Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 April	28 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Coverage too slender to satisfy GNG; does not meet ATHLETE standards Drmies (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Mahon

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

Non notable minor league baseball player no longer in affiliated ball so unlikely to make the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage here, here, here (same as HighBeam article) might suffice. Seems like a guy with no shot to make it almost made it to MLB. There could be an article here, but I won't vote yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I incorporated those sources and now feel this article merits keeping by GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't consider the sources significant (all local interest news stories by local newspapers) for WP:GNG. Secret ^account 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:ITSLOCAL, local coverage is as good as national. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, he's recently been scouted by the Minnesota Twins, so he could end up back in affiliated ball.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh no, if the coverage is only local coverage that isn't a strong depth of coverage that is neessary for GNG two of the three sources talks about how Mahon went undrafted as a former college pitcher and reached the minors, which is basically feel good coverage. He wouldn't get that coverage if he was even drafted in the 50th round. WP:BLP1E could apply here also because of the unusual path he went to play minor league ball. "could end back" is crystal balling. Secret ^account 05:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Local coverage can be strong depth of coverage, especially as it talks about his high school, collegiate, and professional careers in some depth. That he could return to affiliated ball is relevant as it contradicts Spanneraol's main deletion argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The depth is only there because he was an American who was never drafted, thus a human interest story to the local media. That's not significant coverage. "The Twins will be watching.....this summer" is crystal balling and doesn't mean that he's going to return to affiliated baseball, and if he is probably not the majors. It's a WP:BLP1E because his "significant coverage (which isn't)" mostly talks about his unusual path, and just about every minor leaguer will get this coverage anyways from local newspapers. This is an obvious merge candidate but there's nowhere to merge. If he somehow makes the majors or becomes more notable for a reason not involving his unusual way to the minors, we could recreate the article. Secret ^account 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure what defines "human interest story", and where that fits in as an exception to GNG. This coverage goes into him in depth, which makes it "significant coverage". It's not BLP1E as there are multiple events covered: his high school career, his collegiate career, and his professional career. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - His notability was mainly because of the path Mahon took to reach the minors, there's nothing else that sets him aside from thousands of other minor leaguers who didn't reach the majors, and he wasn't notable because of his high school or college career. If we say every minor leaguer was notable and deserves an article it's not BLP1E, but because his notability his primarily because of his interesting but clearly not unusual career, it does not set him apart from all the other ones we merged/deleted. Secret ^account 00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not every minor leaguer is notable, but most don't receive even this coverage. I don't think he blows GNG away, but still passes with the minimum requirements. Most minor leaguers are only mentioned in the press in game summary stories and transaction lists. Since this individual has a few writeups, it passes GNG, regardless of how interesting the coverage is. It's the coverage that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument above seems to be that he might become notable. He might. If he is not only signed but actually does appear in a major league game, then there can & should be an article. The argument for not including local sources for the notability of local athletes is that they are not discriminating enough to serve as a measure for notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my argument from above is that he is notable based on the existing coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the sources given are (just) adequate to demonstrate notability under GNG. This is not BLP1E since the sources are not covering a particular "event", and in any case, as a professional player Mahon has received additional coverage in reliable sources at least in game summaries. While such coverage by itself would be inadequate to demonstrate notability, it does negate the BLP1E requirement that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and per failure to satisfy WP:BIO Edison (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty rich. Let's all look at WP:GNG, shall we?
  - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
    - Clearly, the sources address the subject directly in detail, referring to him in the titles even. These articles are non-trivial.
  - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
    - Nobody is questioning the reliability of those sources
  - "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. 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.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
    - These are indeed secondary sources, and the coverage comes from multiple sources
  - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
    - Again, nobody is questioning this.
  - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
    - If this violates, what Wikipedia is not, then the article doesn't belong. What policies does it violate?
- Let's look at WP:BIO...
  - "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
  - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.
    - Same basic stuff as I outlined above. I certainly say that his unusual career trajectory is interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention.
- It seems to me that people are voting delete because this person isn't particularly famous, even within his own craft. That's not a reason to delete an article. Career minor leaguers can still be notable, as long as they meet the above criteria, which as far as I can see, it does. I am strongly opposed to the deletion of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG above. The slender coverage does not satisfy notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hopkins

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

PROD contested by 189.12.77.144 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

I am also nominating the following related page because it fails the same guidelines:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both – As the Superettan is not fully professional neither player passes WP:NFOOTY, nor have they received significant media coverage therefore both fail WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Neither has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning both articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Both fail WP:N and WP:NFOOTBALL. Few games played, no WP:RS coverage. DocTree (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to The Magic Candle; the nominator approves this outcome and the only deletion vote mentions possible notability "in relation to the games", of which The Magic Candle has been deemed the most important one. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindcraft

(Find video game sources: "Mindcraft" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD. I couldn't find sources that were any more than a passing reference to this company, so I don't think it satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the page because it is actually referenced quite a few times in other wiki pages. The dates make it harder to find sources (pre-internet), but I have a small but growing list of published articles to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzamancer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page: Being a professional game developer, I agree that Mindcraft is a very notable company and should have a Wikipedia entry. Several of their games, most especially The Magic Candle, have influenced the designs of later best selling games. For example, several features I designed and implemented in Ultima Online were influenced by The Magic Candle. The company and games are also referenced in The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 2: The Golden Age (1985-1993) JasonSpangler (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link for a printed book about the history of computer role-playing games that could be added as a reference for Mindcraft: Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games JasonSpangler (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Pizzamancer (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at those two sources, and I'm afraid they don't provide "significant coverage" of the company. That is, they are about the games, not the company itself, and there are no details given about the company other than that it made the games. This is not enough to establish notability, I'm afraid. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I see lots of directory/listing entries, but no in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I say "weak" because their games are notable and they are definitely mentioned in relation to the games, but not as source's topic/subject; and VG developer articles are often basis for their games list article. None of that passes WP:CORPDEPTH though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the sources that Pizzamancer mentioned above, Mindcraft is primarily mentioned in relation to their most successful game, The Magic Candle. Because of this, I now think that the best solution may be to merge to that article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 23:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Magic Candle, if the company is really only important in relation to that one game, we could simply merge the important parts of the article into the game's article. Ducknish (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting yourself, even if doing so is otherwise difficult in your country. Sandstein 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me if I wanted to promote myself it wouldn't be in Wikipedia, so stop repeating that excuse of my deletion, I did not make the article for any sort of promotion, I made the article so people can find information and read my story when they google my name, I had reliable sources, and everybody in Kuwait and all my fans across the globe know I do not need Wikipedia to promote myself, I could use a famous music website such as www.worldstarhiphop.com for self-promotion, I actually discourage promotional artists according to my article, Note that I wanted to have a Wikipedia article because I know I deserve one. Thank you for your time. Big D (talk • contribs) 5:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Big D Kuwait

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

The subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC at this time. The sources used in the article at present are either primary sources or are not published in 'reliable' sources. Searches in google books, news and factiva don't bring up any suitable references. As the article states the subject is still "underground" which is good sign that we should not have an article about him at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Smart SE,

I had someone work so hard to make this page for me it took time. i thought i was deemed worthy of being looked up in an encyclopedia. i have been working hard writing everyone that tries to delete me to explain my case. i am not mainstream, and i plan on staying underground. i'm not using this as a way to help my career, im using this for proof; and a reliable source for me to be looked up in by Kuwait. im not in it for money or fame. that's how my small country recognizes me in public, but i needed an article of proof. even if it was a small paragraph. unfortunately at the moment i don't have the reliable source that you ask for. but i earned my fame mostly because i stayed underground. so i can have freedom of speech in cases such as this my Islamic country forbids profanity or even having a music career (if you want to know more about why my religion is against making money off of music i will explain more if you ask me). therefore i cant be true to myself if i was a signed artist because the media will never let me say what i want. they like my music because i am the only Kuwaiti that went this far on my own personal budget.

Im the only unsigned Kuwaiti artist that went this far. where as there is a signed group by the name of Army Of One, Kuwaiti rappers. but Kuwait media decides how there music should be and they can't rap with profanity, freedom, and self will. the songs they make are just for commercial purposes it's not what they truly want to release. i know this because they are my friends. but in my case i have the advantage of being underground and producing my own music. so i can talk about politics, religion, and middle eastern issues, and what the middle east really wants to hear.

Please look at this a article, it is about the band "Army of One" on a Kuwaiti news website "Army of one - Arab Times" what if I could get a article similar to the one I just posted. will that be enough reliable source? my question to you Mr. SmrtSE would I be accepted then. i hope my situation is more clear. thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage by secondary sources that I can find.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Bbb23,

Please type "Big D Kuwait" in google search engine you will see my name everywhere sir, all the way to the 30th page, that can be somewhat of coverage used and I spoke to a reporter on Arab_Times by next week I will have a article on their official website hopefully, rules are rules and I respect your regulations sir, but just google search the word "Kuwaiti Rapper" and you will see my name on the first results that is good source for the time being, I await your positive response.

