources; the first Oregonian articles is about many other topics as well, and the second is an oped. Siuslaw also does not focus on this group. Skin and Allergy News is PR in a newsletter. The others are unreliable websites for the purpose of notability. However, I cannot see the Register Guard article, b; it seems to focus on the general topic, but one such source is not enough. Given that the distinctive name is obsolete andthe current nameis not distinctive, there doesn't seem any point in even a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, a couple questions: (1) I'm not sure what you mean about "distinctive names." The group itself is the same before/after the name change, so either the group is notable or it isn't; I'm not sure how the distinctiveness of the name relates to that? I think We Can Do Better is probably the best article name if this is kept, that seems rather uncontroversial, no? (2) Could you take a closer look at Skin & Allergy News? While it is certainly a bit of a niche publication, I don't think it's a mere "newsletter," and it's certainly not a republication of a press release. The author's LinkedIn profile suggests he does not (at least now) live in Oregon, and that he bills himself as a journalist; and the publication's "About Us" page declares that it's an independent publication with a clearly articulated mission, that it's been around since the 1970s, and the kind of editorial structure that our reliable sources guideline favors, and that is not typical of a mere newsletter. This may or may not be enough to sway your overall opinion, but either way, it seems significant. -Pete (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you: Skin & Allergy news, on the first look I gave it, looked awfully spammy. It appears I was definitely wrong on that part of it. I'm still not seeing the multiple substantial articles about the movement needed, but I was wrong about there not being any. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, and sorry to leave your question hanging last time. I am doing another dig for sources, have not come up with anything major yet, but as somebody who's followed this org for a few years, I am surprised how difficult it is to find sources. It is well known in the Oregon policy world, and it seems like maybe they haven't managed to generate commensurate press coverage. I recently attended its annual conference, which had I'd guess about 400 participants; I'm surprised not to find any press coverage of that event or its predecessors. I'm still digging. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 16 March 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep per abundance of news coverage. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checking the ones from outside Oregon, they are either editorials, incidental mentions, of mentions of the proponent or his movement is comments by readers. Checking some of the ones in Oregon, they duplicate each other. Before you give a straight g-search as an indication of sources, look at them and say which ones you think Reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2013‎

But this expands on what the article already has. And the Google News results include stories in The Florida Times-Union and even in The Washington Post. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 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. Definitely room for expansion using the sources for support. Consider tagging it for a wikiproject to work on if you cannot. Keeper | 76 02:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Vogt[edit]

Axel Vogt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough notability – the references are fairly obscure, and the subject lacks specific reasons to be notable by himself cherkash (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Person seems non- notable appears to fail WP:BIO Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Careful sifting through the GBooks hits seems to suggest that the subject had at least some influence on locomotive and other railway-related design and innovation during his years with Pennsylvania Railroad - not that any of this has ever got so much as a mention in the article. However, I must leave it to others to decide whether the influence was significant enough for notability. Oh, and by the way - sources can be both obscure and reliable. PWilkinson (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Note to the nominator: obscurity of sources is not a reason for deletion. The article needs to be expanded to make it clearer what his contributions to history were, which I will do today. Compare e.g Nigel Gresley, George Jackson Churchward -- men who held similar positions of note who have better filled-out articles. Vogt was equivalently influential in his field. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:55, 18 March 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. Consensus agrees while there is one fully independent source that covers this subject in detail, there is very little else here for WP:GNG, which requires more. Secret ^account 04:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Troy Comer[edit]

Howard Troy Comer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG and WikiProject Military History guidance. Please see Talk:Howard Troy Comer for particulars. Research, including HighBeam Research check and reading of Empty Tubes does not come up with anything more. Article may simply be a personal tribute to an admirable individual, but that does not justify WP inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An admirable man who admirably served his country, but who doesn't meet the bar for a Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with regrets. Multiple recipient of Silver Star, the third-level award for valor, does not meet current inclusions guidelines of WP:SOLDIER; would have to be multiple Distinguished Service Cross or higher. Worth restoring if community guidelines change. Dru of Id (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or 'redirect to Walker County School District. Neutral; Subject has received significant coverage from one reliable non-primary reliable source, however one source does not IMHO meet the requirements of WP:GNG; furthermore, although the subject of this AfD is highly decorated, it does not meet the level as required by WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, not meeting GNG or SOLDIER, deletion is the normal result. That being said the one source could mean that the subject of this Afd is notable only within the context of a certain area; if this is the case, I suggest redirecting (without merger) to the article about the high school which the individual recieved the significant coverage for, however as that article does not yet exist a redirect to the school district will suffice (for now).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Normally I would agree that two third-level decorations are not enough to establish notability (although I do believe that three would be). However, I think that combined with his multitudinous lower-level decorations he does just about meet the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was a WWI or WWII-era case, I'd agree, but it's unfortunate that starting in the 1960s and continuing onwards medals are pretty much handed out like candy. A lot of those are "You Showed Up" awards - even the Bronze Star is virtually worthless nowadays, and the Silver Star is heading there. The only ones there that would "add up" to help notability are the Silver Stars, the DFCs, and possibly the Vietnamese Gallantry Crosses - the rest are pretty much just "fruit salad" for the uniform. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding the non-valor awarding of the BSM, but it is my opinion that the awarding of the SS is still significant and has more strict awarding criteria than the BSM which has a non-valor and valor awarding criteria.

Actually I would be fine with an amending of WP:SOLDIER of individuals being considered notable in the field of Military studies if they have received three third-tier valor awards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with this amendment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I would agree with you - the US military does now appear to hand out medals to all and sundry, which is a pity as it diminishes those who really deserve them (I suppose it comes in the same category as the continuing inflation of the numbers of sergeants - sergeant's rank once meant something even in the US military). However, he does have three DFCs in addition to his two Silver Stars. As I said, I think in this instance the agglomerated decorations do add up to just about enough to indicate notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Neutral - After reviewing this article, I have found that inquiries regarding the continued existence of this article can and should be answered with a resounding MAYBE... Lord Bromblemore 20:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - after the discussion above, I'm no longer sure there's insufficent notability for a delete, but also not sure there's enough for a keep, so, time to waffle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Admirable, but lacking in significant secondary sources. One page in a book and a local newspaper article don't meet the bar, especially for a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By OP – Well, I just can't nominate and let this sit. I ask that editors consider that the single non-SPS source backing up this BLP is a newsletter type notice in a once-a-week county newspaper [13] with extremely limited circulation OCLC 20150395 about the addition of a staff member to a JROTC program. At present even the school district's website does not mention the program [14]. Comer's LoM was probably given as a retirement award, and with that in mind we have no awards for distinguished service following his VN War service. (The DFCs were probably given during his tour.) Notability might have been established if he had received the Defense Superior Service Medal for his work with USAR Aviation, but we don't see it. I got a copy of Warriner's book, but couldn't find anything to really help with notability – that is, I thought Warriner would talk about the engagements that lead to the SSs, PHs, or DFCs, but he didn't. (He does mention that Comer was bruised when his bird hit tree branches and busted the windshield, chin bubble and green house window, p. 129). I avoided stripping out non-sourced info about his pre-army career and the tangential stuff about having served with WO Maxwell. So with this said, I will repeat my contention that WP notability just aint there. (Note, there are several pages in Warriner's book, not just one.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested the possibility of a redirect to the High School, where the sources have shown local notability, would that be a compromise we can agree to?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Lafayette HS had a JROTC program, I'd say yes. But as mentioned, it does not. Nor does Ridgeland High, the other HS in the district. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still the individual did receive one non-primary reliable source significant coverage article. That means that the subject has at least local notability, and generally when that is the case, a redirect is often the result of an AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:52, 20 March 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) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influences in classical music[edit]

