< 9 May	11 May >

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no opposition (NAC). Ish dar ian 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory[edit]

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

As the article itself states, Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft pointed out that "activities in the subject 'have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals.'" So it's still in Wikipedia why? -Jordgette [talk] 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Originally there was a long article on Myron Evans. It was created before BLP policy had been properly formulated on WP. It was deleted after OTRS received complaints from Evans. There had also been some problematic edits to that article by users connected with Evans. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans (2nd nomination) This stub is what survives. Evans' theory has not been accepted but has gained some notoriety. That involves in particular the editorial written about the "theory" when the editorial board of the journal changed. They had published several papers by Evans and others, prior to that change. The article is clearly labelled as a pseudoscientific theory or "fringe science". Three of Evans' self-published books on this theory are or have been on sale on amazon.com. This article gives information on the topic not easily available elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathsci, and because notability is not temporary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Problematic edits' seems to be an understatement; a 2008 study found that by one measure, the former M.E. article was the most controversial article on Wikipedia. And apparently Dr. Evans was none too pleased about this article either. Regarding the current article, if the critics' peer-reviewed papers regarding ECE can be considered as secondary reliable sources about the theory, then the refs from the article show that it passes WP:GNG. The article itself could use some development. But that is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A topic passing WP:GNG and surmountable problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I withdraw the nomination. I checked the talk page but didn't realize there was a long history there. -Jordgette [talk] 04:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mathsci. The article is clear and upfront about the topic's questionable status and the theory has received some notice in the past. There is no attempt here to disguise fringe as mainstream as often happens. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 11 May 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, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Faidley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The individual this page is about has been very insulting on other pages and has gotten a lot of negative comments from those who have saw this. He has also made a blatant attempt to raise funds based on his insults toward others in the same field of work. Many have suggested that some one ask that he be removed from Wiki. Cross Weather (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'm not sure how complaints about a user's conduct have anything to do with whether an article is kept. Since the article has sources and doesn't appear to be spam, I don't see a reason to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a bad faith nomination. "Behaving badly on Wikipedia" is not listed on WP:DEL-REASON. Praemonitus (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly being a jack*** isn't a reason to delete a page. I haven't looked in-depth at all of the sources, but the most I can say needs altering at the moment are some POV sentences such as "This is in contrast to the majority of "storm chasers" who are, in reality, hobbyists, scientists, students, thrill-seekers and part-timers who chase seasonal events." But if that's all that needs work, that's fixable and not a deletable offense on its own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Sponsorship Forum[edit]

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

Delete article recreated after speedy deletion. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and salt the various names used by the authors, including The Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Survey, Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Survey, The Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Study and Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Study. See this diff of my previous warning about deletion. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 May 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. Only !delete vote sock of nominator. If a policy-based rationaile can be given for deletion no prejudice against renomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Andrews (artist manager)[edit]

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

Users highberry and Bob Andrews UTOW are both the subject of this article. Seems page was a vanity autobio and doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Jamminjimmy (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subject tried to remove afd template from page to artificially close debate. Jamminjimmy (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability claimed by multiple references and notable label. the user attempting to delete article has personal vendetta. Jamminjimmy joined wiki to harass people connected with someone he has personal and legal issues with. Not a good wiki citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.115.14 (talk • contribs)

As noted in a related AfD by SarekOfVulcan, the article was not deemed notable, only that there is a credible assertion that the label is notable. This discussion will determine if it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Additionally, please refrain from making personal comments about other editors. Please stick to policy-based reasons for the article to remain on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep borderline notable, but does have a couple of in depth stories/interviews. Music articles are always tough to judge, because so many sources that show notability are more indie and not major NYTimes style outlets. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the few AfDs I have seen where subject of article creates his own autobio and then votes to keep it under his own named. Bob should be commended for his transparency but there is a tenuous claim of notability at best. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Hackwayinteresting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: user suggesting AfD and Hackwayinteresting blocked after SPI. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin I have striken the !vote of the nominator's sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jamminjimmy Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 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. Courcelles 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamshakal's[edit]

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

Film hasn't started shooting yet. Sources that I can find basically say that there's going to be a film by this name, and that it will start shooting in September. WP:TOOSOON applies. ... discospinster _talk 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undersourced article about upcoming film which hasn't commenced principal photography; fails WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. Under WP:NFF, this topic does not yet merit a separate article... but as it is beginning to be spoken of in sources, this title can be in the meawhile be redirected to and discussed and sourced in the director's article until meriting a separate article, . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:11, 11 May 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. only deleve !vote sock of nominator. Best to start over; no prejudice against renomination if a policy-based rationaile can be articulated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undertow Music[edit]

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

User Bob Andrews UTOW (ie undertow records) and highberry are same person and appear to be sole interested editors of this page and are the subject of the article. Request deletion for vanity page and non-notoriety. Jamminjimmy (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was already deemed notable by objective user. several notable artists, albums, all with extensive external references. user suggesting deletion has personal agenda. he opened a sock puppet investigation against me that was closed finding no abuse. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note Subject of article tried to remove afd template to artificially close afd. Jamminjimmy (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note removed template by mistake. didn't know the procedure. i'm not a wiki expert. does not change the fact that article has already been deemed notable and your attempted deletion is motivated by personal vendetta. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article was not deemed notable -- it was deemed that there was a credible assertion of notability, rendering it ineligible for speedy deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as it is a vanity page created by owner of company with no other editor involvement. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Hackwayinteresting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

note to closing admin I have striken the !vote of the nominator's sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jamminjimmy Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 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) Dea db eef 09:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex Party[edit]

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

Party only existed for a few years, never achieved over 1% of the vote in any riding, and references consist mostly of links to the party's website or financial reports from Elections BC. The party was mentioned in a few articles for local papers, but fails to meet notability threshold by and large. Thoughts? --4idaho (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although most of the sources aren't linked, there is a very wide range of them, even when you discard the over-cited financial information and the several court cases. That looks like enough to establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to WP:ORGDEPTH, and I would likely classify a minor political party as an organization, more or less, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Some of the sources are newspapers and magazines from Vancouver, but also some in Toronto, showing attention from media across Canada. Given that it's quite well sourced and I would say meets the depth requirements to be an article on Wikipedia. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 01:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article lists a good number of reliable secondary sources and notability is not temporary. Cavarrone (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but definitely rename. The Australian Sex Party has a higher profile. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming would be inappropriate unless there is some other, more prominent organization also called literally "The Sex Party". The Australian one is called "Australian Sex Party" so there's no clash, there. Dricherby (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Australian parties often stick "Australian"/"Australia" at one end of their name or other but are invariably referred to in running speech without it. "The" is in violation of WP:THE and doesn't clearly disambiguate. Try googling "The Sex Party" and see what comes up the most in politics. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:THE is not violated if the "The" is a literal part of the organization's name, which it is in this case. In contrast, the Australian Sex Party is known as the Sex Party (small-t) so it would violate WP:THE to have its article at The Sex Party. However, to aid navigation, I've added a ((about)) tag to the top of The Sex Party pointing to the Australian Party. Dricherby (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party ran in two elections, and the article passed a GA Review. 117Avenue (talk) 02:43, 14 May 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. Courcelles 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dabangg 3[edit]

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

Future film without any reliable sources. The source is about Dabangg 2 which is not related here. This film is not yet confirmed by producers and directors. The article clearly fails WP:NFF. Tolly 4 bolly 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF: No indication they've started principal photography. As of May 7, 2013 they still didn't even have a script for the project. Maybe information on this upcoming project could be discussed in Dabangg or Dabangg 2, but at this time doesn't merit its own article. Does not meet the grounds for an exception suggested in WP:FFNOTE: there's very little coverage out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Always fine to have sourced discussion of it in the director's or related articles, but it does not yet merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of reliable sources should not be an issue, since there are lots of newspaper articles out in web, but, ya it is WP:TOOSOON. --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:33, 13 May 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. Courcelles 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amakasu clan[edit]

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

Although there are individual samurai named Amakasu, a quick search of Google books shows no support for an article about a kin group in Japanese history. Sekai hyakka daijiten shows no support -- see 甘糟氏 at kotobank.jp. In popular culture, the "Akamasu clan" appears in strategy video games and in role-playing games, but not in reliable sources. Ansei (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's any particular games this fictional clan is mentioned in, then maybe we should turn this into a dab page with links to those games? Or perhaps delete this page, but create an Amakasu dab page with links to the aforementioned samurai, plus any games containing characters or playable clans. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the information presented above. Minor appearances in video games (or any other game, for that matter) do not qualify a minor clan such as this under any notability guideline we have. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merely appearing in fictional works isn't a notability criterion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With reservations. For one, this clan is not fictional. It was a retainer clan for Uesugi Kenshin [1] and one of its members was a Christian Martyr [2]. Another of its members was one of the renowned 25 Generals of Uesugi but as far as EN Wikipedia is concerned, there is no reason to create an article for this retainer clan, when the notable members are footnotes to more serious articles with room for development. Jun Kayama 14:36, 15 May 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. Courcelles 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research[edit]

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

No useful content, blocked user, small importance, unless someone wants to spend some time cleaning it up. Rarkenin (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of that is a reason for deletion. Although the amount of information is small, it is an exaggeration to say "No useful content". The fact that the editor who created the article has since been blocked is no reason for deletion either, and if it were then we would have to delete a hell of a lot of articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High schools are, by convention, notable so there's something wrong with the world if universities aren't. Dricherby (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition, it does not seem to be a block evasion. He created the article two hours before getting blocked. About "no content", the "stub" tag is doing its job! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is now a redundant version of this article called Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy A10. Dricherby (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI should be in order too (in my opinion)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The A10 is declined and content merged as it was different. So now there is even more reason to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, though at the time when I nominated for speedy, the only substantial difference between the articles was the uncited and vague claim to be some kind of "meta university", which I didn't think worth merging. Dricherby (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government-funded, degree-awarding institution. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 17 May 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. Courcelles 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Winter[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Unsurprisingly, since this appears to be a puff article about a fringe scientist who may have created one particular fractal pattern or two. Prod contested by article creator. Ray^Talk 17:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fringe subjects require nontrivial coverage in mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral and objective point of view. In this case, I did find one source [3] but I don't think it's enough. And WP:TNT may be relevant, too: the article as written is overly credulous and unencyclopedic to the point where there may be nothing in it worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is some merit in Winter's wave pattern theories and experiments which deserve the right to be expressed. Constantine Kravotkis (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Please see WP:VALINFO. We're not here to debate whether fractal golden-ratio brain wave quantum gravity is a good idea (or an idea at all rather than mere buzzword soup), nor whether Winter should be famous for having these ideas, but rather whether he already is famous for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fuzzy fringe with no evidence of notability. Subject's web site is worth a look to get more of a flavor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:FRINGE all the way (see also the youtube page, alphabet of angels...). The claims of weblinks and downloads to his page are bogus. Sulfurous but non-notable personal history (per own page). Search for links and reviews reverberates among a small number of like fringe sources. I don't see WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promoted New Age charlatan. EEng (talk) 11:01, 14 May 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. Courcelles 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles from the 2000s[edit]

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

An example where categorization (see Category:2000s record charts) is the better venue over a list, in particular a list of lists. Otherwise, there should be lists like this for every year and every decade. The only similar lists are the even more generic Lists of number-one songs and Lists of number-one albums which, for the most part, just take you to more "lists of lists of number ones" for a specific country or chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and very incomplete duplication of Category:2000s_record_charts and Category:Lists of number-one songs. Dricherby (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content. Can't understand why the the prod was removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Soldotna, Alaska. Merge and redirect, purely a merge to tag talk pages accordingly for attribution Courcelles 16:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les Anderson (fisher)[edit]