As you've been told repeatedly, what matters is secondary reliable sources commenting on your accomplishments. Without that, you can't have an article here. What happens in the future can only be evaluated after it has happened. Articles aren't based on future notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't "vote" since I'm involved (as a fan of Big D's efforts) but I am afraid that at this time there is no notability per our standards. A record contract with a notable label, some decent distribution, and coverage in accepted music publications would help. Perhaps, Big-D, you can start a feud--that seems to work for many US artists... Drmies (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So for you to consider someone as notable enough to be in an encyclopedia you have to be able to Google the artist to see his or her information and the information has to come from a big company, newspaper, record label, so on and so forth.....let me just say on my behalf I am in a strict Muslim country which does not allow Muslims to make money off of music it is actually against the Holy Koran the 1....I REPEAT THE ONE AND ONLY R&B/HIP HOP ARTIST GROUP TO EVER GET SIGNED IN KUWAIT, is like a Justin Beiber/98 degrees boy band combined. THERE WILL NEVER BE A RAP ARTIST COMING OUT OF KUWAIT, not with saying what i say in my songs. my genre is more gangsta rap with hardcore lyrics and beats. its just never going to happen for me unless i turn into something that they want me to be. its not just about my profanity, its also about the subjects i choose to write about....i have made a lot of songs that are light hearted in my younger days...but i'm getting older and have matured. i am now choosing to write about issues that are hard for youth to get interested in just by reading on the news.

i'm not trying to waste everyone's time here. my point i'm trying to argue here is this....for me to be true to myself, i will never get signed...especially in Kuwait. i'm fighting a sea of critics that hate me just because i'm a rapper. i would say any person in this country that is a kuwaity hates my music...just because they think i am a bad person for doing what i do. they think i'm a bad guy because i'm going against my religion technically. but i don't do drugs, i don't drink alcohol, i pray, and read the Holy Koran, i love my family and my wife, i work and come home and write music.

for me to be on MTV Middle East with live broadcasting would be pointless since my whole purpose is to be underground. I respect every-bodies point of view; everybody here is trying to go by the rule book. I respect Mr. Drmies for his support, and SmartSE; BB; all the wiki admins. but take a look at these U.A.E rap group Desert_Heat_(hip_hop) they been on Wikipedia for so long and have warning never been deleted.

I'm not on many reliable sources because of my belief in true Hip-Hop I rather have no fame and quit rapping then be something that I'm not just to get accepted on Wikipedia. I have faith you will let my page stay, because I deserve it. Thank you for hearing all of my story. I will fight for my right to be categorized in Wikipedia as a rap artist from Kuwait. Because i doubt there will ever be a rap artist from Kuwait again that will come close to me as far as deserving a Wikipedia page. Big D Kuwait (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that article. Their notability is very iffy, but I was able to find and add one mention of them--they could possibly be nominated for deletion. As for Kuwaiti rappers, what about Disso R Die and ThuGz Team?^[1] Drmies (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Mr Drmies (Diss or Die and ThuGz Team) are some kids on the street in kuwait, wannabe rappers, that diss each other all day long, they only freestyle swearing at one another, they can't even spell the word Wikipedia sir! and they only rap in arabic they are definitely not acceptable for Wikipedia, If I may seem not good enough to pass the music notability standards, Then they will definitely seem a lot more illegitimate, and I was speaking in terms of general hardcore english arabic hip-hop, furthermore I'm the only unsigned Kuwaiti rapper with official music videos in Kuwait nobody has any music videos here other then me and "Army of one - Arab Times" because they have a record deal. Big D Kuwait (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) [reply]

P.S I have the proof as a Arab and a rapper I know the history of Hip-Hop in the middle east, Believe it or not LOOK UP Arabic hip hop the biggest phrase on Wikipedia for Arab rappers in the chart they have the rappers from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan,

Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. All the countries in the gulf are there EXCEPT KUWAIT. not because we do not have rappers here, we do, but they are iffy,I kept hip hop alive in my small country, and I was the one of the first people to start hip hop in Kuwait. Please look at Arabic hip hop Big D Kuwait (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) [reply]

References

^ Wright, Robin (2011). Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World. Simon and Schuster. p. 121. ISBN 9781439103166. Retrieved 19 April 2012.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - Clearly doesn't pass notability threshhold at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Beyond My Ken,

In my opinion, The fact that i'm not a signed artist yet, and that I haven't been on TV, is the main reason why everybody is thinking Big D is a promotional figure but I don't intend to use Wikipedia for self-promotion or none of those purposes, and I figured that the main reason that i'm not indicating significance to most of Wikipedia's admins is simply because I do not have a record label yet, But It doesn't necessarily mean I'm completely illegitimate, I should pass the notability threshold at this time whereas Wikipedia does not have 1 Kuwaiti rapper listed in their encyclopedia articles, Unless a miracle comes along and a Kuwaiti rapper gets signed out of nowhere, and if any Kuwaiti Rapper will get signed they would of picked me. I'm a 100% sure I will be the only Kuwaiti Rapper you will meet that fought his case this much to be on Wikipedia, Isn't it a sad case as for me being a known ("Arabic-English" Rapper) in Kuwait I go on Wikipedia search the phrase Arabic hip hop and I see no one to representing Kuwait? use me as notability i clearly deserve it, and if you give me a few days I'm working on getting reliable sources if you just give me a chance, I've done so much on Wikipedia in such a little amount of time in the past few days, I did not even know nothing about the rules here before all of this happened, I wish you let my article remain on Wikipedia, I'm trying my best to prove im worthy of having a chance to be on Wikipedia, if you just read my story you will understand clearly why I deserve to be here. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: Big D, the problem is that we do have certain rules about what can be included. Music artists have to meet a criteria called WP:NBAND for there to be an article about them, which you don't quite meet yet, because of not having signed with a label. I don't doubt that you would be the first Kuwaiti rapper to be signed if any are, but keeping on those grounds would be a violation of a rule called WP:CRYSTALBALL - we're not supposed to try to predict the future. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To admins: my !vote is therefore to userfy or delete without prejudice to recreation as soon as Big D meets WP:NBAND. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins, I did not ask to wait a decade or years into the future, I'm working on getting a reliable source that will pass the music notability requirements and hopefully I will update this form with the links in a couple more days. Thank you for your patience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 10:16 AM, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete self promotion lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All Admins, With all due respect Mr. Duffbeerforme It is not a self promotion your quick to say delete and you did not even read the article, I had a friend write the article about me and he wrote very clearly in my article " Big D has not promoted himself as much as other rappers, and does not wish to use his rap skills in order to gain fame, he is a strong believer of the phrase rap is a Talent, "Not a fame tool" he also quoted me saying "Rappers use Hip Hop for promotional benefits, Hip Hop is not all about the "Fame".

Furthermore! AND MOST IMPORTANT, "I gathered the reliable sources that I promised to post! I was interviewed by Arab Times The leading English newspaper in the middle east, according to their official External links "The Arab Times on line website" which is noted through Wikipedia, my article was posted May 02, 2012 “Big D - Kuwaiti rapper promotes positive message (Article – Via Arab Times)", If you want it in PDF format, “Click Here", So I guess I pass the music notability guideline because that is official reference, and if that is not enough then , I also have another reference which is www.kuwait-music.com which the website owner was interviewed by BBC and his website was nominated the leading website of music in Kuwait VIA ARAB TIMES I’m honored to say they featured me in their website too “Click here to view my User profile on Kuwait-Music.com”, These are legitimate sources that pass your music notability guidelines including the other previous references I had in the past, Hopefully now I’m worthy enough to be on Wikipedia and I hope you admins accept me. Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 10:31, ‎May ‎02, ‎2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwait (talk • contribs)

Sorry, D--but it seems that the Arab Times article is all there is, and without albums on notable labels that's just not enough. (Kuwait Music does not appear to be a very notable site.) Closing admin: will you please userfy this? We can bring it back easily if notability by our guidelines is met. All the best, Big D. You know I'll be the first to buy the album--well, the first in my city, that is. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies, yo brother first things first "Kuwait-Music.com is legit according to BBC click here "BBC News- Musicians in Kuwait struggle with censorship, Kuwait Music" and watch the video. Also according to ARAB TIMES newspaper article, "Kuwait-Music.Com Helps Bridge Cultures - Via Arab Times"

Many wikepedia artists do not have notable record labels.
I'm a independent artist signing a record label means i would sell my soul to the devil.
Kuwait has censorship laws "as a islamic country muslims cannot use profanity"
Name me 1 rapper in the world that would agree to have censored lyrics.
we do not have any notable labels in Kuwait we only have small recording studios.
thank you for the nice complements about purchasing the album, like i said before if your ever in Kuwait contact me.