Influences in classical music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article consists of non-sourced, random, unlinked chunks of WP:OR. See also WP:NOT - 'Wikipedia articles are not ...lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).' The page was listed earlier today as an AfD , but the creaor of the article deleted the header on the page (afterin fact the orignial nomination for deletion had been endorsed by another editor). This is therefore I suppose the second nomination. Smerus (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was was PRODed, not AFDed, which is completely different. Anway, I also vote Delete, as I said on WP:CLASSICAL -- It feels very...clunky. Especially since "x artist was influenced by y artist" is pretty much a staple for the large majority of artists across all arts. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing problems, topic is too broad to be covered in one article. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has practically no sources. Reads like hearsay or casual conversation than anything connected to research. Since so much of music is based on influences, such an article would be infinite. -- kosboot (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with all of above. Even if done well, this article would be far too long to make sense; "influence" ought to be discussed in the context of individual composers and works. This kind of article is just a parlor game for editors (as opposed to an effort to provide the public with clearly-organized information). Opus33 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - moreover, many paragraphs in the article (notably those which are grammatical) seem to be straightforwardly lifted from here.--Smerus (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. This type of article is really not encyclopedic. Kleinzach 09:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i disagree to the point that it does not feel scientific or encyclopedic, since it is written in formal methods. also, i disagree to the comment that it is far too wide to be one page, since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and people can add information to this page and improve it little by little. furthermore, i find this page interesting since it tries to gather information that is too much scattered among books on classical music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash.akbari76 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. i agree with arash.akbari76. also for the commment which said it seemes a lot of information is from that site ( alabama school of music): well, i looked at the page, i found some information from that site and i could see that it was cited, so i believe there is no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.131.132 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 93.177.131.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comments: Extensive copyright material in the article has now been deleted by an editor under WP:COPYVIO. Arash.akbari76, who comments above, doesn't mention that he is one of the two editors who have contributed to the article.--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for 93.177.131.132, I was the editor who removed the copyright infringement. The material was lengthy and verbatim. It was way too long to have qualified as fair use, even if it had been clearly marked as a quote, which it wasn't. Simply citing the source, does not permit us to extensively copy the work of others. I'm also concerned that you may be one of the accounts who has created/extensively edited this article and are editing here while you are logged out. If you have already expressed an opinion here under another account name, you cannot vote "keep" again. I will leave you more information about this on your talk page.Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To be viable, this article would need not only a fundamental re-write, but a complete refocus of the topic. It conflates "musical quotation" of one composer by another one with more nebulous "influences", e.g. one composer was an admirer of another one, or was taught by another one, much of it sourced from internet forums, yahoo answers etc., and the rest original research and synthesis. I suggest that the article's creator work on a more tightly focused, properly referenced draft in their user space and then submit it via the Articles for creation process. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sourcing concerns. This topic is too broad to be covered in a single article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as written, this violates WP:ESSAY and WP:LIST - it is sort of random. On the other hand, I am not against a properly-focused article on what should be a notable topic. See WP:TNT? Bearian (talk) 17:17, 18 March 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:Keeper76 under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry and Boehringer Ingelheim from Indian Strategic Perspective[edit]

Analysis of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry and Boehringer Ingelheim from Indian Strategic Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and possible copyvio of academic paper. Not suggested for CSD as unable to locate source. NtheP (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and consider a speedy. I can't locate the origin of this material, which may have taken a pass through a translator, but it's clearly copy-pasted here from an extant source based on formatting, if nothing else. If it isn't speedied as a copyright violation, it's still an essay unsuited for Wikipedia. But I don't see any reason this shouldn't be considered a presumptive violation and axed on those grounds; it's clear it was not written here first. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:19, 13 March 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. Keeper | 76 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gatekeepers[edit]

The Gatekeepers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, non-bestseller. Page reads like WP:advertising and promotion Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 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 March 13. Snotbot  t • c »  18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RELUCTANT KEEP While the page does read like an advertisement, I don't think that's enough to warrant a delete, only a cleanup. And while it wasn't a best-seller, the inclusion of the book on The New York Times Book Review's List of Notable Books is enough to justify notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that at first, too, but I saw that the author was working at the NYTs at time of publication so their notice of the book seemed an in-house thing. Wikipedia doesn't have a page for NYTs notables so can't merge it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It needs a rewrite (and I had a go) but it has been the subject of multiple reviews[15][16][17][18][19], enough to meet WP:NBOOK notability standards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is on the NYTimes list of Notable Books. Uberaccount (talk) 03:18, 16 March 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:SNOW. Redirected afterwards per SO's comment. As a note, this article was also created (as a mere, non-military WP:DICDEF) in 2008 by User:SuperSnacko... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snacko[edit]

Snacko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, informal neologism/military position. Exactly one reliable source, which is a mere dictionary definition of the term as used in a training squadron; no indication that this is a term (or even an assignment) in widespread use. The second source in the article only references snack bars in general, not a snack officer in particular. Further searches turn up nothing reliable. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing to support notability. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A WP:NEO with very little usage based on searches in gbooks and gnews. (Snäckö OTOH could have an article) SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an article, but a dab page. Come on SmartSE, don't be a hater of either Aland or Aboland. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable subject -- complete lack of independent, reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:NEO and maybe even WP:NONSENSE, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. There's no need to preserve the current material for attribution, because it's a neologism at best and nonsense at worst. The title, however, is a plausible search term and should redirect to Snäckö with Template:R from title without diacritics. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO with no notability whatsoever, plus it was really a spam operation. The creator Esnacko (talk · contribs) has already been indef'ed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEO. Though well known to Air Force personnel, its is not terribly encyclopedic. EricSerge (talk) 00:49, 14 March 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. Policy based consensus is clear here, SPA sources successfully rebutted. Secret ^account 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ReSharper[edit]

ReSharper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product. Cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:NSOFT#Inclusion definition of notability is The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. I think the number of questions tagged 'ReSharper' and the reliability of stackoverflow.com as a source are enough to satisfy the definition of notability. Dmimat (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)— Dmimat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It should be extensive coverage in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - new references are added recently, according to [20] Philip Torchinsky (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First recently added reference, [21] is an entry that states it exists but could be paid for and is not a secondary source as it appears to be written by "JetBrains", the manufacturer of the product in question. All of the links are to how-to sections on the company's website.