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

This is a slow news day story and fails WP:GNG with no lasting notability outside of catching the fish and his reported death. Some guy caught a big salmon. Does this need an article of its own? No. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect. The news hero is and was the salmon, not the fisherman. A bit could go to chinook salmon.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the holder of the biggest salmon record may not be a notable person (or may be a WP:BIO1E case), the record itself is. More generally, the general subject of biggest catches ought to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, since it is a subject of intense interest and coverage among those folks who follow competitive fishing. In a very quick search I found a couple of pages listing fishing records for other states but not one for Alaska. Maybe someone else can identify a suitable merge target; in the absence of a more precise merge target, I guess I'd suggest merging this information to the article on chinook salmon. I note that this record is also mentioned in the article for Soldotna, Alaska, where it happened; I've added a couple of the sources from this article to that one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, it turns out that Les Anderson's record is mentioned at chinook salmon#physical description. A series of edits in 2010-2011 made the claim that the record had been surpassed by another fisherman in British Columbia. This claim was later reported to be incorrect, and the apparent hoax on Wikipedia made the papers: see, for example, "Record king salmon another Wrongipedia entry", Associated Press (in the Wisconsin State Journal), August 10, 2010. Somewhere in the course of the repeated edits inserting and removing the incorrect information, Anderson's name disappeared from the article,[4] although his record was later restored.[5]. In doing all this digging, I also found that there is considerably more and longer-lasting news coverage than you'd expect about Les Anderson, his record, and its impact on his home town: look at the 80+ GNews results for <"Les Anderson" Soldotna"> [6], and comments like this one from the local paper at "Les Anderson Day" in 2005: "The chamber and Soldotna's business community owe a debt of gratitude to Anderson, as his catch is widely credited with helping establish the city as a premier sportfishing destination. Today, sportfishing is a key component of the city's business community, and summertime visitors bring millions of dollars to the local economy." [7] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think the nominator may have a poor understanding of Alaskan culture. That's ok, we are more than used to it, but I can assure you that something like this is big news in these parts. You have to understand that the Kenai Peninsula has basically three industries: oil and gas exploration, (which is mostly offshore), tourism, and fishing. So being able to claim world record status is very good for two of those industries. (there is also money in the mix more directly as world records for fishing generally have cash prizes and there are also numerous "fishing derbies" in this part of Alaska)

That being said I do not believe this merits a stand-alone article on the person who caught the fish. It's about as clear a case of WP:BLP!E as you can get. A redirect to the article on Soldotna, where the catch was recorded and where Mr. Anderson lived, is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am fine with Redirect based on Beeblebrox's explanation. Thanks also to Arxiloxos for the digging; in my reading, the salmon is still the hero, as the catch is "what is credited...". Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm fine with Beeblebrox's suggestion that the better redirect target is Soldotna, Alaska, especially since the sources suggest that Anderson is something of a local legend there. I added a couple more sources to that article, and maybe I'll be able to go see that big fish someday. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, happy for the redirect too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:45, 12 May 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Barnes (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

No third-party reliable source coverage of this person; only claim to fame is founding of LawCrossing, where he is already mentioned. (BCG Attorney Search, created by the same WP:SPA, is also in AfD). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable and promotional. The sources cited are either self-published, directory listings, or short items about his businesses. They do not establish notability as defined by WP:N and WP:BIO. NOTE: Related articles created recently by the same user include, in addition to BCG Attorney Search, both Hound.com and LawCrossing. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG as well as my standards for attorneys. There is no evidence on Whittier's website about Barnes. There appears to have been a different Harrison Barnes, who played basketball in Whittier, and who is not related to this attorney. All I've found online about this Barnes is that he's been attacked for his hiring practices. To be honest, I'd rather that Wikipedia not get involved in creating such attack-prone articles. There is some evidence that he taught one course at Whittier as an adjunct, but to call him professor is quite a stretch. At best, this subject barely meets GNG, based on the available sources. The longstanding rule at AfD has been to delete BLPs of marginally notable persons who are minor or generate local controversial news. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this article could easily become troll bait for defamation, and the last thing the Wikimedia Foundation needs is a tort lawsuit from a lawyer whose own article on this website was used against him. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this link a good enough third-party source? Job search CEO acquires Malibu 5BD for $7.75M This says that he was a law professor at Whittier and that he founded The Employment Research Institute, which is the parent company of LawCrossing. Could this be used in the article anywhere as a source? Aostler (talk) 22:08, 13 May 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. This does not rule out the continuation of a merge discussion. J04n(talk page) 19:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Baldwin[edit]

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

a 17- or 18-year-old who recently made her modelling debut which would make her one one of many hundreds of thousands. The notability of her parents is not hereditary. per WP:NOTABILITY Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question is not how old she is, or how recently she made her modelling debut. The question is whether or not she meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG -- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." -- or at WP:NMODEL. — Mudwater^(Talk) 11:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator Surely if there is significant coverage in reliable sources beyond vacuous promotion the content of that coverage should be conveyed to our readership within the article to show them the notability of the young lady. That has not been done, and, at this time, one may suggest, cannot be done. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all articles should cite sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject but AfD is not cleanup. The grounds for deletion is that no sources exist, not that the article doesn't cite suitable sources. Before nominating an article for deletion, you're expected to look for sources (see WP:BEFORE). Dricherby (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alec Baldwin and/or Kim Basinger. Notability independent of her parents has not been established in any of the available sources. Maybe it will be at some time if her career advances. At this time it has not. --Crunch (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least on grounds of nomination, which does not say she isn't notable. I don't particularly love this tabloid subject, but just because there are many young models is irrelevant to this subject's notability. There is at least enough press coverage of this individual to suggest notability, not based on her parents alone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that one's opinion to Keep or Delete should be based on an assessment of the notability of the subject. Your opinion seems to be based on an assessment of the arguments given in the nomination. --Crunch (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - I thought I said she was not notable, BUT a child who, it would appear, may be about to enter gainful employment is clearly not notable. Where are all the references to her notable career; where is there is a single reference to the child which mentions her alone without the reference being mainly about her parents; where is the in-depth profile in the New York Times. Again, a child who may well get a job in due course may well be of some interest to tabloid readers but hardly notable here Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 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, czar · · 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage keeps on coming. Here's a column in yesterday's People. [8] It is true that merely being the child of notable people doesn't make you notable, but neither does it disqualify you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NOTABILITY: "Routine kinds of news events (including most [...] celebrity or political news, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable". That source looks like very routine celebrity news to me. Dricherby (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baldwin family, which could be expanded a little. She gets a few points for who her parents are, but in this case I don't think it's enough. May be WP:TOOSOON, if she develops her career. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator's arguments that the subject does not meet inclusion criteria are clear, convincing, and correct. Merging most of this material would be incompatible with WP:BLP. --causa sui (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Returning to this AfD after my keep comment above. When my cousin handed me a magazine with a woman in it yesterday in a profile piece (maybe it was People), and it was Ireland Baldwin, I figured she probably does have coverage and is notable. Arxiloxos is right, her coverage is significant, not merely "she's the daughter of", though every article is going to mention that, something Chelsea Clinton will face for her life too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baldwin family. There is a little bit of coverage, but it's not the sort that establishes notability in my view; if it weren't for her parents she'd just be yet another aspiring fashion model. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Don't merge there because that article violates WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Genealogical entries." Dricherby (talk) 11:08, 21 May 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. Problem solved! Shii (tock) 05:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapusta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Before anyone gets confused: kapusta is not the same as kapusta kiszona (=sauerkraut); the claim being made is that it is some Polish sauerkraut-based dish. However, kKapusta is simply the Polish word for your regular cabbage. Pl wiki has no page on dish known as "kapusta" (pl:kapusta is simply about cabbage), nor (for what it is worth) have I (a Pole) ever heard of it. There's no "kapusta" dish in the pl wiki category for cabbage dishes (no equivalent at en wiki yet): pl:Kategoria:Potrawy z kapusty). There's a soup (kapusniak), but it has a separate article. From what I see in the article and quick search on the net, "kapusta" seems to be a Polish-American invention, and so far references don't support notability. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. PS. I am not sure what the previous snowballed delete from 2006 concerned, but based on comments I see it doesn't seem to have much relevance to this AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ~~Redirect to Cabbage. Wikipedia is not a Polish dictionary.~~ --Crunch (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a basic Google search shows that this is a real dish. The article is accurate and helpful. Sourcing could certainly be improved. That the nom is Polish and hasn't had the dish doesn't make it non-notable. Clearly other Poles have had it. It is certainly NOT used solely as a word for cabbage although it means that also (as is noted in the article). I don't see what the problem is? I'm finding lots of sources discussing this food and describing it in a way that is consistent with what's in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the article to kapusta kiszona duszona which seems to be the full title for the dish known as simply kapuska to many Polish-Americans. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find; I definitely support the move (while the abbreviated name may be better for Polish-Americans, it confuses the heck out of any Pole). Now, if we could only added few more reliable sources, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom; so far I am still not convinced that this recipe is notable, but I am happily waiting to be proven wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source discusses its relevance to Polish American festival goers and its permutations. Seems alternatively to be written as duszona kapusta kiszona (which I've redirected). Why don't you think it's notable? Seems to be one of many fairly common cabbage/ sauerkraut dishes. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dish mentioned in one book and few websites does not seem notable to me. Now, if we can show that it is mentioned in more, and add to the article a sentence or two about it being widespread among Polish-Americans, it would sink the notability concern. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect to kapusta kiszona duszona works for me. I have crossed out my previous suggestion of redirecting to Cabbage. --Crunch (talk) 23:09, 3 May 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, czar · · 14:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sauerkraut. I think it would be best to start a new section ("Usage") in the Sauerkraut article, which would list the various dishes made from this versatile ingredient, from braised sauerkraut to bigos, to choucroute garnie. I don't think that each possible sauerkraut-based dish deserves its own article; it's better to have them all described in one place instead. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per research by Candleabracadabra (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 16 May 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. Courcelles 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Holder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been deleted 9 times before, but has she become notable since? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page appeared at Tamara Nora Holder and was subsequently moved. Some IP put a request on the help desk that it be moved, which it was; having formatted all the links, there are enough secondary sources to warrant inclusion and it would appear she passes WP:N (just!).--Laun chba ller 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. No rationale supplied by the nom for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page came to my attention because I found a history-merge request Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tamara Holder to Tamara Holder. Some of its old deletions had delete comments "not notable" and similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prominent Fox News television personality (strawman pseudo liberal) for their pro-wrestling talking heads shows. Fairly massive web footprint. Nomination doesn't really state a rationale. As sourcing for journalists is inevitably problematic, keep under the policy of WP:IAR — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. Since the earlier deletions, she has been written up in the National Enquirer and appears on TV every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladybug2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 May 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. Courcelles 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalu (band)[edit]

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

No independent sources. Speedy declined due to credible claim, so to AfD we go to see if we can get enough sourcing as OP (with same last name of band member - most possibly a COI), has not provided. Alexf^(talk) 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of multiple reliable independent sources. I declined the speedy partly on the basis of finding this review but on its own it's not sufficient for WP:BAND guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND on all criteria. Also agree with nom re: potential COI concerning User:RuurdWoltring.--Drasil (talk) 05:52, 14 May 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. Courcelles 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AaNet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The only references in the article only verify its existence, but are sourced to internet discussion forums AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relatively passing mentions elsewhere, none of the refs provided pass WP:RS. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Northwestern University#Media. No prejudice against merging any of it to Medill School of Journalism as well. J04n(talk page) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern News Network[edit]