P.S My songs and albums you can find them on my website "The Official Website for Big D " and youtube alongside with my Music Videos, and as for Kuwait-Music they are a very notable source according to BBC and ARAB TIMES "Feature Video "BBC features Kuwait Music and Avant-Garde projects" I guess after seeing the censorship video you trust me for speaking the truth about the laws here in Kuwait, many artists contact Caesar Fernandes the founder of kuwait-music.com to be heard and that's where most musicians are found, we get the chance to be heard through his website that connects listeners in Kuwait to western musicians in Kuwait like me and others without censorship. So please try to reconsider there is no more to offer in my small country but what I've given, It would make many people proud and give them hope! I hope I get nominated to stay, because I really explained my case very clearly and I did the most I can to prove you wont make a wrong decision by accepting me. Regards, Big D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big D Kuwaiti Rapper (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Power Home Remodeling Group

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

Delete. A company of insufficient notability. That it is referenced is in itself insufficient grounds for retaining the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is notable. I have provided reliable references to prove the fact that the company is notable. Anyone can check the references that they support the facts to prove the notability of the company. What type of references are then required to prove the notability of the company? As per WP:GNG the sources are published by reliable third parties making the company notable and according to WP:NRVE I have used reputable media sources, and other reliable sources to prove the facts.--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 20:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG allows all manner of articles about companies to be created. The guideline at WP:COMPANY is not a lot of help so we are in desperate need of notability guideline for commercial organisations to help us with these Afds. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does allow the company only if it satisfies the criteria mentioned in it. As per WP:COMPANY, Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. If this could be considered as an advertising(which actually it is not), my writing tone would have been quite different. The company is notable as there are also many more references to prove the facts but I didn't add them because I didn't want to make Wikipedia a collection of links. You can even see the google hits for the notabilty. --Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it is advertising, although it is because there are no equivalent articles for any of their competetors and by virtue of actually having a WP article (and therefore gaining a higher profile because of how search engines rank WP articles}. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines do not rank (links in) WP articles btw... see WP:NOFOLLOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article satisfies the notability criteria. On Wikipedia, notability is not established by looking if there are articles of competitor companies on Wikipedia or not. If it satisfies WP:GNG, notabilty is established. Company also satisfies WP:CORP,WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH and is by no means an advertising.--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 13:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references also satisfy WP:GOODREFS.--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 14:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is well sourced. No reason to delete. For the understanding of the nominator, referencing actually means that it is notable as published by third party sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not obviously noteworthy, but the supply of sources would seem to disagree. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep I am not impressed by the awards. I no longer regard listings for "fastest growing" or the equivalent as showing notability -- I regard them as the equivalent of "not yet notable" Nor am I impressed by the references, which are either routine notices or PR based--I have boldly removed the one from PRwire--that Google News includes it is a trap for the unwary. Nor does the promotional writing help--I've removed some repetitive jargon: the word "solutions" in a non-,mathematical articles is a Red Flag, indicating writing by a press agent or someone whose vocabulary has been overinfluenced by press agents. I'm judging by market share . As I see it, that and noteworthy products are the major factor that make businesses notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caples Jefferson Architects

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

Delete. SPAMish article about a company of insufficient notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible ~~keep~~move to my userspace The article has problems, but the firm is exceptionally notable. Some of their projects have won major awards and several of the buildings they've designed are notable (some already have Wikipedia articles). It would be nice to get some photographs uploaded of their work. A category on Wikipedia Commons also makes sense. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. It should be removed from mainspace until it can be fixed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve This is an odd one. They are certainly notable enough as an architecture firm to keep the article, with mainstream press coverage and references supporting work on notable buildings. Yet as Candleabracadabra notes, the article's also full of unreferenced claims~~, and as Alan Liefting notes the tone is still quite WP:PROMO~~. I've found references from WP:RS to back up a few of the claims made, but any claims for which we can't find good refs should certainly be removed. If it does get moved to userspace, I'll be happy to help work on it there. Scopecreep (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it to remove the promotional language, and added several more references. Scopecreep (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate a demonstrably notable firm with a number of important works. There was some puffery for sure, but Candleabracadabra's reference to "distortions, exaggerations and outright lies" is strong language, and it's not apparent to me what xe is referring to, exactly, other than the precise meaning of "renovations" in connection with one project. Can we get more clarity about this, so the article doesn't have to carry the "hoax" tag? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an article on an architect lists XYZ Building and it was done by a completely different architect that's a problem. Most of the claims in the article that I've looked into have been somewhat, largely, or wholly untrue. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the claims in the article are now verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A small architecture practice with few built projects and a number of minor local awards, but probably passes the notability threshold. Inflammatory language such as "exceptionally notable" and "won major awards" is not helpful. The article is still trashy (contains copyvio image, misleading citations and spam) and in such cases sometimes complete rewrite is an easier option than sorting out the mess. --ELEKHH^T 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just what are the asserted lies? Is the list of projects wrong--does it contain things they didn't design? (or is it that for some of them they should be listed as joint designers?) Candleabracandra, exactly which do you think are wrong? Unless you have some evidence, you are making very strong accusations to accept on your unsupported word. We have pretty broad tolerance for WP space, but this sort of charge needs to be proven. The failure to give a 3rd party source does not prove the statement a lie, which is a very strong word in English, meaning a deliberate untruth said with intend to deceive. Though everything must be sourced, we normally accept a corporate web site for the work of the company unless there's some reason not to. The present state of the article is about as non-promotional an article as could be desired: it simply lists their work and their awards, both relevant. I agree the awards are minor, but the significant buildings are sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Crappy content-free promospam. If you're going to write puff pieces, at least do a better job than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company. The rationales presented by User:Arxiloxos and User:DGG here are also very noteworthy. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been improved as of this post. Most of the claims are now verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the problems appear to have been the listing as designer when what was designed was an addition or renovation, not the original building, or when the position was joint designer. Accuracy here is important, but the errors are being corrected (I agree it was not reassuring to let them get in the article in the first place). The solution for lack of accuracy is, as always, making the necessary improvement. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand why it was nommed as it does indeed look cruftish with its list of award but I think it appears to be notable. I'm picking up quite a lot of sources in Google books which usually indicates notability and I see the potential for a full articles and widely sourced in prose. The lists look ugly and promotional at present. We have heaps of articles on US companies and bands which are not even mentioned in google books!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted, a10 of Nuclear fusion Jac16888 ^Talk 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is energy generated in sun like stars

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

Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No target to merge to; no notability. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta Hill Christian Church, Kolkata

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

Article has no references, and the church doesn't appear to be notable. Chutznik (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. This is a regular non-notable church. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) delete -- a merger to the church whose building it shares might have eben a solutiuon, but I expect that is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and Merge Excellent idea, User:Peterkingiron, except there's currently no article for St Andrew's Church in Kolkata. A quick Google indicates that St Andrew's is notable for its architecture, history and archives. St Andrew's website http://www.standrewschurch-kolkata.org/ already includes info on this church and its services. Add a St_Andrews#Calcutta_Hill_Christian_Church section to a main St Andrew's of Kolkata article and a redirect. I hope that the original author will undertake that work. It would be valuable addition to Category:Churches in India. DocTree (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every religious congregation which has ever existed. Appears to fail WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a heavy heart. Simple case as with loads of other religious institutions in India - no trace of notability online. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. A move to the other article per DocTree may work. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Create an article for St. Andrew's Church, which is notable, and put this information there.173.89.150.163 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan

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

This group nomination follows from the recent precedent for a similar article here. These articles serve no useful purpose. They are straight copies from official lists. Those lists are available online, are cited in articles, and have content that is liable to change from time to time because the reservation system (a form of positive discrimination) is in constant flux. If we are going to start adding articles based entirely on single primary sources then our count will grow dramatically and without adding anything to information that is already available in the authoritative public documents. We are not a repository for transcriptions of primary sources. Sitush (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

I agree with Sitush, delete all. No benefit in mirroring a single public primary source, and I doubt anyone would put forth the effort to keep them in-sync with that source. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned in my nomination that a contrary argument in the earlier deletion discussion seemed to me to be suggesting that a centralised article here on Wikipedia would be a useful reference point. My response was that we cannot rely on the content of article A at WP as a source for article B. If have mis-stated that argument then please feel free to say so - the format of the discussion was a bit messy. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have one common list? Stating whether people of certain caste exist in a particular state; if yes whether they are listed in Backward Classes or what. If we dont know whether they exist or not in a particular state, we can, may be, leave some blank space there. (Chances are that we might have lotsa blank spaces as ref to negative info of absence of something is hard to get.) Clubbed article would be good to have. It then wont be just copy paste. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still would add absolutely nothing to the sum of knowledge and it would be synthesis because not all states even agree on spellings/who belongs to what community etc, which is actually a classic reason why we deprecate primary sources. It would also most likely end up as a table, and we all know just how difficult people find wikitables and just how much vandalism and disruption goes on by anons to India-related articles. It would be a pointless exercise in reproducing primary sources that would actually be even more of a nightmare to maintain than the existing articles noted above. The creator of these articles spends a lot of time creating (usually rather poor quality) new articles based on gutting a single source and then usually abandons the effort, but this particular series is just plain unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. per Sitush and Gorman.LinguisticGeek 05:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't believe that lists like List of Star Trek characters are acceptable, while lists with links to backward and Scheduled communities and castes are not considered encyclopedic. The mind boggles. It disappoints on the lack of articles on Asia, Africa and the Middle East and while wikepedia SEEMS to be inundated with articles on Tolkien and Star Trek characters.

Once again Sitush has begun his character assassination. "creator of these articles spends a lot of time creating (usually rather poor quality) new articles based on gutting a single source and then usually abandons the effort". Please retract.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please read WP:OSE. Secondly, it is not "once again" and it is a statement of fact, not a character assassination. I recently spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up numerous stubs that you have created. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KEEP the castes stated would not be summarised or known other wise ,and stating the backward classes is not related to getting any reservation from the government same as with list of iyers Shrikanthv (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You nominated List of Iyers for deletion & the consensus (including my opinion) recently went against you, but I cannot understand why you are referring to it here. Have you seen List of Indian castes, the various categories of Indian social groups etc? While far from perfect in their present form, they have the potential to address the first part of your comment, ie: that "the castes stated would not be summarised or known other wise".. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Maybe a web link in the "#See also" for each State in India for each official list but even that is questionable under WP:LINKFARM.. These lists are not encyclopedic, don't belong in WP. DocTree (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP all -- the topic is clearly encyclopedic and has plenty of notability and sources. The fact that the particular user who created this page has a history of less than stellar work, or that maintaining India-related articles free from vandalism is difficult, is completely irrelevant. This is exactly the type of information that people expect an encyclopedia to provide, and our current pages about caste in india are woefully inadequate.