The second, [22] is to StackOverflow and lists all mentions of the product. No feature articles.

Nothing that even approaches a RS. Still can't find any when I search on-line. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant RS coverage. Stackoverflow is user editable - questions are submitted and answered by anyone - and therefore it is not considered a reliable source. A listing on Microsoft's 'Products and Extensions for Visual Studio' shows the software exists, but does not constitute significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article was improved, and more external links to reviews and articles were added, see [23] Zhuravlik26 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)— Zhuravlik26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I reworked the article, now it includes references for provided content, and seems that now there is no content that could be treated as advertising. If any ideas what should be improved next, I'm ready to accept them and work more on this article. Cheers, Zhuravlik26 (talk) 7:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If you're going to "improve" the article, you could add some actual RSes and less marketing fluff. http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2009/09/01/write-better-code-faster-with-resharper-4.5.aspx written in 2009 by Peter Vogel. Might qualify as a RS with enough focus on the tool but it seems to be a product review of an old version, 4.5. If it were a notable tool, there would be reviews on every release and they're up to 7.1. http://www.h-online.com/developer/news/item/ReSharper-7-set-for-Visual-Studio-2012-and-WinRT-1654669.html was written by Harald M. Genauck. The latter is not entirely a RS but at least it's for a more recent version of the product.

I would like to point out that all three of the editors who voted keep are WP:SPAs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 9 March 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per not notable and advert and promotion. Reads like a promotional pamphlet. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of the significant coverage in reliable sources that would be required to demonstrate notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I added two book references, and more links to Microsoft's resources. I'll improve the style of article a bit later today, as the article is too overloaded and must be shorter. If you have any further opinions on provided references (currently not on style, as it will be improved:), and if you know more reliable sources on .NET development than I provided, feel free to mention them here. Yes, this is the first article I work on in English section of Wikipedia, so I'll be pleased to know about my mistakes to not repeat them in other articles I'll edit in future. Cheers, Zhuravlik26 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (This is important, but was moved to the outdated part of discussion, so I re-add this as comment). The article is fully reworked, and now includes references for all provided content. Also, all content that seems to be "marketing fluff" is dropped. If any ideas what should be improved next, I'm ready to accept them and work more on this article. Regards, Zhuravlik26 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 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) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live Here Now[edit]

Live Here Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was nominated a year ago with a "no consensus" result. It has not been further improved, still has absolutely no sources, and has notability concerns (from the last one, partnering with big artists doesn't inherit notability). If no sources can be provided or the article improved, it should be deleted. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable and reads like an advert. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seemingly non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:16, 13 March 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 no consensus. It comes down to whether this meets WP:GNG or not. While some of the sources are successfully rebutted as non-sufficient, there are other sources mentioned that the subject might meet it and wasn't commented on. As for the redirect comment, we don't do that option to content like this, as the parent list is a bunch of redlinks of non-notable contests which needs a serious pruning. If this gets redirected and removed while pruning, we are dealing with a useless redirect. Secret ^account 05:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University Mathematics Competition[edit]

Princeton University Mathematics Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this event fails our notability guidelines. I'm unable to find more than trivial mentions of it in local press. Prod was contested on the grounds that there is an online forum that mentions it called "AoPS" or some such (you can see the original post on the talk page). Ray^Talk 21:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Art of Problem Solving "AoPS", at <http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/>, is arguably the hub of the community involved in pre-college mathematics competitions. In the AoPS community forums, the Princeton Math Competition is listed (and is its own category) among other well-known competitions and summer programs including the Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament, ARML, Mathcamp, and AwesomeMath. These organizations are all extremely well-known among high school math circles. While none of them get lots of local press (the media prefer covering sports achievements over academic achievements), I think it is still worthwhile to have the article on Wikipedia so that interested students can read about the competition. Sbchu (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of deleting articles, rather recommending trying to figure out ways to improve the ones written. Math competitions focused on high school students don't get too much press, even if they are important. "AoPS" is one of the largest high school mathematics competition related forum, website, and resource in the world. Feel free to check it out. The community is very active there. I saw a recent post about PUMaC get over 1500 hits. Kebalken (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Theer is no signficant coverage in independent reliable sources about this math competition. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to respectfully point out that high school math competitions overall, even if they are notable within the competition community, do not receive significant coverage in independent sources. Also, it seems that the PUMaC article offers many different kinds of sources to back up its claim of notability. Even though a forum can't possibly be seen as a great source, the Art of Problem Solving site and forum is an accredited, independent, and significant resource for high school math students. The fact that the site has dedicated an entire forum to the contest, in addition to the variety of other sources about PUMaC, should suffice. Kebalken (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not constitute a reliables source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the forum is in itself not a reliable source. However, it offers a good context of the competition we are discussing for the admins not familiar with high school math competitions. I feel the other news sources, however small, various other mentions online, and the context of the forum should offer a pretty good picture of the notability of the competition. With regards. Kebalken (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the current sourcing in the article is usable for establishing notability.
        1. Blair is an education acadamy and not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability
        2. NorthJersey.com is a reliable source, but the article is an event announcement and not coverage so it is not usable to establish notability.
        3. A blog is not a reliable source
        4. North Carolina State High School Math Contest is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability
        5. A blog is not a reliable source
        6. A blog is not a reliable source
        7. Basscom is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability
        8. This is a primary source
      • Whpq (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not sure what you mean by "event announcement" versus "coverage." This local newspaper article seems to me like coverage of results of the event: <http://www.wwpinfo.com/index.php?option=com_us1more&Itemid=6&key=1-4-13mathlete>. Sbchu (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I think we need to have better sources for the article. Please keep in mind that no matter how prestigious the math competition(even for USAMO, etc.), it is extremely rare that the source cover the math competition only. I see some articles online by reliable sources that aren't mentioned in the article, one by the Sofia News Agency: <http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=134416>. Another one is that the Stony Brook University Center for Science and Mathematics Education lists the competition among notable math competitions <http://www.stonybrook.edu/cesame/teachers/teachers-competitions.shtml>. Again, thanks for the input. Kebalken (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also in favor of keeping on the grounds that even very prominent academic competitions for high school students attract very little press. FWIW, here is an article in a HS newspaper about the competition. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 11 March 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - Not notable. A nice student run organization otherwise. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• To update: PUMaC also falls under WikiProject Mathematics Competitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics_Competitions. The project isn't too active. Kebalken (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of mathematics competitions J04n(talk page) 13:51, 21 March 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 Selfish Machines. Keeper | 76 02:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof Love[edit]