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

Non-notable student television program, only seen on campus closed circuit TV and twice weekly on public access channel GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a non-trivial paywalled mention in the Denver Post at here from what I can tell using the Google news search results that include this blurb "The Northwestern News Network similarly has established a production bureau, using resources from four states including Colorado. Collaborations with Rocky ...".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that applies--the article you site appears to be about an NPR radio station, and this is about a college closed circuit television station. Also, I'm not seeing that quoted material in that blurb. Can you clarify? --GrapedApe (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same NNN at all. Full copy (for now?) at Ostrow, Joanne (2008-09-28). "At CPR, what you don't hear also matters". Denver Post. Denver, Colorado: MediaNews Group. p. E-01. Retrieved 2013-05-14. A consortium called News Network of the Future is at work informally, using regional and local reporters to share expertise. The Northwestern News Network similarly has established a production bureau, using resources from four states including Colorado. Collaborations with Rocky Mountain PBS are also underway. Not only is the name mentioned only in passing, but the Denver Post article is about a news reporting consortium of public broadcasters (including Colorado Public Radio) in northwestern U.S. states. The Wikipedia article and this AfD is about a student-run service at Northwestern University in Illinois. --Closeapple (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Tony, or at minimum redirect and merge this back to Northwestern University#Media, adding some of the history discussed here to enhance the brief mention of NNN that's there now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Medill School of Journalism. Lots of colleges and universities have student media operations. Many of them get Regional Emmys also; there are often college-specific categories for those. Most of the references in the article are effectively self-published by Medill, and written by people who are part of Medill and its media operations. The remaining reference, from the Chicago Tribune (one of Chicago's 2 "big" mainstream daily newspapers) mentions that a Medill news director at that time (1989) had procured a specialized desk; the main subject of the article is the remodeling of Fisk Hall. Main Google web search turns up lots and lots of NU self-coverage and repackaging therefrom, and about zilch from anywhere else in the first few pages. I also searched Google Scholar, which seemed to be more of the same. Seems to be a subject of primarily local interest, with almost no coverage outside of Northwestern University itself. --Closeapple (talk) 06:54, 15 May 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. L Faraone 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual warfare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:POVFORK of Spiritual warfare (Christianity). The term has the exact same meaning here as there. In the absence of evidence of it being a different topic from Spiritual warfare (Christianity) it should be deleted as an unnecessary fork, and the other article moved here in its place. The previous AfD is about Spiritual warfare (Christianity).

This article is constructed through original research by synthesising different sources together to make a point. Two sources seemingly not related to Spiritual warfare (Christianity) are given, I don't have access to one (you can demonstrate its not a synthesis with a quote perhaps), but the other, Shamanism doesn't mention spiritual warfare according to google books, so it looks like WP:OR as well, so it need not be merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that the two articles shouldn't be separate, and agree that the construction of the current spiritual warfare is an original synthesis (per my comments on the talk page). The other AfD seems to have been a mere vote, not a meaningful consensus, because those voting "keep" provided neither scholarly sources to support their view that it wasn't OR nor policy-based arguments. The only "keep" comment that provided a cogent argument focused on the concept as it pertains to Christianity. However, I wonder about the procedure: shouldn't this be a merge? I would say there should be an article called "spiritual warfare", and not an article with a parenthetical disambiguator when there's no other article from which to disambiguate it. In looking at this topic, I found that examples were overwhelmingly about Christianity, but perhaps not exclusively, so I think the title and scope should admit the possibility that the concept might be found elsewhere. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be merged since I don't think there is anything worth saving here; it should be deleted and the previous article moved back over it. The scope already does admit the possibility that the concept might be found elsewhere (both articles have the same first sentence defining the topic). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the basis of IRWolfie's explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this solution as well. Srnec (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have two concerns to express. Firstly, the 'Christian' spiritual warfare article must not be written as though it represents the only concept of taking a stand against evil spirits. To read that piece as it is one would come away thinking that no other culture or faith has hit upon the idea of taking any measures to combat evil spirits. At the least it ought to qualify that "spiritual warfare" is the Christian version of the practice of taking a stand against evil spirits (though I additionally think that "taking a stand" sounds more like it belongs in a novel than here). Secondly, the quotes and cite addressing the Chinese cultural discernment of peach wood as a means of combatting evil spirits ought to be added to the page, Peach. This is properly sourced, and is surely interesting and informative as to a vast and ancient culture's affinity for this material, and so ought to be included somewhere. If there's a better place to address countermeasures efficacious against evil spirits in China, it ought to be there as well. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Spiritual warfare is a peculiarly Christian idea, as there can be no this-wordly dominion or violence; all is prayer or symbolic action. Christians are referring to particular Bible references when they use the term. It is tempting to generalise to other religions, but unless RSs can be found, I think it is safer to discuss it in a Christian context. I think the Spiritual warfare (Christianity) should be reinstated to Spiritual warfare and that which can currently be found there identified as OR or SYN and deleted. Hyper3 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page This situation is already well underway to being addressed through the discussion therein. It is agreed at Talk:Spiritual warfare#name change that the specific term "spiritual warfare" is overwhelmingly used in reference to the Christian practice. But in the same breath it is understood that many faiths and cultures have well established traditions of taking measures to fight evil spirits. There neeeds to be, then, an article on the holistic topic of 'methods used to fight evil spirits' or some such. The Christian practice is one expression of such methods. But it is well sourced in the page here discussed that the Chinese believed in the efficacy of peach wood to fend off evil spirits. This is not 'spiritual warfare' in the formal sense of the term as shown by usage, but is indubitably a practice of fighting evil spirits. So shall we avoid the appearance of imposing an 'if it's not Christian we don't want it' practice, and move this material to a name befitting the notion, generally, of fighting evil spirits? DeistCosmos (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if its Christian or not, you are doing original research here in this AfD, and in this POV fork, seemingly motivated by some misplaced crusade against Christianity: [9][10][11][12]. FYI, if the sources overwhelmingly use it with respect to Christianity, that use gets the weight, that's how WP:WEIGHT works. It looks to me that you evidently have a if it's Christian we don't want it attitude and are trying to minimise the references to Christianity, so if you want to have a discussion based on reliable sources, bring them up. Otherwise this is just wasting my time and yours, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that DeistCosmos is engaging in OR and synth, and can't seem to accept the difference between the specific concept of "spiritual warfare" in its scholarly usage, and concepts of apotropaism and similar beliefs and practices. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie So essentially, the rule now is that we cannot speak of methods of fighting evil spirits in Wikipedia, unless we are restricted to the praise of Christian methods. Very well then. Need I remind you that this entire situation exists because what is now the page on 'Christian’ spiritual warfare pitches itself, in absolute terms, as the concept of taking a stand against evil spirits -- the only way of so doing -- and yet Christian editors so frumiously resisted mention of any non-Christian tradition of fighting evil spirits that they moved the article to a Christian-only title to justify not mentioning anything else. But a two second google query shows that 'fighting evil spirits' is a concept which pervades many cultures. Does this not exist in your reality? Religious Revival in the Tibetan Borderlands: The Premi of Southwest China by Koen Wellens, Page 142 (2010): "In fighting evil spirits, an anji can invoke his personal sonma, for example, by offering a chicken. If the anji does not worship his sonma in a fitting manner, he may become sick, or the sonma may leave the anji altogether, causing him to lose his power." DeistCosmos (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore your straw man argument, and the rest of your comment is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is beyond amusing, a sourced quote from another author's published book is now my original research, if it clashes with the worldview you seek to impose. So you're claiming I'm Koen Wellens now? Why don't you try and prove that, before you deem his work to be my research? LOL!! DeistCosmos (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I have to spell it out: it is original research to link that quote etc to the topic Spiritual warfare. You are trying to say that the article is called Spiritual warfare, your quote mentions fighting, and so ipso facto it's relevant; that is an appeal to the similarities in a literal view of the titles but not the topic of the articles themselves. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are willfully ignoring the fact that I have already agreed that this material belongs at a title other than 'spiritual warfare.' DeistCosmos (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I've pointed out several articles that may include such material within their scope, and yet you continue to place it where it does not belong. The sources that use the phrase "spiritual warfare" do so to express a coherent concept that isn't the same as "dispelling evil spirits". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I've only added it here in the expectation that this article will be moved to a more generic name, perhaps Fighting evil spirits, which is attested, covers the whole of the concept, and does not necessarily include additional matters such as dealings with friendly or neutral spirits. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're announcing your intention to start a whole new article based on OR and synth, with a poorly defined scope that lacks clear scholarly terminology, when plenty of articles already exist that could contain the material under the usual labels for such practices. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought I was clear in stating that such a title is attested. That is, there is scholarly literature on fighting evil spirits. Otherwise, what practices do you mean when you speak of "such practices"? DeistCosmos (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"such practices" being the practices you are trying to synthesize together using original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reached the point where no amount of reason or proof will be likely to persuade you? DeistCosmos (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Spiritual warfare (Christianity). The other content, a tiny random sample of demon defence from other cultures, might possibly find a home under another title. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the consensus the talk page discussion alluded to above was reaching before this ill timed effort to wholly obliterate this knowledge. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions on non-christian related material is solely your own, so dump it in your own userspace if you want to work on it and then we can speedy delete this travesty. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against DeistCosmos finding a way of refactoring his material around a concept like "resisting evil spirits" or "Defence against the Dark Arts" for that matter... And his anti-Christian rhetoric is fine too (we Christians love a bit of persecution). I think he needs to find a religious or sociological concept with RSs, not just conjure an idea out of thin air. Hyper3 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then move the page to my userspace. I've no power to effect a move. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV-driven original essay and fork. When the smoke clears, assuming a Delete result here, a name change on Spiritual warfare (Christianity) would seem appropriate. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore Spiritual warfare (Christianity) to its original name. This is a unmitigatable content fork full of WP:OR, synthesis and personal opinion. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore Spiritual warfare (Christianity) to its original name - Mangoe spells out the problems here very nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 18 May 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. Courcelles 16:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien (software)[edit]

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

Fails even basic test of notability. No references - could have been a speedy but it has been around for a while. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All I could find were blog posts discussing this utility, no reliable sources.
Keep. I accept the Linux Journal article found by Mark viking, when taken in combination with the numerous minor mentions found by Joy, as sufficient to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's verifiable (see the man page under external links), useful, and GPL licensed. It may not be the most notable piece of software, as it fills a niche role, but it performs its stated function admirably. Although the software may not at present meet a strict reading of the notability guidelines, I do not believe the encyclopedia will be improved by deleting the article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Did you find any reliable WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability? I didn't think so. Msnicki (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that page, thanks. As far as notability, I thought I made my position clear? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're aware that's an argument to avoid, I don't know why you would make it. As for your position on notability, what is it, that it's not? Msnicki (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from that page, "it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay". As for notability, I've already given my views on this. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed to be the whole argument. Msnicki (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge where appropriate, it's a rather standard Linux tool, can be easily referenced using some of those books at http://www.google.com/search?q=alien+rpm&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This utility gets quite a few mentions in books on Linux use/administration. Not sure if these are sufficient for notability though. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a modest Linux Journal article on the software and it pops up on commercial howto sites like How-To Geek. Debian uses it to help improve conformance to the Linux Standard Base. The Linux Documentation Project has an entry for the software. Joy and Grandmartin11 have shown that there are thousands of GBook hits for the software. Between the LJ article, which I consider marginally in depth, some shorter articles on commercial howto sites and thousands of citations in books, I consider the software notable. In my opinion, in judging notability WP:GNG allows for many small references in RS like books to substitute for an in-depth one: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. There seems to be enough secondary material out there to support a modest article. With a notable topic and no major problems in the article, I recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:02, 10 May 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Dricherby (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The No. 1 Hits[edit]