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Particle Adaptation Theory

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

An editor has suggested on the talk page that this might be a hoax. For my part I cannot find anything by this name in doing an internet search. It could be a hoax, or it could just be uncited OR. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No results for this term at Google Scholar or Google Books other than this Wikipedia article. Fails WP:V, WP:N. It could be original research, or a hoax, or a neologism the article creator coined to describe something in quantum physics, but no basis found for the article to be kept. Edison (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Impossible to tell if it's a hoax or OR but with no support deletion is the only choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete posthaste. Flim-flam flummery. --Lambiam 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having zero meaningful content. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. -- 202.124.74.168 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an interesting idea, but I can't find anything online save for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kery Kedze

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

Never played in a professional league, so fails WP:FOOTYN, no significant media coverage so fails WP:GNG ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has never played in a fully professional league nor has he received significant media coverage therefore fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to David Friedman (composer). Drmies (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thought exchange (film)

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

Unfortunately, I was not able to find enough reliable, independent coverage for this film. It does have some notable people, but I was unable to find anything more, aside from some press releases by Library Tales Publishing. Note that the article for the original book, as well as for LTP were deleted after a discussion discussion, and that the creator's username suggests a conflict of interest. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this article has more information than most articles about films. Take for example, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Object), that only has one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushermorgan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's so short that it really only needs one or two references. A Google search however proves that film's notability, which unfortunately, cannot be said for The Thought Exchange. Actually, the fact that it contains more information means that it needs more sources, especially reliable third-party coverage such as reviews on reliable sites. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film has yet to be released, it is released on May 1st. Instead of deleting the page, can you give me suggestions on how to improve it? If the fact that there is more info on the page means that it needs more sources, should I remove some information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushermorgan (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Usher Morgan the director of this film? You can start by reading WP:V and WP:FILM. The most important thing you should find are reliable third-party coverage of the film. As in, nothing by Library Tales Publishing. Since the film hasn't been released, it could be too soon to have an article. Once the film is released, and reliable sources have been found, then the article can be recreated, but I don't recommend that you do it due to possible conflict of interest issues. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I did not found any reliable source, this one is not very notable. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Morgan, yes. Should this be edited under a different user name then?

I will add more sources to this article today, note - the other film I mentioned had much more information that this film, when you look at the two pages, you will see that the Thought Exchange page had less info and more sources. and there is much more information about the Thought Exchange on Google when you type it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushermorgan (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you not editing the article at all since, being a person working for the director can mean a possible conflict of interest (read that page for more information). If, through this deletion discussion, consensus determines that the film is notable enough for inclusion, then other, non-affiliated users will be willing to expand and work on the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... please visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY to gain a better understanding of sourcing requirements and how editors need concern themselves with concerns towards conflict of interest. If you DO have reliable sources speaking about the topic of this film, bring the sources to us here at this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear... "reliable sources" does not mean IMDB, the production or "offical" websites, blogs where anyone can "post" anything, or press releases. We do have the MSNBC article leading us to Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb discussing the book on April 27 2012,[2] but to show a film's notability it must have been the recipient of commentary and analysis in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and Redirect title to David Friedman article (which itself needs work), as a location where this might be reasonably be mentioned even though (as yet) lacking notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is another page for the Thought Exchange book ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thought_Exchange_(Book) ) so another option would be to just mix them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieMoore26 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and understand WP:Notability (films) and WP:Notability (books). More than just announcements of its existance, there is a requirement for actual coverage and anaysis in reliable sources. In looking at the sources in the article you've just written, you do not have enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability for either the book or film. This may change later, and they'd be welcomed back then, but Wikipedia does not allow itself to be used as a promotional service. The good news is that we DO have verifiability enough for them to be at least mentioned in the Friedman article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the notability of David Friedman for other things is pretty much a lock, I have performed some (required) cleanup and citation fixes, and then created a sourced author section there to which both this film and the book upon which it is based can be redirected.[3] Neither book nor film as yet meets the applicable notability criteria meriting separate articles, but they can at least be mentioned contextually at the author's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the book is that notable either. Sure David Friedman's ideas were the basis of the book and film, but I don't think they would be suitable search terms, since they would more likely be associated with Morgan and not Friedman, but a mention will certainly be welcome. I'm also thinking of nominating the book for deletion since I don't think it is notable either, but since this AfD is almost half-way through, I would probably have a separate AfD. Would that be alright? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing for certain, I suspect new author User:EddieMoore26 may actualy be User:Ushermorgan abandoning his original accout due to recognition of appeaance of WP:COI. I say this because both article use the same poor sources in the exact same way. But rather than an AFD, why not simply do an uncontroversial redirect of the book's article to David Friedman (composer)#Author? If the redirect is contested, THEN take it to AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Friedman (composer)#Author. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berlinhipsterfestival2012

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

Not a notable festival. A search for "Berlin Hipster Festival" returns only 6 non-reliable hits. No reliable coverage at all. PROD was removed by author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is an announcement, per WP:FUTURE. The only given source is a blog that links to a deleted arcticle on fr.wiki. --Ben Ben (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability asserted. Agathoclea (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 19:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:MUSIC per my web search. DocTree (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ben Ben and DocTree. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashinkyoshi

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

Non-notable - character in a minor work. This was a contested PROD where it seems that the contester thought this was a real character. The character is fictional and used to illustrate a fictional ninja power.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable character by Masaaki Hatsumi. No reliable sources [4] independent from Hatsumi.[5] jmcw (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search has, so far, failed to find reliable sources to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts of Media Freedom

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

This is an essay, with big dollops of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the three points/policies cited by nominator. You can have a decent essay on this sort of topic but I don't think you can ever have a decent encyclopedia entry on something quite so nebulous and theoretical. N-HH talk/edits 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia ism not the place to store essays (there's blogs for that). If there is any relevant information that can be merged, they can be merged to Freedom of the press, but I think that this article merely duplicates that topic, so it can be tagged as A10. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- or merge into Media freedom, which already exists. Bearian (talk)
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE and Salt. Alexf^(talk) 14:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Haider

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

I failed to find enough reliable coverage for this model. Article has previously been deleted by PROD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops, it appears it was just deleted yesterday as G3. The current article appears to be a copy-paste version. Feel free to speedy delete if needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that this has been repeatedly added, a closing admin might want to salt the entry as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. 99.156.68.128 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akboria

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

PROD was removed with the reason "I think there are enough sources from the website. This is not advertisement at all, this is a huge part of the history of Bogra City. The article also describes the then situation of the city (1900s)" - Primary references are: #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11; ref#3 is talking about the city; #1 is a wikipedia page; and finally ref #8 is a user-review page without any reviews... Page didn't changed since my PROD. mabdul 12:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Clear case of advertisement. Article is not supported by independent references from reliable sources (and I'm from Bangladesh ... no systemic bias here ... no local, non-English sources were provided either). --Ragib (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete: The Bogra city has a huge history starting from era when Bangladesh wasn't yet liberated from India during Mughal reign. I opposed the deletion of the article because since Wikipedia is a place where people come to learn, a piece of history should not be removed from Wikipedia. The purpose of creating the article is never for advertising, but for the readers to read about Bogra's evolution and urbanization. As mentioned in the article, before Akboria was founded, people could not have beef because Hindus were dominant in the area. Muslims in the city were deprived of so much more, but with Akboria's appearance as the first Muslim restaurant, there hence came a great change in the society and the then Bogra. Everyone is free to edit the article as they like, but the data about the history of the then Bogra, including names of establishers, years etc. have all been verified from Akboria as they have newspaper articles and other records of history saved with them.Arman Khossain (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because while it says it's not spam, it's spam. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Karlsson

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

Non-notable junior player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless someone can find multiple reliable sources covering him to meet WP:GNG. It is possible that such sources exist, especially in Swedish, since he is a highly regarded junior player. But unless someone is willing and able to show evidence that such sources actually exist, I have to !vote delete. I would be happy to switch if evidence of significant coverage is shown. Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Quantum Bayesianism