Bulletproof Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All of this info is contained in other articles (Artist page and album page). The only unique sections are a YouTube link and the lyrics, which are a copyright violation. I propose the article is deleted and redirected to the album page for Selfish Machines Oddbodz (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate as a redirect per nomination. Given the copyvio problems, this seems to be the best course of action. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:58, 13 March 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) 13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Zúniga[edit]

Víctor Zúniga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This article was prodded about five years ago and contested without any reason. – Michael (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - standard case of an individual who is supposed to be notable for football, not being notable, due to not playing international senior football or playing in a fully professional league. This is in addition to not having reliable sources cover this individual's achievements. C679 20:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear case of a non-notable footballer: has not played in a fully pro league, represented his country at senior level or received significant coverage in reliable sources failing both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: Although normally there would be a clear consensus in this discussion, this AfD was not properly transcluded in the daily log. I have accordingly procedurally relisted it to allow for additional discussion to occur.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:19, 13 March 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) 13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Romhányi[edit]

Tamás Romhányi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous afd failed to reach a consensus. The fact remains, his only claim to notability was a single one-minute-long appearance in the Hungarian top flight four and half years ago which does not appear to have generated much in terms of significant coverage. In my opinion, this pretty clearly falls under the part of WP:NSPORT which says that not all articles meeting the criteria must be kept, given that he only just passes the guideline and fails WP:GNG quite clearly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - comprehensively fails WP:GNG, which outweighs him barely passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Non-notable. GiantSnowman 09:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - still fails WP:GNG despite barely passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article does not meet GNG, which is more important than him technically meeting NFOOTBALL. Eldumpo (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, GNG outweighs project-specific notability criteria, and he fails GNG. C679 20:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: Although normally there would be a clear consensus in this discussion, this AfD was not properly transcluded in the daily log. I have accordingly procedurally relisted it to allow for additional discussion to occur.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Seems to have a lack of outside sources. Ducknish (talk) 20:16, 13 March 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/snowball deletion - empty; non-notable fan-made character. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles the Hedgehog[edit]

Knuckles the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable video game character. PROD removed by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable at all. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Might've been a plausible redirect if the official character was a hedgehog, but this two-liner looks like an attempt at promoting some fan offshoot game. Funny ^Pika! 17:25, 13 March 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) 13:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Em-Amen[edit]

Em-Amen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable ISP, fails WP:CORP. If it really is a sub of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, then delete and redirect. ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - If a reliable source proving it is a sub of PLDT can be found then it should be merged with that. If not it should be deleted as non-notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had previously put a Prod on this: "Unreferenced article abuot a company which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Claims of a relationship to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company are unverified and both the website [24] and picture of the company van [25] are indicative of a small non-notable firm." The Prod was removed by the article creator. I can find no reference to Em-Amen on the PLDT website; a redirect would be inappropriate without evidence. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only because I can't find any sources. If sources are provided I will not hesitate to change my vote.
  • Keep as sources have been added. I'm currently in the process of getting out of him what this 'not for public' website is all about.--Launchballer 19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced now and it doesn't seem like it will be in the future. Basic searches turn up nothing.
• Delete - the source that was added, Philippinecompanies.com, is user-editable and thus not a reliable source. Not enough coverage in other sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage of the subject of the AfD found in non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject is not notable as defined in WP:GNG. Furthermore, as it failed GNG there is no way it can meet WP:CORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: doing my own research for this yields this, which proves that it exists and is a registered contractor with that country's government.--Launchballer 11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, it is not a claim to notability. I could set up a company, win a bid for a government project, but my company would still not be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article here shows that it is a registered contractor of PDLT and not a part of it. I recommend redirect and merging with the PLDT article.--Launchballer 13:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Credit to User:Launchballer for the research to identify some factual basis. As to the merge & redirect suggestion, a lot hinges on the status of being a registered contractor to a firm. Especially in a world of outsourcing, corporations have contractors, for example for local site maintenance: the corporation is important to the contractor, but not vice versa. In this case, merging material about Em-Amen onto the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company page would seem WP:UNDUE, if it is a separate firm not even mentioned on PLDT's website. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 17 March 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) 13:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coursebirdie[edit]

Coursebirdie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article do not meet notability per WP:CORP and WP:INTERNET. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most new "Start-ups" aren't notable and this does not seem to be an exception. Ducknish (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Online education business launched in 2011. No showing of lasting significance of the sort needed to turn this into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searching "Abhishek Singh Coursebirdie" at Google News and numerous Indian newspapers yielded nothing. There is no evidence to suggest this company has received news coverage and all I have found are primary links. I have no prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 16 March 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. Nearly relisted because the page in question's originator had not been notified but he hasn't edited since July 2006 so unlikely the notice would have been seen. J04n(talk page) 14:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connexions 4 London[edit]

Connexions 4 London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination for IP editor User:2a01:348:311:2:922b:34ff:fe3c:7084, who did not provide a rationale. On further review, it seems clear that there are no real reliable sources that discuss this company. The existing language is a bit promotional, which can be fixed by copyediting but doesn't do much for notability. So, for lack of obvious notability, I'm completing the nomination of my own accord, and - on the merits - recommend deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete standard searches do not turn up any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Zad68 14:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Company profile. No independent sources to be found --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:08, 14 March 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) 14:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Steve Watt[edit]

DJ Steve Watt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent sources. Appears to be non-notable, as searches turn up nothing major about him. Mdann52 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:BIO. Meets G.11 and probably A.3 (as so little content) of Wikipedia:Speedy deletions--DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No outside coverage, only of local importance if any. Ducknish (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO....William 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I agree with the earlier editor. This article could easily meet G11 CSD criteria....William 17:46, 13 March 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Fuller Miller Sr.[edit]

George Fuller Miller Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Inappropriate AFC move. Fails notability. Can not find any sources on the subject. GAtechnical (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Off Please I don't believe that the fact that the references are hard to come by makes them invalid. I believe I may be able to provide several of them if there's away to do that. Additionally, I don't understand the "Fails Notability" comment. This man basically started Boy Scouting in Arizona, dedicated his life to it to help boys, has a building named after him in Phoenix (the Scouting headquarters for the Grand Canyon Council), founded the American Humanics program which is business school program for people who will be working in the non-profit sector, was awarded and honorary doctorate for his work, and served as a city councilman for the city of Phoenix. This man made a tremendous contribution to society here in Arizona, dedicating his life to the development of young men.