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

Wholly non-notable album. No significant references to support it except for one that confirms the album existed. Fails WP:NALBUMS Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - AFD was raised on the basis of a fairly long-standing highly vandalised version of the article. Correct version now restored appears to have at least minimal notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:32, 10 May 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. L Faraone 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nauscopy[edit]

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

Can't see any indication that this company is even borderline notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable, none of those listed acts are even big names.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sun City Girls, for one, are a rather big name in underground rock. --Rabbitfighter (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no evidence that they are a "big name". The Wikipedia article on them, for example, contains only one independent source, and that one doesn't indicate that they are a "big name". In fact, that article if anything seems to suggest that they are not all that notable, including statements such as "They found little mainstream success". In any case, we need evidence that there is substantial coverage of Nauscopy, not just of someone that Nauscopy has connections to. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 10 May 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, czar · · 07:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not cite any reliable independent sources, and I see no evidence of notability anywhere else, either. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 10 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Pasquin[edit]

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

The only 'Christopher Pasquin' on Google is a non-notable baseball player who exists only on social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook), excluding Wikipedia. Hoax? Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket Records czar · · 07:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The person is clearly non-notable. The only real thing that turns up about the person (excluding linkedin.com profiles and Wikipedia itself) is this, which is the official website of Rocket Records. Clearly fails WP:ENT. smtchahal^(talk) 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly fails WP:GNG. The given "references" don't even mention the subject. Part of a coatrack related to Rocket Records created by an obvious single-purpose editor. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. All claims that would establish notability are unverified, and search of web, news, and books turns up nothing at all, which is odd given the amount of press releases and fanzine content one usually has to wade through for marginally notable music industry people when reviewing for AfC. The only fact I have been able to establish is that Mr. Pasquin has a web page for a record label, and that he married Noell Coons, almost certainly a relative of Tim Coons. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That J.A. Henckels knife set looks pretty nice. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say it... I won't say it... I can't help myself: Only the best for the brother-in-law of a 2-time grammy-nominated music executive. :) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack any evidence for the grandious claims of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kinu nailed the central problem and in addition, a couple of editors, including myself, suspect that this may be an elaborate hoax given that someone actually bought a domain name and paid for hosting a fake article [13] to support Rocket Records.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm now leaning to the view that this article is not a hoax, but just about someone who wants to be notable but isn't. Although this myspace reference [14] is not reliable, it does lead me to believe that Christopher Pasquin does exist.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Believe to be WP:HOAX. PeterWesco (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a total consensus that this should be deleted as a hoax. I hereby ask an admin to move the page to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Christopher Pasquin without creating a redirect, and add it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Less than one year.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this particular article isn't worth dignifying in any such way. Likewise, it's also been said that this might not be a hoax, but is simply utterly non-notable. It's best to deny any acknowledgement of this entire coatrack of articles and move on. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "total consensus" that this is a hoax. There is claims and suppositions and there is the counterviews. There is no consensus that I see, partly cause many invovled see it as a side issue, The main issue being verifiable notability which is very lacking here. For the record I think it's not a hoax, just someone puffing up the importance of a startup label. I think there was some hoaxing to try support the lables notability but that does not make the lable itself a hoax. No point glorifying it in that silly list. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that it is a hoax, but possibility doesn't make it a hoax. The evidence supports the view of Kinu and others that this and associated articles are utterly non-notable. Its utter non-notablity is the best explanation for why it appears to be a hoax but likely isn't.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. author request -- article withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Ride from Hell[edit]

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

Poorly sourced tabloidery, several BLP nightmares. Wrestling lore, not encyclopedic. LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this page has been deleted previously.LM2000 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under several different capitalization alternatives as well. [15] The only thing is that the current incarnation of the article appears to have more information than previous entries did, although I'll try to wade through the various edits to see if there's anything similar. Offhand the difference appears to be enough to where it might have to go through AfD again since it's not mostly the same article, although given how many times this has been deleted, there might be some sort of exception somewhere for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as article's creator. I hadn't realised this article had existed and been deleted in the past, but looking at the past AfDs, I think this incarnation of the article succeeds where others do not. The first AfD centred around the basis that it was a rumour, didn't sound real, and was generally an urban myth. I believe I have adequately provided citations from multiple sources which negate this argument. The second AfD, much like this one, is concerned with BLP issues. I feel that I must disagree with OP for saying that it is poorly sourced; the claims made about particular wrestlers have been verified by multiple sources (from what I can tell, many more sources than were ever provided in the previous incarnations of this article) more than once. Given the existence of previous AfDs, I can understand the desire to delete this again; however, given how this was a controversial event that led to multiple wrestlers' contracts being ended at once, several lawsuits surfacing to bother the WWE, and the fact that this article seems to be much better sourced and written than (from what I can tell from past AfDs) previously deleted articles, I would have to stress that this article does (finally) have a place. — Richard BB 07:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with the previous AfD that I posted, WP:V is an issue. I maintain that this is poorly sourced. Bleacher Report is linked five different times, Bleacher Report is highly unreliable. Two YouTube videos are linked, the Youtube accounts affiliated with those videos are not the original creators of the content so those are not reliable sources. The BLP issues still stand until some actual reliable sources are found. I'm not even sure if enough reliable sources exist to cover WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. I also want to note that I nominated this before I knew of the other AfDs, when I found those I actually suggested a speedy delete.LM2000 (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware that Bleacher Report isn't considered reliable. However, can you clarify what you mean by the accounts of YouTube videos not being the original creators? Surely the point is the content of the videos (in these cases, interviews with wrestlers who were there and their testimonials), not who uploaded it? — Richard BB 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that linking to copyrighted material is the issue here. Wikipedia policy has no blanket rule against linking to YouTube because sometimes copyright holders publish their own work on YouTube and their authenticity and be confirmed. These videos don't work because their content is most likely subject to copyright, and was not uploaded by the original creator, which is a violation of policy.LM2000 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Bleacher Report and YouTube, there's a source from Grantland... I'm not sure how reliable that source is to begin with but The Plane Ride From Hell is talked about briefly in a trivial mention and is not the subject this article. WP:GNG states that the subject needs to have had significant coverage by reliable sources. I've been googling this for awhile now and haven't come up with much.LM2000 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, urgently, as egregious WP:BLP violation. Consider salting the various capitalizations to prevent it being created yet again. This article contains numerous allegations of serious crimes committed by living persons and is not even close to being adequately sourced. I have removed everything from the article apart from the lead paragraph which doesn't name anybody. Dricherby (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what the creator of the latest version of the article says, it is not true that "the first AfD centred around the basis that it was a rumour, didn't sound real, and was generally an urban myth". The nominator referred to it as a "rumored" event, and said that he or she wasn't sure if it happened, but subsequent discussion accepted that it happened, and centred on the issue of notability. In fact, notability was the central issue in both the previous AfD discussions. The present article does have better sources than the previous versions, which is why I am not speedily deleting it as a repost of a previously AfD-deleted article (Speedy deletion criterion G4). Whether those sources are good enough to establish notability must be the issue here. At present, there are three references. (1) A YouTube video of one of the people in the incident talking about it. Never mind the issues with YouTube about copyright etc, this is not independent coverage. (2) A Bleacher Report page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide includes the Bleacher Report in a list headed "Unreliable sources - Avoid using these websites as sources". (3) A blog-like page on a web site called "PWInsider". I don't know much about PWInsider, but it seems that this page does not do much to establish notability. Since the other two sources are close to worthless as far as establishing notability is concerned, I have to be inclined towards delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In light of the very valid comments made here regarding BLP issues, I have requested speedy deletion as per CSD G7 (author requesting deletion/blanking) and have blanked the page. — Richard BB 14:34, 10 May 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 List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump#2010s. Mkdw ^talk 19:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Joker[edit]

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

This manga just recently started serialization late last year, and has not yet established any notability as outlined at WP:BK. Specifically, it hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the manga itself. A cursory Google search turns up fan translations, fan sites, or blogs that mention the series. 十八 01:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've informed DdragoonMaster, the creator, if he would like to userfy this. I thought about Prodding it but being a Weekly Shonen Jump series, I figured it would be adapted at some point. This argument is probably invalid though. If DdragoonMaster wishes, it should be userfied. Otherwise, deleted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump#2010s. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pajama na Kanojo.--雛鳥(Hinadori) 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Redirect or) Userfy: Move to User:DdragoonMaster/sandbox. This page was moved from "User:DdragoonMaster/sandbox" to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hungry Joker" on April 21, 2013, and was moved to "Hungry Joker" on the next day. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart no Kuni no Alice.--雛鳥(Hinadori) 11:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't help but think that all of you people are harassing this page! Reason because there are also pages that are practically similar to this and even OLDER but has not been dealt to the same measure as this page. Show me that you are actually doing this to for the sake of policy and apprehend other pages such as Nisekoi and Cross Manage. If not, you are just being unfair. DdragoonMaster (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A policy was given in the opening. Without notability, an article can be deleted. From my less than 1 minute research, Nisekoi and Cross Manage have received an English translation by Shonen Alpha so they are notable. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, in other words, don't compare to other articles. Editors are human. Wikipedia isn't an organized company or any of the sort. There could be worst articles that should be deleted but are not because they just weren't found by an editor that cares to do something about it. Hungry Joker was just stumbled upon. That is all. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simply receiving an English translation does not automatically render a manga notable. Ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Because I'm a Maid.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just simplifying it for it for Dd. They can be deleted, though their priority would be lower than this article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 9 May 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, czar · · 05:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've exported the full history of this article to the Manga wiki. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Hungry_Joker Dream Focus 19:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The coverage to warrant a separate article just isn't there... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:29, 16 May 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 per WP:BIODEL: this is a biography of a non-public figure, the subject has repeatedly asked for the deletion of the article and there is no consensus to keep it. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne M. Olsson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

MfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, wrote an non-notable books, only 3rd party coverage is from one incident where she got kicked out of a country for trying to dig up "the remains of Jesus" to prove he's her ancestor. Only covered in ~~local media~~ Regional media, and not widely covered. — raeky t 04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLP1E, fails ACADEMIC and fails CRIME fails AUTHOR. (note that I disagree with any analysis that calls Times of India "local media"- it is a national paper of one of the most populous countries, if that is "local", then every newspaper is local.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected on Times of India... changed. — raeky t 05:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you know Raeky, as I said below, some people seem to feel the pressure from the subject of the article's desire to affect content about themselves and in the haste to act you may make simple and minor errors such as calling it local or typos that refer to Ms Olsson as "he" and to Jesus as "she" (I fixed that above). I do understand the pressure you may feel, but there should be no pressure-induced rush here and policy should be followed in an orderly manner. Wikipedia cannot be driven by edict. History2007 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going with your corrections... The Times of India is not "regional media": it is a national newspaper in the second-most populous country on the planet; it claims to be the biggest-selling English-language newspaper in the world. Dricherby (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject wrote and self published an unimportant book on an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited. Minimal notoriety in local press.Questionable and obscure sources, mostly original research. Has no value and nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Let her go in peace. Sooner the better. I vote for speedy deletion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize Ms Olsson that deleting the article is not going to suppress the Times of India information? That source is also used in the lede of the Roza Bal article (ref #7 now) and given that it is WP:RS may also be used elsewhere. Ironically, as stated before, your best line of reasoning to restate the position that you have since retracted your claim o be the "59th descendant of Jesus" may be to use WP:ABOUTSELF. And given some sources, this page might allow you to explain that you either just claimed it to get better access to the tomb (as suggested at one point) or that you just changed your mind based on research (as also suggested) - whichever may be the truth. So you do need to weigh that. And please do note that the WP:ANI thread can not be deleted either, and it states the same things. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - The problem with trying to delete this article is that the subject simply does not fail either WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E. There are multiple reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage and with regard to a series of events and visits and books, not just one. The Times of India certainly isn't "local media", not is the Asia Times, nor India Today, nor the New Straits Times. That's significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. WP:GNG = Y.