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

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

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

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

Minor QM interpretation with no significant following. Sources available don't establish notability. I don't think it is significant enough to even feature on Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject gives about 85 hits on gscholar from a diverse group of author. There may be just enough coverage in reliable sources independent from the main proponents of the idea to satisfy the WP:GNG. As long as proper perspective is kept, I see no harm in keeping the article around.T R 11:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest checking for the quality and significance of the mentions, 85 is quite low, especially considering most of the mentions appear to be on arxiv alone. Most of the other mentions appear to be single line mentions. If anything I think it should be merged to Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics but I'm not sure if it has due weight. Compare that to say, the Copenhagen interpretation: [6] or even the much lesser known transactional interpretation: [7] IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage that other interpretations of quantum mechanics have is rather irrelevant (since those two are clearly notable). I actually did check what kind of hits gscholar gave. From the 85 there is at least a handful of papers that (a) are primarily about QB, (b) are not written by any of the primary proponents (Caves, Fuchs or Schack) (c) are published in peer reviewed scientific journals of reputable standing (for example Foundations of Physics). This means that the subject (as minor as it currently is) meets the minimum requirements set by the WP:GNG. (a-> significant coverage, b-> independent/secondary coverage, c->in reliable sources) In principle, an article does not need more than just that. And since it is already there, is do not see what is gained by deletion in this case. T R 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the handful of papers you mention give more than a passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first hit in gscholar (the timpson one) certainly gives more than a passing mention. In principle that is all that is needed. But there are more that are completely about QB (like the Rosado one). How about you actually look at the sources rather than making others do the work for you?T R 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted Timpson because he does not appear to be independent, but rather involved in the development i.e his paper is a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know Chris Timpson, have read his doctoral thesis and heard several talks by him including two on the topic of quantum Bayesianism, and read portions of articles by in on Q Bayesianism. He is a serious academic philosopher (Lecturer in Philosophy at Oxford), and is not himself committed to quantum Bayesianism, but is strongly interested in because he's interested in how the notion of information has been used in physics, especially in quantum information theory, and in the idea that the meaning of quantum theory has to do crucially with information. While he could be considered "involved in the development" in the sense of providing constructive criticism and appraisal, I'd say his involvement in that way should be taken as a sign of the seriousness with which a solid philosopher has taken the theory. His papers are not primary sources of the QBist approach itself. Note that I consider myself sympathetic to quantum Bayesianism, perhaps even an unorthodox quantum Bayesian. MorphismOfDoom (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MorphismOfDoom (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep The Jaeger source alone is enough to establish notability by the general notability guideline; and I have added two more independent sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How large is the mention in the Jaeger source? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 170-179 are entirely devoted to Quantum Bayesianism. You can view them in Google Books. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepIt has been shown by a simple search on http://www.scholar.google.com for the title of this article that this article meets notability criteria and does not meet pseudoscience or spam criteria. 129.2.129.220 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "scholar" link at the top of this page performs the search for you. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks.129.2.129.220 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is at least significant enough to merge with Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics lws (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete and merge is applicable, due weight in an article and notability are separate issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC “delete and merge” is forbidden for copyright reasons, we'd have to leave at least a redirect behind so that non-admins can see the revision history of the content merged into the other article. (And right now Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics is just a list, having only one of them expanded would be weird.) ― A. di M. 01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case where the Snowball Clause is applicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snowball_clause

"If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." 129.2.129.145 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate. Also as I noted the first result from google scholar is not independent. Most of the results from google scholar are in arxiv and not published. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of the sources are independent and reliable to satisfy the notability criteria. They don't all have to be. RockMagnetist (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With a slightly different search term (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) you find many more sources. --Lambiam 20:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a general google search, we were speaking of google scholar. Also note WP:GOOGLEHITS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look properly at the links provided by Lambian. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off wiki canvassing Note that a large amount of off wiki (I saw this on ##not-physics on freenode) canvassing and organising is taking place:

" <jakr> lbovard, did Fuchs only email the three you told me or more? < lbovard> jakr: he e-mailed about 15 people" IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an interesting idea that deserves a wiki, there's a small but quality literature on it, and it's notable. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Really no content to merge besides a result--and merged where? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 27

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

Not notable; fails WP:EVENT. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly fails WP:EVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. it is standard sports coverage and stats, non notable, nothing to demonstrate significance, lasting effect, or what makes this even notable.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unsourced article makes no attempt to explain why this event is encyclopaedic, so fails WP:NOT.Mt king ^(edits) 08:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clarly passes WP:EVENT and WP:MMAEVENT due to lasting encyclopedic significance due to undeniable notability of this event. Consistent with what Wikipedia is. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One page of results on Sherdog ≠ "encyclopedic significance due to undeniable notability". Do you have some other reason to believe it's notable? bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:FIVEPILLARS ("It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias..." - my emphasis), something covered in an actual published printed encyclopedia that devotes multiple prose paragraphs beyond just results to each event is by definition encyclopedic. The results of this event moreover are not merely covered on Sherdog; indeed other sites provide detailed reviews of the event (for example, here), and even more importantly they are discussed again in prose paragraphs in published books demonstrating their ongoing significance to the history of the notable fighters who participated on this card: [8], [9], etc. To suggest that this event is not encyclopedic is frankly absurd and reflects a lack on knowledge/familiarity with this subject matter and how to research/look for sources per WP:BEFORE. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "UFC Encyclopedia" is not an independent source and having notable fighters doesn't make the event notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Astudent0 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see that meets WP:SENSE. This event is so obviously notable, having to defend it is akin to having to convince someone that we breathe oxygen! Your non-argument is entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it is an insult to anyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Historical aspects of the event are important (over 10 years ago), but probably would be better served in a "2000 in UFC events" article merged from all the events in that year. In addition article needs at least one cited statement in order to qualify. Article has been on WP for 6 years. Deletion is not the answer Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of lasting notability as per WP:EVENT. The little text that supplements the fight results talks doesn't show why this fight card was notable. There weren't even any championship fights. If there was an omnibus article like Hasteur mentioned, this article could be put there. Astudent0 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be sure to actually read the individual articles under discussions. You are spamming the same inaccurate copy and paste delete votes across MMA related AfDs. The event was one from the most significant promotion in the world, featuring a hall of fame fighter in the main event, and is covered in detail in a printed published encyclopedia. It has been released for home viewing as well. Something available for home viewing is timeless until all copies of it are destroyed. It played an important role in the history of the world's most notable MMA promotion and the career of legendary fighters, enough to be one of only a handful of MMA events actually covered in a printed encyclopedia. The day we don't cover what is in printed encyclopedias is the day Wikipedia ceases to be a serious project. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article--you might want to read the policies. The print encyclopedia you keep referring to is the "UFC Encyclopedia", hardly an independent source. It's unclear how I'm spamming when your link shows that I've been in the minority 0% of the time. I didn't even know such a program existed--that's pretty impressive for someone who's only been editing for 2 weeks (unless of course you're one of the many MMA sockpuppets we see). Astudent0 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly passes any and all Wikipedia policies. Given that your account's entire history consists of nothing more than saying to delete MMA related articles, you're obviously somebody's sock or meatpuppet. It seems you and the same few accounts have spammed/vote stacked just about every MMA related discussion over the past few months without doing anything actually useful or demonstrating any actual knowledge of the topics themselves. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per above. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not a reason for deletion, especially when wrong. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sliva

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

I can't find any sources about this battle, and the one reference is decidedly vague. Searching inside this source from its Google Books entry reveals no matches for either "battle" or "Sliva" (though I realise this isn't the most reliable metric). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be an important historical event, one of the two which ended the Macedonian 1903 uprising and the Krusevo Republic. I found the Macedonian interwiki, added a reference in Macedonian (as a Russian speaker, I understand what is in the article I referenced to), and there are clearly more sources available.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post the reference here? It doesn't matter if it isn't in English. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mn.mk/istorija/4664 --Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus site:http://www.mn.mk is extreme nationalistic and biased POV - source. We need a reliable reference. Jingiby (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant, but if you want, well - http://www.tourmacedonia.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141&Itemid=257 , http://star.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=56961&idg=3&idb=783&rubrika=Makedonija , http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/?ItemID=A0C6573181C5F344930EF2ADE95361EA , http://www.promacedonia.org/ilpr1968/ilpr1968_3.html (note that they just reprint a book), http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/?ItemID=0D78321957D31546ADB27AC52E71AC56 --Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Krushevo Republic . No reliable sources. Biased POV. Not significant. The IMRO was Bulgarian organization. Jingiby (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about Bulgarians vs Macedonians frictions, or Macedonians vs Greeks, but the book I added to the article is a reliable source. If you are not happy with the sources, please find ones yourself or/and work on the article if you think it is non-neutral.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources you provided above - they prove that this event did actually happen, if I am reading the Google translations correctly. Unfortunately, I can't seem to access the page of the book you reference - would you mind providing a short quotation from it that shows the nature of its coverage about the battle of Sliva? This will be a great help in deciding whether this particular battle is notable enough to have its own article, I think. Sorry about all the trouble. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can not access all pages of the book, but from what I understand, this part describes a monument (a crypt) which has memory plates devoted to important events of Macedonian history. One of the events is "Sliva". The quotation is "There are two places which contribute their particular symbolic power to the crypt. <...> Sliva, on the other side of the town, was where the ceta of Todor Hristov, also referred to as Todor the Officer, was wiped out by the Ottoman army. Whereas Pitu Guli's men were mostly villagers, Todor Hristov's ceta was composed of townspeople. <...> These two events of the story combine to give Sliva particular prominense in Krusevo itself, even though the story of Meckin Kamen is better known in the country at large." The event is dated as 1903, so that it must be the same as in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it is not disputed that this battle occurred, nor that it is notable. It may need cleanup, addition of extra sources, or other actions, but none of these actions require deletion or a deletion debate. Let's get away from our WP:Systemic Bias, people ! Just because this is little known to the English-speaking world doesn't mean we should shunt it away ! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this because I was not sure from the reference listed, or from my searches online, that this battle had actually occurred at all. Its occurrence and notability were both very much in dispute. Still, I see that enough coverage exists for it to pass the notability guidelines, so I am withdrawing my nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does appear to be notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice toward an article on the subject of the film Night of the Living Dead:Resurrection. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead (2012 film)