Please see Wikipedia:Notability. May pass notability as a city Councillor but I don't think he does for scouting. As a passing note yes there is reliable references in the article but there is no way we can prove that the articles were about him. GAtechnical (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (people) particularly If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability which we can't tell as they are offline. He is NOT notable for scouting or as a Councillor. Also further reason why this should be deleted can be found further down the page when it says:

Any biography

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field GAtechnical (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to provide some information about the Hon Kachina Award and the First Scout Award - these should meet the significant award or honor. You can see information about the Hon Kachina Award at www.honkachina.org

Doesn't the fact that the scouting center here in Phoenix is named after him indicate a notable contribution. How do we get personal interviews that we have in our possession reviewed to validate some of this information? Can you answer why the examples I provided make them notable but we can't meet this same criteria. None of them meet the criteria specified in the Any biography If baffles me that a guy who did nothing more than play three years of pro baseball is notable but a man who built scouting in Arizona affecting more than 100,000 young men, received an honorary doctorate for his work, and has a building named after him is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. Why were the examples I provided deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.215.125 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as revised I shortened this substantially; I am normally reluctant to use the term, but the article as unwisely accepted from AfC is the very epitome of a vanity article. But the honorary degree from ASU is proof of his distinction, and enough to meet a reasonable notability standard. There is a great deal of personal judgment in what sources we can accept as substantial and reliable, and I consider the ones in the article sufficient for the straight statements of fact now in the article. They were not sufficient for the opinion and personal material in the article as nominated for deletion. I have not the slightest objection to the nomination, and, if I had not been prepared to improve the article, I would have !voted to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate For most of this man's life, there was no Internet, but if he did all the article says he did, there would have been coverage of him. —rybec 21:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's comment that George Miller's scouting career fails notability could not be further from the truth. He was Scout Executive of Roosevelt Council for forty years. His dynamic leadership and foresight guided the Council during a time of explosive growth in Central Arizona.

When George Miller retired in April 1968, 6,150 citizens and scouts paid tribute to him in a ceremony so big that it had to be held at Phoenix Municipal Stadium. "It was one of the largest and most impressive farewell events ever accorded a Phoenix leader." (Phoenix Gazette, April 9, 1968, page 12). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.41.4 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your headers. It's making it very messy and why I edited your first comment and removed the other people which was irrelevant. GAtechnical (talk) 22:32, 8 March 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) 13:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - the subject appears to be notable enough. It is a long-standing rule that sources do not have to be all online; some can be sourced by paper records. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting has been notified about this discussion. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems to just meet WP:ANYBIO. Miniapolis 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: His contributions seem entirely significant enough to justify maintaining the article. Ducknish (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rybec. --evrik ^(talk) 16:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, current article seems reasonable; honorary degree (that I gather was added) is convincing of notability to me. --doncram 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears notable, especially with honorary degree. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several firsts and founder of a nationwide organization pass notability litmus.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:50, 17 March 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.  Sandstein  20:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4[edit]

WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominate a number of articles that I think fail WP:NASTRO because they "have little information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances" and it is not the job of Wikipedia to duplicate a data set. These articles follow the same template, they are brown dwarfs discovered by the WISE telescope and I nominated those articles that are not on the List of nearest stars or otherwise notable. Hekerui (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as explained above:

WISEPC J223729.53-061434.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J223937.55+161716.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J225540.74-311841.8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J231939.13-184404.3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J232519.54-410534.9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J234026.62-074507.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J234446.25+103415.8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui, it is misleading for you not to bring up the recent conversations at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23#WISE_object_notability and Talk:WISEPC_J150649.97+702736.0#Notability with this nomination. -- Kheider (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad manners to accuse me of misdirection, using both fat wording and a warning label no less. Users can check those discussions, they stopped months ago and no action was taken so I showed initiative and notified the Wikiproject about it. Hekerui (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus was to create a list article, but everyone was too lazy to be bothered with sharing the workload. -- Kheider (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The content should be merge with the main brown dwarf page. An individual data set is not notable on its own --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no significance for any of them individually. Ducknish (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unless "significant coverage" in multiple, non-trivial published works exists for one or more of these brown dwarfs, there is no justification for keeping these articles per WP:NASTCRIT. (Admittedly though, I only searched for sources on two of the brown dwarfs listed, so I cannot confirm the lack of sources for all.) The content is quite specific to the individual brown dwarfs, so I don't see anything sufficiently generalized that could be merged to the main brown dwarf page. There is also a List of brown dwarfs, but the items to which a list article provides links should be sufficiently notable to have their own WP articles. Otherwise such a list will devolve into a massive collection of red links that are largely non-notable. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redirect to List of brown dwarfs and add an entry for each object to the tables there, as per the recommendation on WP:NASTHELP. Praemonitus (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; while redirecting may seem appealing, if we redirected these, then we would have to have entries on all similar objects, which would make the list impractically large. Thus, deletion is preferable in this case, as there is no question that these are not notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect you're correct. Praemonitus (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, excellent articles about these brown dwarf. Fotaun (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge required[edit]

• Merge; WP:NASTRO requires merging the content. -- Kheider (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't see where WP:NASTRO "requires merging": "If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline...then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or deleted altogether." As a general rule, merging and deletion are two options. WP:NASTHELP recommends merging when "a few sentences about the object may help another article or list." In this instance the objects are non-notable and I do not see what help a few sentences about these objects could provide to another article or list for the reasons stated by StringTheory11. Moreover, WP:NASTRO states that with regards to databases of astronomical objects, "it is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases" (see WP:NOTDIR). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2012, the requirement for merging the content was discussed in depth at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23#WISE_object_notability and Talk:WISEPC_J150649.97+702736.0#Notability. -- Kheider (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for lack of the independent nontrivial coverage required by WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the standing consensus (as of Jan 2013) is to merge. -- Kheider (talk) 12:30, 21 March 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. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ILeap[edit]

ILeap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has no references, and none I am able to easily find. I think the topic is not very notable, and the article is formatted like an advertisement. Therefore, it should be deleted in accordance with policy and guidelines. - HectorAE (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could not find any reliable sources. --Boson (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. On notability, the string 'iLEAP' has apparently been independently invented several times. But adding 'Hindi' to the search yields four incidental mentions or routine announcements of its release. There might of course be non-Latin script sources.
  