The bigger issue here is that this is the BLP of a Wikipedia editor who has since become disruptive and has requested (in several places, including above) that the article about her be deleted. As such, this should be treated like any other OTRS ticket from the subject of a BLP who wants it deleted. Normally, in cases of marginal notability, we accept the subject's wishes and delete the article, especially when it includes claims the subject has suggested are untrue (WP:V and WP:RS aside). If there's no value to WP in keeping it (there isn't, really) then it should go and to sort this out, it should go quickly.

Full disclosure: I was one of the editors who took it from MfD, sought the subject's okay (not required, but as a courtesy) and fixed the article up for submission to article space. Stalwart111 05:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but what is the rush to delete? The rush may be in part based on the high level of pressure you may be feeling from the article subject's objection to the content of the article. Content that comes from a WP:RS newspaper with a circulation of 3 million. Wikipedia decisions should not be based on how much pressure the subject of an article generates. I think policy should be allowed to prevail as it would in other cases, regardless of the subject's desires to affect it. History2007 (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I would publish that material, based on those sources, again and make no apology for doing so in the first place. From a purely policy perspective, I see no reason for deleting the article. In fact I saw good reason for publishing it in the first place and did so. But I've also taken part in a good many OTRS-based BLP AFDs and I know how they generally end. Even where notability is established, if having the article (or not) will have no impact on WP as a whole, the general concept of avoiding harm comes into play and the article is (more often than not) deleted. Under the current circumstances, I can't see there being consensus for keeping the article and so I can't see the value in dragging an AFD out for longer than we need to. Stalwart111 06:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd has been up for less than a day. And most people do not even know that it exists, given that it has not been listed anywhere - I just listed it. So no need for rush. WP:D-T (do you want fries with that?) does not apply in Afds. History2007 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think someone will come along and close it on the basis of my comment, I just see no need to drag it out. I tell you what, I'll take the speedy bit out if there really is a desire to have a comprehensive discussion about it. We've talked about it plenty, so I also see no harm in talking about it a bit more.

Stalwart111 07:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now, regarding OTRS and (WP:HARM - which is an essay, not policy) please help me understand what it is that Ms Olsson disputes in the Times of India article.

That she never wrote letters claiming to be the "59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth"? That cannot be disputed because she clearly stated on the ANI thread that she wrote the letter to claim it in order to "regain the tomb from his influence", referring to the person in India.

That she never attempted to dig up the tomb? But the article already makes it clear that she disputes that she tried to dig. So it states both sides.

That she never planted anything at the tomb? But the article does not say that she planted anything, just that the caretaker said he was worried about it. So it is just about his concern, not allegations of a plant that has taken place yet.

That the caretaker is on the take? But the article does not say anything about that.

That no FIR was filed and her visa was never cancelled? But she will never deny that in straight terms as far as I can see. To date she has never said here (that I have seen) that "no FIR was filed" and "my visa was not cancelled". She just criticizes the caretaker in general terms.

My reading is that this is a case of WP:JDLI on Ms Olsson's part regarding her claiming to be the 59th descendant of Jesus, then retracting it. And she has stated on Wikipages that she retracted it, but not provided an exact source for the retraction. If she does that, then per WP:ABOUTSELF the matter can be easily concluded per policy by also mentioning her claim of retraction in the article. But policy seems to be taking a backseat in the discussions about this issue. That is the problem. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, if we knew the answers to those questions we would have saved ourselves a lot of time. Stalwart111 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So until Ms Olsson answers these in clear and simple yes/no terms there is no point in rushing to delete this page, or modify Wiki content based on her "demands" to OTRS so to speak. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, on the BLP noticeboard, I asked the same questions, and just before this edit, Ms Olsson said she chose to answer only the one about Kersten, and no other one yet. So I confirmed that, and she was advised to email Times of India to run an update to their story, check if an FIR had been filed, etc. She then typed her "final word" without specifically answering the questions above and we left it at that. So I am not expecting any more answers until she contacts The Times of India. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on this edit much of the information in the Times of India article has been confirmed, e.g. the letter to the caretaker, the claim to be the 59th descendant, etc. It seems that the Times of India did their job right, and the caretaker took the letters there. So much of the issues on "disputed content" have gone away now it seems. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update H2007, Once more I will remind you that the man who asked to be published in the Times of India article gave untrue and misleading information about those events surrounding me and my presence at the tomb. I have already given you sources and corrections that you prefer to demean or ignore. The only one acting in bad faith around here are you and Reaiky. Shame on you. I asked for Wiki editors to do fair and balanced reporting and use some common sense. It is you who refuses to d so. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"From a purely policy perspective, I see no reason for deleting the article. In fact I saw good reason for publishing it in the first place and did so."

That statement alone has completely invalidated any other argument you could make. End of story. Silver seren^C 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Agree entirely, but I stand by it and I explained exactly how and why the subject passes WP:GNG. But from an WP:OUTCOMES perspective, we've seen plenty of subject-requested-AfDs and the several I have participated in fall into (in my experience) two general categories: The very notable ones are kept, usually with some editing to resolve any content issues (see Patricia Cloherty and the associated AfD, for example). The marginally notable ones are often deleted. I've been on both sides of that argument in a number of AfDs. In this instance, the article was deleted once before, the draft was almost deleted (and would have been had it not been for our promise to fix it, work to fix it and then efforts to move it to article space). I don't value my own work so highly that I would insist on keeping it just because I worked on it, and my impression is that you're the same and that's not what I'm suggesting. I worked on it because I thought it would add something to WP and I'm not upset if others (including the subject) think otherwise. If there's a strong feeling it should be kept then I'll not argue with that either. I've purposefully not responded to any other !votes here. Anyway, I can't imagine my !vote-with-caveats-and-contradictions will be given much weight by a closing admin, but it is genuinely where I fell on this one and it is what it is. Stalwart111 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after all ~~Keep for now~~. I don't see any uniformity in the deletion logic presented above at all anyway. Ms Olsson's own rationale "unimportant book on an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited" is really baffling, to say the least. This is coming from the same person who elsewhere argues passionately that this is an important project in a historical context, etc. Stalwart111 argues that it is notable, etc. There may be just enough publicity to make it meet notability, so no need to rush into deletion. And come to think of it Holger Kersten writes on the same subject and has a page because of it, so how can it be "an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited". So both the topic and the location Roza Bal are notable enough to have wikipages, as are other authors who write about it. So Stalwart111 may be right that it meets GNG. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am confirming my support for "keep" now~~, for looking at it broadly, as Stalwart111 said just above, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. It is not just for one incident, but due to ongoing involvement in the underlying religious tension issues related to a hot topic of religious conflict in the Middle East, a topic which is the subject of riots and deaths in various places. History2007 (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comment about WP:BIODEL below, maybe this should end with less future drama on that page anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject falls far short of meeting WP:Academic and WP:Author. Subject is also asking for deletion. That's three strikes against the article that I'm counting. First Light (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The General Notability Guideline supercedes the two Special Notability Guidelines you cite. Take that away and you are left with "Subject is also asking for deletion," which is what this is all about. That is not how we determine the notability of topics at WP, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has marginal general notability at best, with a few "news" articles (actually fluff articles) covering her insane theories. There is precedence in common practice for marginally notable articles being deleted at the request of the subject. There is precedence for marginally notable articles being deleted, period. First Light (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her theories about her own lineage are separate from her involvement in issues in Kashmir and Ahmadiyya. The tomb in Kashmir theory that she discusses is a fundamental Ahmadiyya belief, and they are somewhere between 10 million to 30 million people, depending on various report. And the Ahmadi are taken seriously around the world, Pakistan has enacted legislation about them (Ordinance XX has its own article) with people sentenced to death, etc. and in Indonesia they were the subject or violent riots in 2011, people were killed in the open, etc. This is a hot topic across multiple continents, and she has been right in the middle of the tension and conflicts in Kashmir. History2007 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but I couldn't seem to find any true reliable or academic sources in books or journals about her Kashmir/Ahmadiyya/Jesus theories. Only those tabolid-y news articles, which, granted, appear in a couple of newspapers that also have real news. It only confirms that this subject is marginal, at best. (Notability is not inherited, just by her spouting off about something that is a notable hot topic.) First Light (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite already explained WP:Academic vs WP:GNG just above here. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand, but just wanted to point out that her notoriety is based on some articles that are rather tabloid-y. Also, that notability is not inherited, which was in response to you trying to bring up the notability of the Ahmadiyya/Kashmir/Jesus as proof of her notability. First Light (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, your "notability is not inherited" comment could win the "best pun of the month" award if you intended it to also imply that if she is a descendant of Jesus, and he is notable, then she may yet not inherit his notability. That interpretation would certainly brighten up this discussion.... History2007 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a good laugh - there was no pun intended, so thank you for lightening up this discussion by pointing that out. In fact, just in the last few days a DNA study showed that Everyone on Earth is related to everyone else, DNA shows. So if there were little baby Jesus' (pun intended) roaming the earth two thousand years ago, all of us would have inherited some genes, if not some notability. First Light (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject clearly passes the General Notability Guideline from footnotes showing. We neither create nor delete articles on demand, nor should we. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is covered by multiple third-party reliable sources. The article passes WP:GNG. Artichoker^[talk] 20:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have numerous pieces of coverage on her from a number of different reliable sources spanning years and they are certainly not about a single event, but her entire history in the area. I really don't care at all what her opinion is on the subject. She's upset because her opinion on words she stated herself in reliable sources has now changed, so she's trying to retroactively erase the fact that she said them. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. She is very clearly notable under the general notability guideline for her activities in the Middle East and the Caucasus. Silver seren^C 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is clearly notable and her article is filling in nicely with multiple reliable references. I see no rush to delete on the demand of the subject. Fylbecatulous talk 02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being a petty nuisance at a religious site is clearly not a notable act. what exactly do you see as "notable". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not just that incident, as Silver seren stated. She has been active for a number of years in a number of places, e.g. after coming back to the US she was (WP:ABOUTSELF) a guest speaker on Capitol Hill when they were looking into the conflict between Pakistan and India, etc. and wanted her views because she knows the religious tension issues in the region that drive much of those conflicts and the players in that part of the Middle East. She achieved notability by a special breed of persistence that continues to get her noticed. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being persistent is no more notable than being a nuisance pest. 'Suzanne M. Olsson is persistant' does not a claim to notability make. lots of people speak at Capitol Hill, congress frequently has people come in for "typical a man on the street" perspective. and lots of people know, write and talk about the tensions and have actually had their views and analysis published by someone other then themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant at all. But anyway, other users have opinions that differ from yours, obviously. History2007 (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plan seems to be to get me banned so anything can be said on my Bio page and I will be safely silenced from 'disruptive editing'. History2007 made more than 18 entries against me just on one page and Reiky made 10 on the same page. They are both pushing hard for this ban. I have already explained the Times of India article and the surrounding circumstances. Not to acknowledge this, to insist on presenting the information out of context and with disregard for the facts I mtyself published about this in my book is the same as these Wiki editors deliberately misleading people and supporting a lie. That's why I request deletion of this Bio page. It is slanted, biased, taken out of context, and thus misleading many people. I dont want any backlash about this on my friends back in Kashmir. Please delete the Bio page. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The only one who can "get you banned" is you if your actions if you happen to be continually disruptive and not follow community consensus advice. And even if you do act in a manner which gets you banned, the article about Suzanne Olsson will not be able to "say anything" - only content that is supported by reliably published sources. The subjects of articles always have the ability to point out factual errors through the OTRS system.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those observations, Red Pen. I have been pointing out errors for some time now- I just noticed someone did make an effort to correct statements on the Bio page. The person who contacted the Times of India gave false and misleading info that everyone in Kashmir knows is not true..One check with local police department verifies the facts. I left Kashmir even though local courts found no reason to cancel my visa (as falsey stated to the Times of India)- I left because of militancy and threats by local fundamentalists who had seized Roza Bal tomb, the very same person who submitted false statements to TOI, nd the very same person many believe was responsible for someone's death shortly before . So I had every reason to believe harm would also come to me.. I still think deletion of the Bio is best. I dont care about the bans anymore..I am so seldom here. I only returned because then Roza Bal page was abysmally inaccurate and incomplete. That page is getting attention from less biased and more well rounded editors and has been improving greatly through their efforts. Meanwhile, I am seriously composing a letter or my web site explaining the Kashmir circumstances and the DNA of God Project in full. Some Wiki editors can be fair and balanced. Some can not and try to second guess everything . That worries me. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not "check with local police departments". - We simply aggregate what has been published in reliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a reliable source for information. To disregard what I say, knowing I am a first hand eye witness and not a secondary source like someone who contacts TOI-- is to suggest I have said something untrue. That's the implication and I take issue with that.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite frankly, you are NOT a reliable source of information as far as Wikipedia is concerned.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have published and otherwise made public statements about events in Kashmir. I have alos mentioned reliable witnesses who were also involved. After reading many other Wiki biographies, I see this is deemed reliable. On the 'Biographies of Living Persons -Suzanne Olsson'- History2007 made 10 negative comments about me, and Raeky made 4. Then, on 'Articles for Deletion, Suzanne Olsson', History2007 made 14 comments in support of banning me- and Raeky piped in with 2. Then again on [Talk, Suzanne Olsson]', Raeky made 27 comments to ban me ! A total ban of me on Wiki when I have only edited two pages sporadically in 5 years! A tad overkill, eh? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of action that you can continue to take IF YOU WANT TO get yourself blocked. As has been told to you numerous times, you are not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Period. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise RedPen. I came across [[16]] under the heading 'Statements of Opinion': 'There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be very clear that the exception is very limited: your opinions/uncontested facts about yourself that are not unduly self-serving.The fact that you claim someone else is a liar is not acceptable. The fact that you state that you no longer believe something that you had previously believed is generally acceptable (unless for example there are other reliable sources that point out actions that you have taken and the sources specifically state that those actions show that your recanting is not believable) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Red Pen. I think I understand. While further researching Biographies on Wiki, I also came across [[17]] 'Avoid victimization-