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

The page was proposed for deletion. Author removed the notice indicating that he objected. Article does not meet criteria for notability for films and especially for future, incomplete and undistributed films. No indication at all of notability in the text. Only citation is to the production company's announcement of their intent to remake the classic 1968 film in 3D. Web search found no mentions other than repeats of that announcement in blogs. Article is not encyclopedic. DocTree (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it's been semi-retitled Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection. I'll try seeing what sources I can find under this title.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different director... so I'm not sure if it's supposed to be the same film or not, but it looks like it. [10]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say though, there appears to be more than enough sources for the Resurrection remake to have it pass WP:NFF at this point in time. If no one has an issue with it, I'd like to revamp this article to focus on the movie that's actually releasing in 2012. To be honest, most of what I'm seeing for Stevenson is that he'd like to make the film and that production was set to start in October, but nothing to show that production actually started. Considering that another film he was working on at the time (Last Broadcast) was suffering from severe setbacks about the time he was stating he wanted to remake NOTLD, I'm thinking that this film is probably suffering from the same issues. I know that this doesn't automatically mean the film isn't going to be made or that it isn't in production, but this usually ends up being the case. I'm thinking that the Stevenson film would be best served as a mention on the main article page for the NOTLD movies and if/when his remake actually sees the light of day, it can have an article for itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The horror-movies.ca link above gives Matt Cloude as the name of the director of Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection. IMDb has yet another name: James Plumb (Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection at IMDb). Is there any reliable source? Without an RS, this is all speculation we should not report on. --Lambiam 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTLD - Resurrection" and "NOTLD (2012 film)" are NOT same. "Resurrection" was actually produced in the UK and a USA distribution agreement has been signed. "(2012 film)" might be produced someday in the future by a group calling themselves House of Blood Productions http://www.houseofbloodproduction.com/ in Vermont, USA. DocTree (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searches combining the purported production house "Loyal's House of Blood Production" and the title "Night of the Living Dead", the only things I can find are sources speaking about the project being announced in June 2011 on the production's own website for a planned October 2012 release, and a lite smattering of blog traffic.[11] Considering the popularity of the original film, you'd almost expect that there would be more. But nope. I'd love to be prove wrong, but best evidence shows this topic failing WP:NFF for being unreleased, and WP:NF for lack of coverage or verifiability. Even IF it can be determined that the non-3D, and otherwise sourcable[12] film Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection has a relationship to this 2011 "announcement", we can still scrap the WP:SPS-sourced "announcement" stub and build a new article on the new and deserving title in any case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This nonexistent and may-never-exist film lacks coverage from reliable, secondary sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mele

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

An actor for two years. His roles include a bar patron, store manager, man with hairlip, wedding guest, male shopper and Rob. They appear to be just bit parts. Fails WP:NACTOR. Unable to find any reliable reference that talks about him. Prod was removed because "I removed the Tag due to not being an extra but an actor. He has lines in those movies. I seen the clips on IMDb". Previous AfD is about a different person. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's got one role where his character actually has a name rather a description, and that's in an upcoming short. Wikipedia is WP:NOTIMDB. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You do not understand that having a description doesnt mean no lines. He has lines in The We and THe I and Transaltantic Coffee and more. 24.191.185.23 (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If these are standards then all the actors in the We and the ! dont qualify as these people dont

Bruce_Ornstein Jeff_Keilholtz Donté_Bonner Jasmine_Dustin Regine_Nehy Laura_Nativo Kriav (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate those other actors for deletion, please feel free to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another industry website that talks about him and principal roles and not IMDb http://www.actorsconnection.com/about.php?category=stories&i=1884 Kriav (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is signed "Joe Mele, February 2012" - not a reliable independent source. Peridon (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked through that list. Can't see much reason for any of them to have articles unless someone can come up with proper references. Not too sure even then... BTW It's not so much having lines as having good coverage in reliable independent sources, and parts like (fictional example) Third Footman, who gets to say "You, your lordship" and "I'm sorry, your lordship, but the butler has just sunk in the lake" don't tend to get covered the way that the players of major roles do. Peridon (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to nominating most or all of them soon. Although Jasmine might qualify under WP:HOTTIE. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Article is not signed Joe Mele. That information comes the Casting director. Harley Kaplan. You do not know how actors connection operates. Kriav (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then. Please explain how it does work. And even if it does come from Kaplan, it's still not an independent source because Kaplan is involved in the thing. It's not independent. Peridon (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the casting director, he makes those decisions. your requirement for independence from a person that is involved in the decision is overly restrictive. Generals that talk about their campaign choices are disqualified under this. Kriav (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be over restrictive - but it's the rule currently in force. If you'd seen some of the things we do - like an article written about a multi-national group that turned out to exist only on its own website (and in someone's imagination...) - you might understand why we are restrictive. I've even found someone creating two online newspapers to back up an article that at best could be described as "what I did one weekend". Those of us who work in the 'deletion department' do like to save articles. We're not chain saw maniacs (possibly when off duty and in our own gardens, but that's another matter) aiming to cut everything down. You would agree that Wayne Shurtarz wouldn't merit an article for his part of Man in Bar in The Life and Times of Ephraim Snodgrass (running time 7 minutes - showing now on YouTube - Budget $46.58) - his only acting role (and he didn't even need to act...). I hope you would, anyway. That's one extreme. Tom Cruise is at the other extreme. There has to be a line, and things have to be referenced reliably. As it's our field, 'reliably' is by our definition. As to generals, a book written by a general couldn't establish his own notability as a general (but if it sold enough and was widely reviewed might be part of notability as a writer instead). Look at WP:RS (our policy on reliable independent sources). Look at WP:NACTOR (Notability of Actors). Come up with some things RS that fit NACTOR and we'll happily !vote Keep. You may note that while I'm stirring things, I haven't !voted. Yet. These AfDs usually last a week, and if the deletion does take place, you can always ask for a review if evidence turns up late. Just contact me or most admins and tell us what you've found. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just having a line in a notable film is not enough to establish an actor as notable. I see that the subject has a role in the soon-to-be-released film The We and the I, which I suspect is a notable film as it was directed by the acclaimed director Michel Gondry. However, it is not clear to me that Mele's role in the film is a major one. The article can be re-created later if Mele is later established as being notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His role is at the top of the list both here and IMDb - "Man with hairlip" (or possibly 'hairclip)'. The article seems to derive largely from IMDb. The rest of the cast are redlinked here, which can be explained by "the project is one that Gondry has been developing for a while now, working with a cast of unknown kids" (Quoted from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1618445/news quoted there from http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/first-look-at-michel-gondrys-the-we-and-the-i-20120425). There seems little info there about the film and what goes on, but three of the 'unknown kids' have parts with names, the others are blanks. As an aside, there appears to be an error in the IMDb cast listing, but it doesn't affect this discussion. One actress appears to be listed under two different versions of her name. I've not worked out which is correct, so haven't sent in a correction. Peridon (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An option was proposed but not accepted: a new name, as OlYeller said, does not change the notability of the article as it stands. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Vision One (EV1)

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

Seemingly non-notable company fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits and no Google News Archive hits. I've gone through pages of a standard Google search and can't find any independent, significant, and reliable coverage. Also fails WP:CORP. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is designed to get information out about Eagle Vision 1. If you do a search for Eagle Vision Military program it come up with numerous articles about the program. If just have to know where to look. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.33.30 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is Eagle Vision a common term? My real question is, is Eagle Vision independent of the company named Eagle Vision One? This would be similar to a product being notable but not every company that uses it. The link you provided shows several sources discussing Eagle Vision but none that discuss Eagle Vision One. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Eagle Vision (satellite system) or similar. While EV1 doesn't get much coverage, the system as a whole is notable. Journal articles[14][15][16] News[17][18] (and starbulletin.com stories which wouldn't load) Official military sources[19] Misc[20][21] NB Eagle Vision is entirely unrelated. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably the best course of action. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move and rescope per Colapeninsula - and posthaste, as the article as it is could reasonably be tagged for G11 speedy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem moving it or changeing the Name of the page. If it can be changed to "Eagle Vision One - EV1 (Commercial Satellite Imagery)" that would work best. Also tagging it as "G11 speedy" i think is uncalled for this is a military organization and there are many others on Wiki that read just like this one. If i could get some help on how to move the page that would be great.

NEW COMMENT: I recommend changing the name to "Eagle Vision One - EV1 (Commercial Imagery)." Before I wrote this, I Googled "Eagle Vision One" and its Wiki page was the 4th result. Bottom line: EV1 Commercial Imagery belongs on Wikipedia, but it should change its name to clarify who it is. I believe the page will get better over time. THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.25.68 (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment: I have added links with in the page to the other Units to which EV1 is attached. If there are further issues with the site could someone tell me how to fix this. EV1 is a military unit and if need be i can show several link to the proof of this unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.l.sims (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENT: Bottom line...What is required to fix this page? Should the title be changed?...What else? PLEASE just show / tell us what to do. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.233.169 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENT: WE, EAGLE VISION ONE, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST HELP MOVING OUR PAGE TO "EAGLE VISION ONE (COMMERCIAL SATELLITE IMAGERY)." WE DONT HAVE ANY LOCAL EDITER THAT HAS THE 'MOVE / TAG' DROPDOWN ACCESS YET, BECAUSE WE ARE SO NEW TO WIKI. THANK YOU AGAIN. (I'm not screaming...just trying to get some help).