  But it's too soon to worry about notability here: this article is unambiguous advertising (Some important features of [iLeap]: 1. It is simple and easily understandable. 2. It has spell checker in many languages. 3. It has various keyboard layout options.....) and makes no minimal claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is Wikipedia:Advertising. Just a list of features copied from the company brochure. --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Beyond the promotional tone of the article (G11?), the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT.  Gong show 19:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, seems to be advertisement! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Not notable, advertising. No bias to recreation if the program eventually receives substantial coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 14:05, 18 March 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. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barber (musician)[edit]

Michael Barber (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just like other articles on subjects associated with Hoopla Worldwide (Jonathan Hay (publicist), Sabrina (pop singer), Audio Stepchild, Birdgang clothing) this article is a ridiculously bloated mess. It's made up of promotion, puffery, deception, bad sources and attempts to assert notablity by association.
Good Luck to anyone trying to find their way through this mess. This piece has a huge mass of sources but most are not reliable sources. A mix of sources associated with Barber, blogs, press releases, sources that don't mention Barber, passing mentions, associated topics. The only souurce of any worth appears to be this little local interest piece.
His band, Audio Stepchild, is not notable. His releases fall short of WP:BAND. His invented genre is not notable. Nothing here makes him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75% of the sources are valid. duffbeerforme has a personal vendetta against anything related to Hoopla Worldwide. He has completely slandered, and been completely disruptive to anything related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyDancer1489 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: TinyDancer1489 (talk · contribs) has been indef'd as a sockpuppet - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could be, but the previous argument is not any stronger than the nomination's.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [entry redacted]
  • To the nominator's credit, just about every other article the article creator had made, was promotional garbage featuring tons of bombardment with bogus sources. There are plenty of terrible sources here too (Top 5 Lists, LastFM, etc.) so I can see how he thought this once could be deletable as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm removing my !vote as it has been followed by a comment about an editor.  I'm more interested in talking about contributions, than contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I sampled five of the so-called "references" and none were valid -- ads, press releases, junk. Looks like a case of WP:BOMBARDing articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could be, but you don't have any evidence as to whether or not the topic is notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What is disturbing is the overall pattern of launching promotional puffpiece articles, deliberately bombarding them with spam references for the purpose of boosting search engine optimization misusing Wikipedia as a sales platform. It is possible this artist is legitimate, but it is a lot of work for the rest of the community to have to cut all the chaff here, to police it for junk, to watch over it, and to deal with the hassles of unruly contributors. If somebody knowledgeable about Wikipedia, such as Unscintillating, will improve the article to make it passable, and then if an admin would block further junk being added, then I might change my vote. Until then, junk like this is a nuisance for the entire community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Duffbeerforme is spot on when he says "Good Luck to anyone trying to find their way through this mess." If I have time, I will go through the article and rip out absolutely everything that is questionably sourced, and replace it with better sources if they exist. It certainly doesn't help that's there's a more notable namesake who gets quite a few news hits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It might be easier to simply begin again from scratch -- chucking the whole thing; I have found rewriting, rechecking each bogus source, to be very time intensive. If you trim this article or rewrite it, I'll probably change my vote; wondering if after you fix it up, could the article be padlocked somehow otherwise my guess is the junk will re-accumulate with addition from socks or who knows where.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I sat down to pick out the sources with the intention of rewriting it ... and then gave up. Unless I'm mistaken, every single source was either an unreliable source, a press release or simply didn't mention him. (Example here) A news search for "Michael Barber" brought up nothing relevant to this person, and the best I could manage on a web search was this, and I can't see anywhere on Jamsphere that gives me any confidence that they have a strict and well defined standard of editorial control. Even if that was a reliable source, there's no point me rewriting the article based on it as one source does not a notable subject make. If anyone else is thinking of !voting keep, I'm prepared to go through and summarise the problems with each source, but it would be too long and boring for everyone else and we'd all fall asleep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thank you for doing this; your experience is instructive. I've worked on borderline notability subjects before, and have saved a few articles, sometimes didn't, trimming and culling so only the best material remained, and I had thought that possibly this subject might be possible for such an approach. I used vast search strings as filters to pick out only acceptable possible references; that way, I could rather quickly peruse any topic, and whip together a quality piece for Wikipedia rather quickly. But in this instance, with the rudeness of the Hoopla spammer(s), their persistence and unwillingness to listen, I find myself unmotivated me to even consider helping out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another case of WP:BOMBARD from a user who was not here to help build an an encyclopedia.. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Another one of the user's promotional pages, tons of "bombardment" without any relevant sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS - this makes extravagant, wild claims, such as having invented a notable genre of music. This violates the commonly accepted rule at Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence and the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Bearian (talk) 17:27, 18 March 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) 11:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sewaro[edit]

Sewaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I originally deleted this by PROD (concern was "Wikipedia is not a dictionary") and I restored following a request from the article creator. As I believe the original concern remains valid, I am bringing this here for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 12:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection for the deletion - As I have come across the article Namaste, I think this article also have right to be in Wikipedia as Sewaro is exaclty similar word used by Limbu community of Nepal. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Ashishlohorung (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because we have an article on one Nepalese-term, does not mean that all therefore deserve articles. The term "namaste" is widely-used throughout the world and has the coverage, and notability, to reflect that - the same cannot be said for "sewaro." GiantSnowman 12:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:WINAD--DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I notice that there is currently no page at Wiktionary:सेवारो, and perhaps there should be. Wikipedia, however, is not a dictionary, and I don't see any encyclopedic information here. Cnilep (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sewaro is much more than just greeting in the current socio-economic and political transformation where the indigenous people of Nepal are fighting for their rights to be included into the country development mainstream. At least this word has helped to spread the movement of Limbu community. This greeting is exactly same as Namaste as gesture but only different in language. So, if you include this in Namaste as SEE ALSO section it is acceptable.

Ashishlohorung (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Namaste" is a commonly used phrase; it is frequently used in Western media and a large number of people outside of Nepal know the term. "Sewaro" is a non-notable term. "Bonjour" and "Guten tag" are far more commonly used than "Sewaro" but lack articles. Marechal Ney (talk) 07:09, 20 March 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass (English band)[edit]

Mass (English band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable; e.g. the band hasn't been covered in several notable publications. There is mention of their album Labour of Love "climbing the indie charts" in a magazine, Hi-Fi News & Record Review, but I hardly think that's enough. Lachlan Foley 12:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Perhaps other groups that the members have formed may be notable, but it doesn't seem that this particular musical group is. WP:NBAND Ducknish (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The band members were in a notable band prior to this one and notable bands after, so an article on this band is valid. The band recorded a session for John Peel's BBC Radio 1 show, their album (on one of the major indie labels of the era) was a top 20 hit on the UK Independent Chart, and I have three books that give the band some coverage, and found another on Google Books. This band split into two other notable bands and as such is important in understanding the history of both of those bands. Had it been one notable band afterwards we could perhaps have covered this there, but the only alternatives to keeping this article are to duplicate the information in both, or omit any details of the band, neither of which would be good for our readers, and the coverage and success that the band had back in the early 1980s makes this a suitable subject for an article anyway. --Michig (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add those sources in? As it stands, there is little evidence of the band's notability except with relation to other groups, and notability is not inherited. If details are relevant to either band, they belong in that particular article, not in their own. Ducknish (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add them when I have time. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appallingly notable band members and successor bands (plural) - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources now included in the article demonstrate notability. — sparklism ^hey! 10:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE, again Gary Asquith + Mass etc. How many of these AfDs are there? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 18 March 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) 14:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims[edit]