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of anther's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. I have been objecting to the Times of India article on my Bio page because it was/is taken out of context- and contradicts what the author (myself) clarified in a book and through research. The person who submitted the article did so with malicious intent. The same person also appears in films and documentaries making false claims about other people. It's really a sticky situation. I will try to pull together an explanation on my web site. Need a day or two more to complete it. Thanks and Best wishes, Sue. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I shall endeavor to straighten out the mess. Thank you Red Pen.. Peace. Sue P.S. I recall it appears in print from several other sources that 'due to the indiscretions of a certain person at the tomb' the DNA Project was halted and Ms. Olsson left Kashmir.' I will seek out those sources. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Handily passes WP:GNG with much notice in newspaper articles around the world, as well as a few books. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while there are mentions in the press, are the mentions about anything actually notable? being a nuisance at a shrine? really? how is that notable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is, by all accounts, notable, based on passing mentions in The India Times and various news websites. But the coverage, let's be honest, is not really significant. Furthermore, her notability fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CRIME, WP:PROF, WP:FRINGE, and WP:CREATIVE; I can't find any evidence she meets any such specific criteria. So we are left with an article about a marginally notable living human being. In the past, upon request of the subject or their agent, we have tended to delete BLPs of marginally notable persons; I can see no change in that consensus. As WP:AfD can't erase every speck of information about this person or her actions. Now, if anyone can convince me that we should keep the article anyway (see e.g., the case of Jack Greenberg (lawyer)), I'll change my mind. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this, this, or this a passing mention? Did you even read the articles? Silver seren^C 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, GNG overrides any and all Special Notability Guidelines. The subject doesn't pass WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ECONOMIST, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:POLITICIAN either, but does pass WP:GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she got a lot of attention for an attempt to dig a grave. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handwriting on the wall: Tomorrow the Afd will get to its 7th day. It is quite likely that there will be no consensus either way. Ms Olsson has been advised that in that event WP:BIODEL can apply if the subject of the article desires deletion. She has already asked for that a few times, e.g. here. So WP:BIODEL may bring this to a conclusion in any case and avoid future drama as well. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BIODEL is one of the most misused and worst parts of that page. Silver seren^C 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even know about BIODEL until I saw it suggested a few days ago. But regardless of whether we think it is one of the best or worst parts of that page, it is policy. I did not make the policy, I just saw it suggested to her and mentioned it. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy in the sense that someone added it to the page one day and no one noticed it. It has never been put to the community. Silver seren^C 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I can not debate how Wiki-policies are made here during an Afd. From what I gather it is policy. If you think it is not a good policy you can discuss that on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and change it at some point. But an Afd page is not for policy modification discussions, of course. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No rough consensus" seems a fair description of this Afd (I´m split myself), so I think the policy applies, and the article can be deleted. It can always be recreated if she becomes more notable in the future. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nukes and UFOs[edit]

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

The article is essentially about a single event - faux hearing on UFO and extraterrestrials involving several former congressmen (the alleged UFO interference with nuclear facilities was apparently only mentioned in passing). The hearing itself has a fair amount of notability, but it is already mentioned in Disclosure (ufology). Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, rename to something like 2013 hearing on UFO. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the Proposed deletion and added details about the previous press conference in September 2010 entitled UFOs and Nukes which was the separate event that started the theory. The page might need to be moved instead perhaps to match? Ed Terrestrial (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable government documentation of intrusions of UFOs in nuclear ICBM and storage facilities, including shutdown of the missiles. This dates back to at least 1948 at Fort Hood, Texas and over Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque and Los Alamos (Green fireballs). Much of the documentation was discussed clear back in 1984 in the book "Clear Intent" by Lawrence Fawcett and Barry Greenwood. So the article could be about much more than just the recent press event with military witnesses to these intrusions at Malstrom and Minot AFB's in the 1960s and 1970s.Dr Fil (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of UFO involvement in nuclear weapons development/test/deployment is extensively backed by solid documentation and in many cases corroborated by multiple sources. The first event that I am aware of occurred within days of the Oak Ridge facility beginning operations in 1944. The activity quickly spread to the Hanford nuclear facility as its completion neared. Every aspect of nuclear weapons manufacture has included activity right down to the uranium mines. Although that history is not published yet the evidence exists and can be verified. There is no conspiracy here - just a history that Mr. Hastings has made a well researched and solidly backed contribution to. Articles like this only serve to obfuscate and delay that history from becoming known. Robert Duvall, NICAP - Nuclear Connection Project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.12.132 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fringe conspiracy theory, article depicts a single event. reddogsix (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Media-exposed but WP:FRINGE and as explained won't have legs. Contents could be moved to UFO conspiracy theory.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reddogsix. — Richard BB 12:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it History2007 (talk) 08:28, 18 May 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. Michig (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeboat Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This organization has an extensive website, lists many notable persons as its contributors, but has itself not much coverage (which is required according to the notability guideline for organizations). For coverage older than 2 years old, see the previous nomination; it includes a blog from New York times, and other blogs, but no references in reliable sources. I wasn't able to find any improvement. L.tak (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to the "references" provided at the last AfD and since the recreation of this article ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22], all effectively blogs), I've found: a passing mention in the Wall Street Journal; this from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and a handful of posts on no-name blogs (most of which start with some variation of "I've just been asked to join the Lifeboat Foundation..."). As none of these are reliable sources with significant coverage that are independent of the subject, there is currently nothing to demonstrate notability. Mysterious Whisper 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that they have actually done anything. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article creator here - Sorry, I was busy with other matters for the last few weeks and haven't had time for any Lifeboat business. I just spotted the deletion request now, and have posted a message about it on the internal Lifeboat Foundation forum asking people to provide relevant references. Could the deletion be postponed by another week or two? Ripper234 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's still at least five days left while the AfD is open, and you can always save a copy to a user subpage to recreate once enough references have been found and notability can be proven. Per User:DGG, it would also help to find evidence that they've actually done something. Mysterious Whisper 22:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have heard of the Foundation through conventional media, specifically CBC Radio, although I'd be hard pressed to give an exact CITE (Quirks and Quarks I *think*). But it seems much of the little online coverage available is related more to their use of bitcoin than anything else. So how to judge? Well given that the club seems to be made up largely of infamous self-promoters, I am inclined to lean in that direction, and suggest delete. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 2 May 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) 14:25, 3 May 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) 03:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A case could be made for notability. However I really have a problem here with "in depth" coverage. Most secondary coverage seems to be the "main stream media/daily press" just believing the organization's press releases. There seem to be some serious questions about the nature of this organization and the sources out there are not enough for a NPOV article. Note that there is also no article on its founder, Eric Klien. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The extra input I can provide is based on searching for scholarly sources. The Foundation is mentioned in some academic work, but typically just in passing to state that all sorts of bad things could happen, to then justify some proposal not of the Foundation's doing (a human backup base on the moon, etc.). The Foundation's reports, for their part, have no substantive impact. But, there is quite a body of them out.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this organisation operate lifeboats? If it doesn't have any lifeboats, but it wants to in the future, then delete, until they get enough money for the lifeboats. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stop Draggin' My Heart Around. Merge is better than delete, just due to any potiental GFDL issues Courcelles 16:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Draggin' My Heart Around b/w A Wake for the Minotaur[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make more sense to add the information about Stop Draggin' My Heart Around cover by Shearwater to the article about the original release of Stop Draggin' My Heart Around? It could be a section of the article -- Beckmanse (talk)
Merge and redirect to Stop Draggin' My Heart Around. Seems like a sane option. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 30 April 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, czar · · 02:26, 3 May 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) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stop Draggin' My Heart Around#Cover_versions. Not independently notable, but it's usual to note cover versions in a song article, as here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This version is already rightly mentioned at Stop Draggin' My Heart Around#Cover_versions, so there's no reason to merge anything at this point. I agree with the principle of the "merge" !votes above me though, but in reality there is nothing left to merge, so let's just delete it. — sparklism ^hey! 15:39, 16 May 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. L Faraone 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger Bisley[edit]