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089962 http://www.eucom.mil/article/21035/eagle-vision-wraps-portugal — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.l.sims (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can move the site just do not want to have to start this whole process over again once it is moved. Please advise if it needs to be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.l.sims (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the Page to Eagle Vision One (Commercial Satellite Imagery) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.l.sims (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue isn't with the name of the article. The issue is comes with the apparent lack of notability of the company. The system they use certainly seems notable but the company is not. The merge/move !votes have been made to merge or move the information about the system to a new article, not move the article to a new name. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alamet

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

Non-notable - Hürriyet's news: This product has not been invented no time. The reporter made the wrong news. This is just a short story made by writer Oktan Keleş. It's just a historical fiction. Alamet is not real.

Delete -- Quicklyman (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable automaton at best and at worst fiction. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Automata#Modern_automata per WP:PRESERVE, there seem to be some verifiable sources in Turkish. Diego (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Keep Google news archive search for Alamet and robot shows results. [22] I put them through Google translator[23], and it is talking about this. So it gets coverage. Dream Focus 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A comment - Famous Turkish actor Necati Şaşmaz wanted to make a film about this robot. He thought it was based on historical documents. But was not the case. This is only a story made by Oktan Keleş. Keleş learned of this film was made and he sued to Şaşmaz for copyright Infringement over Alamet's story. And Şaşmaz gave up making this film. Previously Alamet was believed to be real. But now is not so. If Alamet were a reality in science history, Şaşmaz film could do about it. --85.107.92.112 (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With improved references, this article should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: The question is whether this historical robot is verifiable (WP:V), and whether it is notable (WP:N) either as a real robot or as a hoax. The discussion so far has mostly not discussed this seriously. Sandstein 05:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does seem to be some coverage (although I can't tell from Google's mangled translations whether the robot was real or fictional), and someone did seem to be planning to make a film about it. Since the project was scrapped and the sources are so vague about the robot itself, I'd say it isn't notable. Perhaps if someone who can read Turkish could shed some light, it might be salvageable. Or maybe not, considering the page has been created and deleted nine times on the Turkish Wikipedia. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for a standalone article, but perhaps a sentence in some related articles might be appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Skorepa

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

This is an article about an athlete with questionable notability. This article is a sub-stub, which isn't actually a reason to delete it but tends to support the notability concerns. It's also an orphan, which again supports the notability concerns. If Josef ever makes it to the KHL or NHL (or does something significant in Extraliga), then there's no reason that his article couldn't be recreated. I don't see a real compelling reason to have an article on him here now, however. We can barely fill in an infobox for him, currently.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohms Law,

Sumone10154(talk • contribs) nominated this for RM 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC), I made extensive comment including the idea of using it as a test case for accurate naming of BLPs at 01:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC). Why nominate this one, rather than all 732 in the category? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The IIHF ranks the Extraliga as the third-best national league in Europe, ahead of the Elitserien, for which WP:NHOCKEY gives a presumptive pass on Criterion #1. I'm entirely comfortable, therefore, with this being a Criterion #1 pass, since we never assumed that the only pro leagues at the top of the list were the NHL or the KHL. Further, I see that on the Eliteprospects.com website that Skorepa has nearly 200 games in the Czech 1.liga, the country's top minor league, which meets Criterion #3. That this article is a stub does not mean it's unimprovable, and in no event constitutes valid grounds for deletion. Ravenswing 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of this player. I see a couple of Extraliga player articles that do have coverage, and I understand the point about "third-best national league in Europe", but there's a presumption to that criteria that coverage exists somewhere, which doesnt' appear to be true here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Just out of curiosity, where did you look for coverage? A simple directed search on the Czech Google for "Josef Skorepa" + "hokej" returns over 28,000 hits [24] and over 140 unique hits, a pretty good total for a minor-leaguer. While I can't claim to be able to read Czech, the odds that at least two of those hits represent articles discussing the subject in "significant detail" - all that the GNG requires - are good. Ravenswing 02:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can any of that be converted into content here? I think that this hits on an interesting question for Wikipedia in general. I could certainly see a case for an article about him in the Czech Wikipedia, but does that grant an automatic notability to the English Wikipedia?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(blinks) You know that sources need not be in English to count as reliable, yes? I'm asking seriously now: what steps did you take, as WP:BEFORE requires, to assure yourself that no reliable sources for this subject exist before filing this AfD? Ravenswing 03:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's sidestepping the question. I'd like to discuss the issue here, but if you'd rather not then that's ok.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's sidestepping the question at all; it's entirely pertinent. Please do elaborate. Ravenswing 04:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, elaborate on what, exactly? Non-English sources can be reliable. I don't see that I disputed that anywhere, or exactly how it's relevant to this discussion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate on how you ascertained that no sources exist for the subject. It seemed to me axiomatic that a G-search on the Czech Wikipedia would turn them up, and doing so took me about 30 seconds less time than finding out what "ice hockey" in Czech was so as to use it in the search parameters.
As to the question on whether a subject might merit an article in one national Wikipedia but not another, aside from that national Wikipedias develop their own notability criteria, why so? There is nothing about a non-English source that by that fact alone renders it unreliable. Ravenswing 04:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in the Czech Extraliga meets WP:NHOCKEY, i.e., "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league." Rlendog (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY The Steve 04:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ohms Law I didn't "vote" above because I wanted to see what others better informed thought. Seems Mr. Skořepa is notable. But the question I asked you, "Why nominate this one, rather than all 732 in the category" still stands, though I have to assume it was no coincidence but related to the RM Talk:Josef Skorepa. FYI I saw your recent "tell them all to fuck off" comments shared with Fyunck, that's one thing, but this AfD above, and your move of hispanic councilman John Márquez from where's he been 2006 for no other reason than he had a Spanish accent, how is that helping WP? The surname Skořepa shows as Skořepa in English sources in Google Scholar, let alone in Czech ones, and this hockey player is just as notable as many others. Are you going to nominate for deletion any Czech Extraliga player whom someone tries to give a Czech name? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even questionable, tonnes of sources out there. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1970s in science and technology

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

Delete after merging useful content to the appropriate year in science article. There are only three in this series. They are going nowhere and can be covered elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete and merge is impossible given licensing requirements. To do what you want to achieve, you'd have to redirect these to 1970s (or another target), and then add attribution in the respective year articles pointing back to the edit history of the redirect. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As subject matter for articles, these are all reasonable navigational aids and overviews for the more specific per-year articles. That the current text is inadequate is irrelevnt since deletion is not a valid cleanup method. Insofar as this series (including the missing decades) could be cleaned up by someone who cares enough to do so, there is no impending need to delete them before that happens. It would be best to leave a work in progress like this around, and there is no impending need to delete these articles. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that deletion is not permanent. How about putting them in project namespace? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Justin Bieber Twitter account gets its own article and an article about science and technology deemed unencyclopedic. Astounding!!! This could be summarised as a decade.. The article has massive potential!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three. The decade articles should provide overviews of the year articles, and both the decade and year articles encourage readers to browse the encyclopedia. Ideally individual articles like Voyager 1 would link back to the year or decade. What else happened in 1977? In the 1970s? Yes, the text needs to be cleaned up and sources added. That will not be achieved by deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Yes, these articles are not in the best of condition. But it's important to have a big picture overview of overall historical trends and influences in these fields, which this type of article can provide. Perhaps then we should have a Twentieth century in science and technology article instead of the 1970s and 1990s articles? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 70s science and technology was very important, the moon buggy, last moon walk etc. These decades could easily be expanded! Jaguar (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep -- If it weren't that I'm getting too angry at the nom for this sort of disruption, I'd just do it. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Subject matter notability should be obvious. I would have simply closed per DGG but I haven't closed any AFDs before. It doesn't require an admin to see the obviousness of the result, so any regular editor so inclined should feel free to close this. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all three articles – per criteria #1 at the speedy keep page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep-

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I fail to see how the last three decades of technological advancement would not be considered notable.Smallman12q (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep – We obviously encourage redundancy in navigation, and this is a form of it. Just because it's not in good shape right now doesn't mean it's deleteable. AfD is not for cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avalanche keep – if these articles don't belong in an encyclopedia, I don't know what does. Obviously these articles need some work. The 70s article is written like an article while the 90s and 00s are much more like lists. Since there are already yearly lists, I think it would make sense to convert the 90s and 00s lists into articles that highlight the decade's achievements. Boghog (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as per author. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begum Zari Sarfaraz

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

too short for even a stub; no content worthy of retaining. RichardMills65 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dear User:RichardMills65, thank you for your kind notice. I have created this stub today, and it is indeed just v short but I hope to develop over time and make it a good article, as I hope I have done in some previous cases. Most of the work here on Wikipedia is of ongoing nature, and articles are developed slowly and gradually and they all start as stubs. The person ref to in this article, is certainly very notable in Pakistan and as you will see, as the article expands over time. I would strongly ask and support that it be Kept/Retained and given time and opprtunity, please. Newly created stubs deserve to have a fair chance, and some sort of mechanism or time-frame, in my opinion. Sincere rgeards and good wishes, AsadUK200 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]

I owe and apology to all, please, this article seems already to exist and I shall add to that and would like to either Delete this or Redirect. I should have ascertained earlier, once again sorry. AsadUK200 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200[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) →B music ian 00:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GIANTmicrobes