A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book. Has remained tagged for notability for well over 3 years now, and its sole remaining source is now a dead link. InShaneee (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has been tagged as needing more sources for a very long time. Now has no valid source and falls foul of Wikipedia:NRSNVNA--DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Wikipedia:NRSNVNA. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One review does not significant coverage make. Ducknish (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates WP:COAT and WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 18 March 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. Closing now per WP:SNOW. Wizardman 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Ghana[edit]

2016 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. These articles serve no purpose at this time.

2017 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2019 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2020 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2021 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2022 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2023 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2024 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2025 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2026 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2027 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2028 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2029 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2030 in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...William 11:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 11:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.

• Delete all - if precedent can be made that close future articles exist for other countries, I might be swayed. I do not look forward to the article 2525 in Ghana. Syrthiss (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left 2014 and 2015 alone. 2014 articles have been accepted but 2015 is more iffy. I know articles like 2015 Formula One season have been deleted. 2016 and past you're clearly into crystall ball land....William 11:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as per nom. Few indeed are the events that we know with certainty will happen that far in advance. If we get one of those, sure - but anything else is just WP:CRYSTAL. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them. This is the epitome of WP:CRYSTALBALL. There's no way of verifying just about any of this. Ducknish (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Wikipedia is not a calendar DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The pages are essentially blank except for the information on holidays which is not even guaranteed to be accurate in ten years' time. Pichpich (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 2014 and 2015 have no content either, those should be deleted too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete all - as per nom. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as a crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - The existence of all of these is laughable. 2020 is so far in the future that it's incredibly anyone would make an article, but 2030? WOW. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Applied literally, WP:CRYSTALBALL does not appear to be the correct criteria since these articles contain no speculations. However, their useful content is redundant with Public holidays in Ghana, so they serve no beneficial purpose at present. Praemonitus (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all we know the partisans of Akanland will overthrow the governments of Ghana and Ivory Coast in 2015 and there will be no Ghana come 2016.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 14 March 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 05:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Resource Corporation[edit]

Global Resource Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Defunct corporation, marginal notability, minimal content. Conrad T. Pino (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The supplied references would appear to claim that this business invented a process that turns old rubber and plastic into oil using microwaves. Do we have an article on that process? That's the sort of thing that might make this business notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The referenced company is now defunct along with many of the references. Of little historical significance but as identified about its work may be as a separate article DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Can find no notability, nor seemingly any utility to the project. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doc2doc[edit]

Doc2doc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doc2doc is one of many online fora without significant mention in secondary sources. A shortlisting for a minor industry award in 2009 does not amount to notability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Minor trade awards are not indicia of notability, even if you won them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Wikipedia:NRSNVNADavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. no notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... per nom. Ducknish (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm Matthew who works on doc2doc. I am terribly sorry for the erroneous entry which has led to decision. Can I have an opportunity to provide you with more contextual links for the new entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbillingsleybmj (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 March 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. this could have been speedied as A7. Secret ^account 05:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Falls the Rain (play)[edit]

Still Falls the Rain (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG. Dewritech (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I suppose that it was in a drama festival, but still, I don't think it meets WP:GNG. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 10:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I added the PROD, and I think it still stands. Ducknish (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inclusion in a high school festival doesn't meet notability. No other sources to be found via usual searches DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:43, 13 March 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nogie Meggison[edit]

Nogie Meggison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The author removed the PROD tag, at this diff, citing an article that fails to aid verifiability or to help establish the subject's notability. The article is self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. This autobiographical article fails WP:ANYBIO, since the subject has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor", has not "been nominated for one several times", or has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." - ʈucoxn\^talk 09:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article creator just tried to vandalise the page by replacing it with text on Richard Branson. I reverted this. When commenting on this AfD ensure that what you are seeing is a good version, e.g. this one, and not the result of vandalism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst there are a few viable sources out there which would probably meet WP:GNG (I'm not linking them for reasons which will become immediately apparent) they all report on criminal activites for which (to the best of my research) Meggison has not yet been convicted. Since that's pretty much all he's been noted for in reliable sources, and since WP:BLPCRIME prohibits us from writing about people accused of crimes for which they have not been convicetd, we should not have an article about him here. If convictions are secured in the future, or he becomes notable for another reason, then the page can be recreated. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it stands the article citations are all about the company the subject works for, not him and are therefore foul of Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:46, 13 March 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 no consensus. Discuss a possible merge in the talk page. Secret ^account 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early anthropocene[edit]