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

The Bisley is not a firearm model, but the name for a grip variant, which is found in various other ruger models like the blackhawk and vaquero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenbirdman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 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 April 26. Snotbot t • c » 02:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't claim that the Bisley is a firearm model: "The Ruger Bisley [...] comes in a variety of different finishes, calibers, and barrel lengths." Dricherby (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possible merge into Ruger Blackhawk and Ruger Vaquero; according to Ruger, the Bisley has a distinct model number (2 in fact) without counting the Bisley Vaquero. The hammer is different on a Bisley as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:48, 30 April 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, czar · · 02:26, 3 May 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) 02:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a distinct line of models with sufficent sourcing to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 18 May 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 procedural close. To propose a merge see Wikipedia:Merging. J04n(talk page) 10:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Opie and Anthony Show Army[edit]

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

Not notable enough on its own, merge to Opie and Anthony ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:41, 3 May 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) 02:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No vote Merely reading that page caused an ennui attack and I am no longer able to express my opinions about anything. Shii (tock) 07:04, 11 May 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, Shii (tock) 07:04, 11 May 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. Courcelles 16:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best Of Nancy Sinatra: 24 Great Songs[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a musical recording. No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 3 May 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) 02:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (so far). Who would have thunk? A Nancy Sinatra piece, but can't find mainstream media exposure and anything in Variety and the like.82.92.238.234 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. There is just no significant coverage of this in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:24, 14 May 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. J04n(talk page) 19:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gerard[edit]

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

This article has very little notoriety. Looking at the history, the subject himself was actively involved in the creation and maintenance of this page. Page is full of puffery, such as describing his playing in a bunch of non-notable bar bands as "seminal". He's a small town mayor who has had little exposure and the people who maintain the page are personally known and involved with the subject. Jamminjimmy (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep person suggesting deletion of the page is doing so as a vendetta due to personal and legal conflicts with the subject of this page that has nothing to do with of the notoriety or the accuracy of info. all info in this article is factual and verified with proper references. Jamminjimmy has no other wiki history other than trying to delete this article. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the alleged motives of the nominator, the mayor of a town of 81,000 people is not inherently notable by WP:POLITICIAN and I can't find any significant non-local coverage of his role as mayor (the Google News hits when you add "Champaign" to the search term are almost all from the Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette or the Daily Illini, the newspaper of the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign). That leaves his musical activities, which I don't have the expertise to evaluate against WP:MUSBIO; however, I note that none of the bands he played in has a Wikipedia article and the article's editors (apparently including Gerard himself) seem to consider his music to be less important than being a facilities manager at UIUC, since that's mentioned in the lead and his music isn't. To me, this suggests that he's not notable as a musician. Dricherby (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel I should explain my thinking on local vs. non-local sources. WP:POLITICIAN says that local elected politicians aren't inherently notable. Since the mayor of any town large enough to have its own newspaper is going to receive large amounts of WP:ROUTINE coverage in that newspaper, it seems to me that non-local coverage is required to demonstrate that a person is more notable than the average local politician (i.e., more notable than not notable at all). Even a substantial "Here's a profile of your new mayor"-type article in a local newspaper is the sort of thing you'd expect for any local politician so maybe even that wouldn't be enough. (And, in any case, notability requires multiple sources.) Dricherby (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HAL may be shocked, but there is not substantive coverage on policy. Some minor and local personal scraps, perhaps spilling over on WP. Couldn't find something to meet WP:MUSICIAN.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is poor, but can be improved. I'm going to try to dig up some more reliable sources and improve the content some. I'll find it a picture, too. The self-editing and bickering has resulted in a low quality article, but I don't that it should be removed. WP:IL has ranked it as mid-importance, too. NegatedVoid (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks – that's a definite improvement but thereare still no non-local sources, other than the single paragraph article in the Chicago Reader. Dricherby (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some more environmental stuff. The plastic bag stuff was covered extensively in Chicago based sources. Still searching for more. NegatedVoid (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's some more coverage of Gerard's (non-environmental) policies at [23]; adding more local sources to that would probably provide more detail. Dricherby (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mayor of a city housing the headquarters of Volition (video game studio), Wolfram Research, Jimmy John's and the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign is plenty notable, especially as a perennially-rumored contender in the contested Illinois's 13th congressional district. Champaign's a pretty big town, and the handle of the person requesting a takedown is similar to a moniker for someone in a public dispute [24] with the mayor. Article should be improved, not taken down. 24.7.196.226 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited by mayors of towns containing interesting companies and universities. Notability also doesn't come from rumours, unless those rumours are reported in several reliable sources. The relevant guidelines are WP:POLITICIAN, WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, and none of those sources appear to give the individual who is the subject of this AfD in-depth coverage; therefore to argue that the subject is notable per GNG or ANYBIO would be difficult at best (the closest sources that I can see as significant are this article and this article). Yes, the subject is an elected mayor of a 81 thousand plus city of Champaign, Illinois, but the subject is not considered automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore, not appearing to pass POLITICIAN, I am supporting deletion. An alternative is to redirect the article to the Champaign article per WP:LOCAL.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the consensus here. This subject fulfills none of the notability criteria and seems to be frequented by campaign supports to burnish the image. Specifically noteworthy is subject himself was heavily involved in creating and maintaining page. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Hackwayinteresting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Legoktm (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin I have striken the !vote of the nominator's sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jamminjimmy Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Semi notable for two unrelated reasons (music and mayor), lots of passing references collectively lead to barely passing WP:GNG imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG explicitly requires significant coverage and not just passing references. Dricherby (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible bad faith nomination. A person with the same name as Jamminjimmy has been in a public legal battle with the subject of the article [25]. Gerard is the subject of multiple press articles. The subject of PCBs in the Clinton landfill [26] brings back dozens of different articles, alone. This seems to meet criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. eaolson (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the first ten hits for that search are:

The Don Gerard Wikipedia page
The Warren County PCB Landfill Wikipedia page (not a reliable source)
A petition (not reliable)
An article in the local newspaper that makes three trivial passing mentions of Gerard (he says it's "crucial" to have Senators involved and makes two comments, the longest of which is twelve words).
An article in a student newspaper (not usually considered reliable) that mentions Gerard only in passing.
Another article in the student newspaper that spends a few sentences talking about Gerard's opinions on the landfill: that might be enough for "substantial" coverage but it's not in a reliable source.
An article in a newspaper from a town 50 miles away, which is verging on non-local but which only gives passing mention to Gerard.
An article on the City of Champaign website: not an independent source.
A different newspaper's word-for-word reprint of 7.
A presentation of the front page of the student newspaper that includes 6.

Some of those are fine for using as sources in the article but none of them is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required to establish notability under WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per eaolson's rationale. This smacks of bad-faith nomination, especially with the nominator having submitted for, and subsequently denied, an order of protection against the mayor. The subject of the article barely meets criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN, but barely is good enough. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eaolson's rationalle has been refuted, therefore by WP:PERNOM your !vote has been nullified as well. Assuming (with an open mind) that the nominator has a personally motivated reason, by bringing it to AfD a wide range of editors can evaluate if it makes sense for the article to be deleted or annother action to take. Leveling the "bad-faith nomination" allegation, however is bad faith and a violation of WP:AGF and further weakens the collective position of the "keep" collective. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This could easily be in the City of Champaign page and be done with it. It seems only people in Champaign have a vested interest in this page staying around. 64.134.175.178 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — 64.134.175.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am not sure why WP:LOCAL is appropriate as a guideline to support a merge or redirect, especially for local politicians. I generally support lists of mayors or lists of councilmembers of small cities or towns (especially since the alternative can be an incomplete list of local elected officials that pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. A redirect to the locality would not provide a reader with any information about the individual they search for and a merge only makes sense if the individuals is the current officeholder, but that would open a new can of worms. Me sense on this AFD is a weak delete per Dricherby. Enos733 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge. Article reeks of vanity autobiography, and most of the sources are just namechecks. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad faith on the part of the nominator aside, I don't see how this person is just more than another small town mayor. Coverage is pretty much all local, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:POLITICIAN says that a Wikipedia article is appropriate for a politician at any level of government if such people "meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'. So, no, just being a mayor isn't enough to qualify for an article, but just being a mayor doesn't disqualify someone from having an article.
Keep. I've done some cleanup of the article, including adding a new section with three sources. The city (Champaign) is large enough (80,000 people) to not just be a small town (and thus having small-town coverage), and Gerard is interesting enough (as shown by the number of newspaper stories about him) that I think the article meets the criteria for notability. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, Champaign is small enough that nobody can find significant coverage outside the city's newspaper, and the notability guidelines include nothing about being "interesting enough". Dricherby (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the material you added is the epitome of small-town coverage: his ex-girlfriend and some guy he had an argument with have applied for protection orders against him. The ex's additional application for an emergency anti-stalking order was rejected and the other guy's application was also turned down. I removed the latter from the article as it gave undue weight to what was, essentially, a non-event. The three sources were all local: two from the city newspaper and one from a newspaper in a town 50 miles away. Dricherby (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana) is not "the city paper" - it is a newspaper with coverage across nine counties, where 300,000 or so people live, less than a third of whom are in the city of Champaign.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have almost always kept the articles of mayors of middling-to-large cities. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC) To quote WP:OUTCOMES, "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"." Bearian (talk) 18:18, 22 May 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. No valid arguments for deletion have been made, but a ton for cleanup Courcelles 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lagro High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Being a student of the school itself, I find it a terrible mess this article is. It is full of errors that can only be fixed be WP:ATD-I or WP:TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple46 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary schools are assumed to be notable, and this article has reliable sources. I don't see any problems so severe that we have to start totally from scratch. Granted, the article has a vandalism problem from time to time, but that can be fixed with protection, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. However, when you protect a page, only registered users can edit it. There are several non-registered users that do can help it. Looking at the history, you will notice that the most of the vandals are a string of registered editors, so protecting it will only help a bit. Also, this article is infamous in the net for bad opinions, personal attacks and Copyright violations, so WP:TNT or Delete isn't such a bad idea. 121.97.142.148 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, here are some of the errors:

"The current principal of the school is Dr. Maria Noemi M. Moncada, after the last principal, Dr. Fernando Javier, was murdered." The principal was already retired when he was murdered; See this Reference

"The main reason for this is that the LHS is standing as a sole school in the Northern Metro Manila, Southern Bulacan, and Western Rizal, where most of its students lives." Generally, Tungko National High School, Batasan National High School, Commonwealth High School.

"Currently, Lagro High School holds a large population of students (over 7,000 in 2011)." Where did that statistic came from?

Article lacks references also, and is quite messy. Delete. Apple46 (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close as this has been AFDed only last month. AFD is not article cleanup. –H T D 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools are presumed notable. This has already been Speedy Kept twice, I note. What's the issue here? Deficiencies in the article are correctable through the normal editing process... Carrite (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability is not the problem in the article here.203.215.123.104 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Rewrite. The article was speedy kept in the last AfD's because schools are exempted from CSD-A7 and the main problem being addressed in the previous AfD's is the article's notability. But in this AfD, that is no longer the case. The main problem here is the incredibly large number of errors in the article that it's now beyond requiring cleanup. Here are some examples:

There are several issues over the article, notably the "SSG is useless" case, which lasted 3 months on the article until presumably the LHS Student Council removed it themselves.