Early anthropocene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This RS-weak article (stared in 2005) takes a WP:POVFORK position by redunantly affirming only one side of what we report as a controversy at Anthropocene (started in 2003). That controversy is whether the anthropocene should be considered to have started at the dawn of the fossil fuel age (1850 ish) or whether it should be considered to have started much earlier. The premise of this article is that the latter view is the correct view. That's a POVFORK. The content of Early anthropocene is already part of the main Anthropocene article, but repeats these facts as conclusive, rather than as one side of a debate. Any unique info I may have overlooked here should be merged there and the rest of this article should be wasted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the topic deserves an article. This is a distinct enough sub-topic of Anthropocene to be worth lifting out of that article. The current article isn't too bad, but could benefit from the text currently in Anthropocene William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion is noted, but what's your response to the alleged POVFORK problem? (I have elaborated on the nature in my opening comment) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move/align the two William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as an "AGREE" since this proposal does that very thing. If you have other mechanics in mind, please articulate them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it's a POV fork. The article involves a bit more detail on this topic than the Anthropocene article, and does present at least one possible challenge to Ruddiman's hypothesis. There's not really any evidence that I'm aware of to suggest that the creation of this article is due to an inability to achieve consensus on the earlier article, so I'm not sure what the basis is for calling this a POV fork, rather than an expansion on a topic only touched on in the previous article. I'm not strongly opposed to merging the two articles, but I'm not sure that I see a compelling reason to do so, or to delete this article. J. Langton (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. The only sources for the article don't even seem directly related to the article's subject, just to the wider field of study. This looks like a combination of essay writing and original research problems, in addition to the obvious notability issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems a poorly written article on a probably notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Anthropocene J04n(talk page) 11:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article meets WP:SPINOFF, and a Google Scholar search yields several additional sources. If kept, though, it should be moved to Early anthropocene theory due to its non-acceptance by mainstream academia. Miniapolis 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question To meet WP:SPINOFF criteria, an article has to be "long" and spinoff wikilinks to WP:SIZE. On which hook at WP:SIZE are you hanging your hat, when you imply the combined articles would be too long? Even combined as is they would still be shorter than most of what I edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Redirect or Merge. The whole point of the concept of the Anthropocene is to discuss what effects humans have had on the Earth, and when those effects began. It is a unitary concept that should not be split because some people don't like other people's ideas. Undoubtedly the main article needs to address all points of view that are debated in scholarly sources. Forking out this material is the wrong way to go. Abductive (reasoning) 21:26, 6 March 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, ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:56, 6 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 08:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Ruddiman's hypothesis is notable, being covered in sources which have no particular axe to grind such as Functional Biology of Plants. The issue of forking is irrelevant to the question of deletion because inappropriate forks are addressed by merger, not deletion - see WP:CFORK. Warden (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupportable reasoning. (A)Since notability is not at issue that's a moot red herring. (B) Merger is an acceptable way to end an AFD. See WP:CLOSEAFD.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It is a notable theory with credible citations. However renaming with +theory is appropriate DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability arguments are moot so your "weak keep" is not yet supported with an applicable reason. What's your response to Abductive's reasoning above, and your reason to object to merging? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect - Agree with nominator. Not quite an article yet and fork, but with development and WP:RS could be some day. Just not today. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 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. Obvious WP:COI, Drmies evaluation of the sources, along with a quick glance (which shows practically every unreliable hip hop source imaginable) indicates this fails WP:GNG which trumps WP:MUSICBIO, and the Billboard thing was completely brushed aside and ignored. For Newrichent we are not a webhost to promote your music, and be lucky you were not blocked, as we block those that indicates a corporation or group. Secret ^account 05:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da YoungFellaz[edit]

Da YoungFellaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A bunch of mixtapes and YouTube videos, but no hits, no record deal with a notable outfit, and nothing reliable to suggest they pass WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Their show in Norway garnered them a few hits in the press there, but delivered nothing more substantial than being called "a prominent guest". Drmies (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Between the body of work, and the collaborations, we've given enough references (15 to be exact) to show and prove we are notable recording artist from New York CIty, we have a record on the radio, and have charted on Billboard, meaning we do have hits. We have proof for the charting, and have provided reliable sources for the song premiering on radio. Which have also been deleted. We were prominent guest and had an interview at the event representing New York City (2011 Nordic Ski Championship.) This reference is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That a song is on the radio doesn't make the band notable by our standards. The "we" you use suggests an involvement, which is clear also from the decidedly unencyclopedic tone of the article ("You can capture the love, pain and struggles the group witness while growing up in some of the most formidable neighborhood's of New York City", etc.). What charted on Billboard? And where's the evidence? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we didn't only state we were on the radio the evidence for radio has been taken down, we have full MEDIABASE analyst to prove where we've charted and which radio stations in the United States have been and are still playing the single. I can email you this directly. We have FULL analyst for anything you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, it doesn't matter that a song was on the radio. If a single charted on something like Billboard there should be evidence of it in reliable, secondary sources. That evidence would help. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have FULL mediabase information showing that the single charted at 146 on Urban (peaked at 120), has an audience of 1.15 million, and has over 200 plays nationwide and growing. Where can I email this information? Mediabase is on Wikipedia, so you should know who they are, and what they do. We get weekly reports, You want proof? Tell me where to send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No response? Again, I have FULL reports from MEDIABASE, the website who monitors CHARTING on BILLBOARD, radio spins, where the song is getting played, who's playing the song, and where it's CHARTING. Let me know when and where to send this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "No response"--pardon me for not monitoring this every second. Don't email it anywhere: it's primary research. See WP:PRIMARY: an encyclopedia relies on secondary sources. Show us where, in a reliable source (WP:RS), this information was made available to the general public, so it can be cited in the article. And please sign your name under your posts (with four tildes), and see Wikipedia:Indentation for proper indentation of comments so conversations can be more easily followed. Now, I shall shortly be away from this keyboard for an indeterminate amount of time; my apologies if I don't respond immediately to any comments. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well we did cite it, our Power 105.1FM source has been taken down. I wonder why? Again, the proof is there, and they are public records that can be obtained by anyone with access to mediabase, for example I see French Montana has records that charted lower than us (first single to be exact) with no reliable sources, if you look Donny Goines or Smoke DZA or Joey Badass, these are artist who's never charted on Billboard, ever and all respectively have Wikipedia accounts, we have a bigger track record than them (so to speak, we're on Billboard!) and they've obtain a Wikipedia without being signed to a Major label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • This? What does that prove? Drmies (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again you DON'T need Billboard information to be on Wikipedia, I've linked three 3 artist, who respectively have Wikipedia pages without anything CLOSE to our credentials. Smoke DZA, Joey Badass, and Donny Goines these 3 artist have been able to keep their pages without proving Billboard charting, or radio, but there are more, shall I continue dropping names? Or are you going to take down the entire underground Hip-Hop from Wikipedia? Because there are artist still trying to reach our accolades WITH Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Stop avoiding the question and focus, focus on the task at hand, which is saving your band's article. Don't worry about the other bands (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Start signing your messages, and start indenting properly. You're giving SineBot and me a headache. No, it is not necessary for a band to chart on Billboard, but for this band that seems to be the only chance since no one seems to have noticed their existence--at least not to the extent of writing about it in reliable sources. But this is going around in circles; I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Definitely not going in circles, I've stated my claim, I've provided reliable sources, this is a PUBLIC website, and equal to all of the recording artist that need to be in MUSIC HISTORY, we are apart of music history, whether you care to believe it or not, you can't erase Billboard, you can't erase TIME, and you can't erase HISTORY, so most importantly you CAN NOT erase DA YOUNGFELLAZ! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrichent (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 February 2013‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 14:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO States, "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." - THE GROUP HAS AND IS STILL CHARTING IN THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSIC CHARTS. MediaBase has this information for you to obtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.86.57 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO States, "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries." Here's a Norwegian Newspaper Article speaking on the group's trip to Norway to perform at the Nordic Ski Championship in front of the King and Queen. Dagbladet.no How much more proof does this band need?

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak Keep Citations provided that meet WP:MUSICBIO, however article appears to violate WP:CONFLICT DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO. But agree with DavidTTaylor above, needs to resolve WP:CONFLICT. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 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.