Also, the motto is terribly creepy. The first motto reads "ang punungguro ay nanggahasa ng lolo niya, tatay niya at nagbebenta ng ari ng lalaki..."[27] that when translated means: "The principal raped his father, grandfather and sells penis..." The motto lasted over a year, and was later removed by User:Bonadea, and now it reads: "respeto lang parang awa niyo na" [28], translated to "Respect we beg of you". Now it was recently corrected to the accurate translation, please be notified that there is no such thing as an LHS Motto.203.215.123.104 (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. If there are errors or other issues with the article, fix them. An article history riddled with vandalism is not a criterion for deletion. If there are particularly egregious old revisions those can be hidden from view, but the article subject is notable and it's not as if there have never been good revisions of the article. --bonadea contributions talk 05:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I echo the views of Bonadea. AfD is not a substitute for article protection mechanisms, nor is it a place for article cleanup. The problems here are editing problems and vandalism problems — not a notability problem. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No relevant deletion rationale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terrible article with near to uncorrectable errors. More errors than accurate infos. Lacks reliable sources, with 6 leading to blogs. It only became a playground for vandals. Nominator herself nominated this for deletion last month[29]. The article creation is apparently a recreation of a deleted page[30]. The article falls on the WP:CSD criterions G4 (recreation of a deleted page) and G7 (author requests deletion). Why hasn't anyone tagged this yet?121.97.142.206 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, those rationales are not applicable. G4 is for recreations of pages that were deleted after a consensus to delete in a deletion discussion, which does not apply to this page - the version that was deleted in 2010 was just a redirect, not an article, and there had not been a deletion discussion. G7 is only applicable if there have been no substantial edits by other editors than the original creator, which is not the case here. It would take less time to simply remove the material that's erroneous and unsourced, than to argue for the article's deletion, especially since there is no valid reason to delete it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'Poorly written', or words to that effect, is not a criterion for deletion. Perhaps voters could familiarise themselves with policy before voting here or proposing for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified secondary school, which are almost invariably kept. Being poorly written is not a criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (pure housekeeping) (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park 4[edit]

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

The film has been delayed indefinitely. So i think this article should be merged back to where ever it came from since the film never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator We have found an alternative. Koala15 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as a film article, but as a historical article about development for a film. The development history is extensive enough to warrant a stand-alone article that is essentially split from the franchise article. To make this article work, it should not use the film infobox or film-related categories because there is no film at hand, nor is there any guarantee of one. Lastly, you proposed a merge, and AfD is not the proper venue for that. Per WP:MERGE, a discussion should have been started on the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:48, 10 May 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 May 10. Snotbot t • c » 00:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough reliable sources already on the article to establish notability (though the SPS can be pruned). Recommend post-AfD rename to "Development of Jurassic Park 4" (or, alternatively, "Production of"), since that's what this article is really about until the film is confirmed. czar · · 02:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea about renaming it. That will help clearly reflect that it is not a film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well written, with reliable sources, and is notable. 121.97.142.148 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would definitely support the name change to "Development of Jurassic Park 4". Koala15 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Koala15, do you want to continue the AfD process? You can withdraw, and with no arguments for deletion, someone else can close this. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep and close. Nomination has been withdrawn, no Delete opinions showing. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pearson Language Tests. Courcelles 16:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson Test of English Academic[edit]

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

Merge to Pearson Language Tests; probably does not meet notability on its own. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Shii (tock) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pearson Language Tests as recommended by the nominator. There is no evidence and has been no argument that each individual test (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTE Young Learners and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTE General) is independently notable, but the company is. Cnilep (talk) 02:10, 17 May 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. A good discussion was had here about the quality of the newspaper sources provided. The sources we are citing say things like "Microsoft is soon expected to publish the English version of his biography, apart from filming a documentary on his life." Common sense says that we should not repeat these claims, and therefore the reliability of any of the statements in sources is doubtful. Shii (tock) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. Kalyanasundaram[edit]

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

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

this article seems to be a recreation of a deleted page Palam Kalyanasundaram and has been declined at AFC due to verifiability issues Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/'Palam'_Kalyanasundaram. There are a number of claims made in respected of the subject of the article which are repeated in the news stories without any evidence of fact checking.

previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyanasundaram (2nd nomination) -- _nonsense ferret 00:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found in userspace a previous detailed discussion about verifiability copied from the talkpage of the deleted article User_talk:4letheia/Palam_Kalyanasundaram
copy of previous deleted article User:4letheia/Palam_Kalyanasundaram --_nonsense ferret 00:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per speedy G4. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Delete as recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD.~~ (Not being an administrator and unable to see the deleted file I merely assume content is similar, correct me if I'm wrong). Carrite (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this opinion per the assertion by Rayabhari below that this is not a simple recreation of a deleted article. No opinion about notability of this new content. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before people pile on here please note that just because something was previously deleted at AfD does not mean that an article about that subject can never exist. The Hindu is by far the most reliable of daily English-language newspapers published in India and this article uses it as a source. The notability is an unusual one but is present via the sources and is a supreme example of an Indian concept of service to society. I'll take some time to read the links provided above - prior AfD, AfC etc - and !vote later. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an ordinary social worker there is no reasonable case for notability. However, the case for notability seems to rest on the claims made by his supporters and repeated frequently in messages shared around facebook and other social media. By way of example, it is claimed that he was awarded 'man of the millenium' by a UN organisation. These claims have also been reprinted in press in the area such as 'The Hindu' - but in fact 'man of the millenium' seems to be a paid for award from a vanity publisher. Other similar claims were highlighted in the previous article on this subject that he met the american president, and is the head of the local wing of a UN organisation. If these social media claims repeated in the press do not stand up to scrutiny, then it does not leave a significant case for notability. Perhaps people might prefer to have an article which neutrally disproves these claims though - it is worth having that discussion here I think. Also, a careful reading of some of the sources used indicates that some of the newspapers seem to be in fact reporting what the subject has said rather than providing independently fact-checked information. --_nonsense ferret 10:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This articles is not a recreation of earlier article, because the article was independently created and then only I saw the earlier article/discussion. The subject seems notable because, he was awarded with "best librarian" by Government of India. As per newspaper reports, (The Hindu, which is considered reliable in India), he donated his entire salary earnings to charity for last three and half decades and this act is also notable. The messages posted in face book were neither quoted nor used in the article, as face book comments are never considered as reliable source for Wikipedia article. (Such is the case, we can ignore what social groups discuss). Some of the high claims are moderated now, to bring more neutrality.Rayabhari (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rayabhari, I decided to do some digging without reference to previous discussions in order not to have my mind clouded by the opinions of others. I can find nothing about "Outstanding People of the 20th Century" on the UN website, nor by searching specifically with the UNICEF organisation (the most likely subset of the UN to apply here because of his emphasis on children). In fact, the award seems likely to have come from the International Biographical Centre and most results are mirrors either of us or of other unreliable websites. It doesn't look good but I'll see what else I can turn up. Perhaps you can verify the claim made in The Hindu. I might even email them - it is odd for them to get things like this wrong but, hey, we are all human. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will verify the claims made in The Hindu. Thank you. You wanted to find something in JESTOR.Rayabhari (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed them. There is nothing at JSTOR. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article needs work — a proper lead would be nice — this subject clearly passes GNG. Articles dealing substantially with the subject in The Hindu from 2004 and 2013 are footnotes 1 and 5 respectively; a third piece from that publication has gone 404 but no reason to suspect it did not or does not exist. An honored philanthropist. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy note. The nominator of this AfD has now also raised it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#P._Kalyanasundaram. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:CANVASSING, because there are different degrees of canvassing. The notification at WP:BLP/N was appropriate. It was worded neutrally and it was not directed at any one editor. The nominator was requesting assistance, nothing more. Any BLP at AFD is in my opinion a valid subject there. The more eyes on an AFD the less likely we will end up deleting something that merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. My opinion was that it was canvassing at BLPN, although it later transpired that they'd not explained themselves very well. In any event, my courtesy note could not be any more neutral. I can do without the wikilawyering, please: hindsight is a wonderful thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has a complex history as it was created using different name variants. However, even assuming that the most recent creator did so independently of the article that was deleted per consensus at AfD, I don't see anything "better" about the current article than the old. If you want to look at what was probably the version of the article when the voting took place and the consensus was delete, look at User:4letheia/Palam Kalyanasundaram. Also, if you look at the old AfD discussion, notice that there was discussion about the same Hindu reference, which the nominator and the voters accepted as unverifiable. I'm not going to take any administrative action on the article at this point, but I thought I'd share what looks like to be a recreation, even if inadvertent, of an article that was deleted only a matter of months ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is verifiable to The Hindu? Whether that newspaper verified it is beyond our remit unless we can find sources to the contrary? FWIW, I am hoping that my email to them will cause them to revisit the issue - nothing like a "scandal" to sell papers ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is "beyond our remit" is to revisit a consensus that was so recently established about the notability of the subject, which partly (largely?) depended on the editors' views of the Hindu article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate that is applicable if the articles are substantially similar but I don't know what other sources were used in the original article & have only just realised that this one must have been, per your comments. I also have the feeling that a fair amount of stuff has gone on that is no longer visible to us mere mortals, per your comment at BLPN. Tbh, I don't think this thing should exist but that is based on gut feeling, not logic, and if the article is significantly different then a procedural delete is not appropriate. It is now apparent that you do not consider it to be thus (massively different). - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the fact that very little has changed since the last AFD, judging from Bbb23's comments (which make the case for what should have been a clearly valid G4). The first two pages of search results for "outstanding people UNO" are about the subject. I find it hard to believe that he is the only one to ever win that award. More likely is the possibility that this originated with him, or someone who wanted to boost his popularity. Since these basic claims to notability are not verifiable, once we take them away we are left with what looks like a fairly well-known librarian, but I don't see anything that could get him past WP:GNG. An recognition by Rotary is not exactly earth-shattering. As always with these types of bios, I have no problem reversing my !vote if new sources are found that could truly establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*And perhaps the canvassing is working! Even though the nominator was of the opinion that people seeing the report at BLPN would not !vote here. Oh, well. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)~~ Strike because my logic is screwed: could have come here first and then gone to BLPN. We'll never know, will we? - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The awards are fake (UNO, perhaps B.L.) or minor (Rotary, B. L.), knowing that the giver of the "best librarian" award shows up as the "Union Government", not the government of India (see [here]). What tips it for me is that an exceptional college librarian would also show on scholarly sources, either as an author or at least in acknowledgments. But there is nothing for this individual.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree but please note that "Union Government" is the "government of India": each state has its own govt. and then there is a central/national govt. that is often termed the "Union Government". - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, but do you think that this is the case in this source? That's what I found dubious.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, if an Indian news source is referring to an Indian domestic subject then "Union Government" will mean "national government" (aka, "central government" or "the Centre"). I've no idea what else you might think it was referring to in this context - the USA? a central committee of a trade union? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Not notable persons. Not reliable references were provided. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried to find some substance over the last couple of days but, yes, it looks like The Hindu have been sold a pup here. They have not replied to my email. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nonetheless, thank you for the effort. AFD is not about deleting stuff, but about finding reasons to keep it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to second FreeRangeFrog's comments - I really wish that everyone who contributed to discussions at AfD did so with the same level of conscientiousness, fairness, and rigour. --_nonsense ferret 21:12, 12 May 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.