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. A non-notable company. Interesting product though. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a great product. I still have chlamydia, I think, and herpes (got it from a student as a gift)--the other two I gave away already (disclaimer: I am the faculty sponsor of STD). References are found on the article talk page: they do not impress. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Phew. Started reading and then thought "yuk, am I getting infected from my keyboard?". Then I read your disclaimer. Can't be too careful with these things you know. I've got a friend who got a virus from a computer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have added a Reception section with reports in two national newspapers and Wired, which should easily clear the GNG hurdle. Also added some helpful sources under External links. Everyone seems to agree it's a great (fun and educational) product line, too, so maybe other reviewers will now get the bug. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Newsweek to reception. By the way, all the reviewers in the 1st AFD said Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that--but there were no solid arguments and no reliable references until you came along--I searched last night but did not find what you uncovered. I struck my delete for a keep. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs added by Chiswick Chap easily meet notability criteria. Also, these are awesome. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These have been around for several years and widely reviewed and discussed in the geek press, not just the blogosphere. I've also got a couple of medic family members who use them as serious teaching aids, especially with children. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't really have been A7-tagged even in the article's previously unreferenced and trivia-stuffed condition. In its present form (thanks to Chiswick Chap) the article does an adequate job of illustrating non-trivial coverage of the company / products in reliable secondary publications. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any subject whose article is adequately ref'd merits inclusion, AFAIC.Adrigon (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- even Justin Bieber on Twitter? Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true. It has to be adequately referenced and meet the relevant notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin Who? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even with The Sun in there, there are sound refs. Peridon (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of great refs, clearly notable subject. Disavian (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have several too - the Black Death; a Bookworm; the Clap; etc. Warden (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient references at this point. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Abramov

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

Tagged for notability and no refs for 2 and 1/2 years with no improvement. No proof even that this person ever existed. Another user voiced the concern that this is a hoax article. INeverCry 03:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found, most likely a hoax.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed to find any evidence of subject's existence. Even if not a hoax, there is nothing in the article to suggest notability. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was simply no such author in Russia, period. Would have become a cult figure, otherwise. User Chrlieexum who's made up this story featuring a character named Charlie Exum, must be still having a good laugh at our expence. --Evermore2 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program

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

I find it hard to find notability in this. I see no reason to believe that these recycling bins are any different than millions spread thru out the world. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The topic is about the national-level recycling program, not just the bins that are used! Please see my !vote below, in which I have included many reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (from author): The article refers to a program run by the entire U.S. Federal government, not just a bin in a single place, as if being one of millions. There could be perhaps 100 similar articles about national-post recycling programs in other nations. The wp:Notability comes from continued mention (many years) in multiple reliable sources, whereas if the coverage had spanned only 1 year, or 1 source, then that would indicate limited notability. Instead, there are other sources which estimate the energy savings and the reduction of tons of paper which would have gone into landfills, if not recycled by the U.S. program. So, the notability has even increased over the years, and U.S. postal recycling has continued in 2012. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the same could be said about thousands of municipal recycling pick up programs thruout the country. In terms of significance and environmental benefits, I don't see a lot of difference here. The coverage is pretty much routine. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United States Postal Service as proposed way back in April 2009. The greenie in me almost wants to keep it as a standalone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the classic bad merge vote. Where, in USPS, should this material go? The article doesn't have a single section that would be appropriate for this material. Creating a section would be a classic example of undue weight for what is a minor part of what the post office does. As I say to nearly all merge voters, where and how in the target article should this be merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that a merge should only be done it it does not give undue WP:BALANCE and it does seem that it is difficult to ene squeeze in a sentence about the topic into United States Postal Service. A better alternatives is merge with Recycling in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. And I don't support a merge. It is not sufficiently significant content for the main article. Where the material might go is as an example in Paper recycling. Or perhaps we should have an article on Recycling efforts of the US Government and associated entitites DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Merging to Paper recycling is a bit WP:CSBish. Merging to Recycling in the United States is better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is 14,000 ghits. Are you feeling ok... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When you do trivial things on the vast scale of the USPO, they have a tendency to become notable. The referencing already here seems to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A recycling program is hardly notable. There's nothing different between this and a city recycling program. Gsingh (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A national-level recycling program that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This topic passes WP:GNG:

Koch, Wendy (March 1, 2010). "Postal Service: Stop! We'll help you recycle that mail". USA Today. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Hayton, Tasha (March 5, 2010). "Dallas-Fort Worth post offices slowly offering recycling bins". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Herron, Joyce (Acting Postmaster) (March 16, 2009). "Letter: Post office starts recycling program". Columbia Missourian. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Johnson, Jim (February 16, 2010). "USPS expands recycling program to 2,500 additional sites". Waste & Recycling News. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Recycling in post offices increases". American Recycler (newspaper). April 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Bingaman, Brian (January 22, 2010). "Not all post offices on board with USPS recycling program". Montgomery News. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems a notable national scheme different from your average recycling scheme in targetting this specific group: recipients of junk mail at source. But Rename: it looks as if it should be called Read, Respond, Recycle, which seems to be the name of the campaign, or alternatively United States Post Office box lobby recycling program, as it's country-specific. PamD 07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing to keep, primarily because of the USA Today article, which does show national coverage. I support either one of the renames Pam suggested DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Support renaming the article to USPS Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program, as it's referred to by the USPS here, as "Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program". Abbreviating the first part of the title as "USPS" may be functional to prevent the article from having an excessively long title. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

TES Public School

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

Apparent advertisement and copyvio; created by a spamusername account and no actual sourcing - filled with junk like sports scores and dress codes. Orange Mike | Talk 02:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per the usual result for high schools (it seems to be a joint primary and secondary school). The content does leave an awful lot to be desired, though, so I think we should stub it too. I would feel more confident in recommending that it be kept if I could find any actual sources, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up significantly. The usual result for high schools, as noted above, is to keep the article. If this is rewritten as a neutral article and not just text lifted from their website, that will help matters greatly. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AFD is not clean up and per WP:NHS, --lTopGunl (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable high school and no reason to suspect that, with sufficient research, that the necessary sources cannot be found to meet WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Oma Rønnes

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this bassoonist and composer under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, although he certainly exists [25]] Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. one passing mention in gnews is not enough. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene June Finley-McRee

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

Article was deleted in 2010 after WP:PROD for failing notability guideline WP:ARTIST, but re-created by the same editor Christinemhamlin in 2011. The article asserts notability as follows, "Finley McRee’s work is notable for its ability to combine influences as diverse as Marc Chagall, Pablo Picasso and Vincent Van Gogh into works that were distinctly her own", but this not correspond to any of the criteria in the above notability guideline. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree there is no meaningful assertion of notability, and I can't find the significant coverage in independent sources that would demonstrate notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aroshanti

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

I tried to speedy this a couple years ago, it was contested and I forgot about it. Recently came up for me and going over it again it doesn't seem to belong here on WP:N grounds, as well as WP:RS.

Firstly, the creator of the article seems to have a COI as the user name is the same as one of the sources used (the company doesn't seem to have a webpage anymore), and the article certainly sounds promotional. For instance, "Working with MG Music, record label of platinum record selling world musician Medwyn Goodall, Aroshanti released two best selling [...]"

Secondly, the sourcing is all primary record lable save for one dead link and one new-agey magazine that doesn't appear to carry any notability itself. The music itself seems to be a spiritual new-agey thing as well, though that's what I gather from reading as I have no heard it.

Lastly, a google news and web search turned up nothing to help with the notability problem, though primary sources do exist marginally.

To sum up: no good sources and written to be promotional SÆdon ^talk 05:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep it has WP:RS and passes WP:GNG Yash t 101 02:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Miami 2017 (Seen the Lights Go Out on Broadway)

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appear to be enough sources in existence to justify an article, and I will try to add them to the article during the AfD period. (The section paraphrasing most of the lyrics will probably have to go, though.) But at worst, redirect to Turnstiles, the album on which this song originally appeared, per WP:NSONGS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A bold-ish redirect to Turnstiles was reverted with the explanation "disagree re 'non-notable' - read section on 9/11". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The events of September 11th, and Joel's memorable performance of it at the Concert for New York City, have added to the son's signifigance beyond its original release. --Klantry01 (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a policy or guideline to base your "keep" !vote on? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia has articles on a great number of songs by various bands and artists. Whatever the notability bar might be, Miami 2017 has clearly met it, given that it appears on an original album, three live albums (one as the set opener), and has been covered by another band. In particular, the last point is crucial; I believe that Wikipedia policy has always been that a song that has been covered by multiple artists deserves its own page, since it would be redundant to have a detailed section about this song on multiple artist or album pages. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The notability bars are WP:NSONG and/or WP:GNG, which this song does not meet. Yes, other song articles exist. They either meet one (or both) of the guidelines or they should be deleted. Yes, recordings by multiple notable artists secure the assumption of notability. WP:NSONG makes clear: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." The article currently has one reliable source, featuring brief coverage of one performance of the song. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have done some reorganizing of the article and added a few more sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - M90 has added some useful sources. I'm now marginal on it passing/failing GNG or NSONG. Other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Eidolon (apparition)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eidolon (apparition)

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

Verifiable but obscure term from ancient Greek literature. Does not seem to have enough content from multiple, reliable sources to support a separate article. Possible merge to Helen of Troy, Iphigenia, etc. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the content about the Greeks could be merged to another article, but I think the article should be deleted becuase the name is wrong of the title. The article was originally created by Theosophists as a paranormal article but never contained any sources, only later was the ancient Greek terminology added in, which according to another user and what the ancient meaning says has nothing to do with apparitions or the paranormal. GreenUniverse (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- I'm not opposed to merging the content of this article elsewhere in a useful and appropriate way, but User:GreenUniverse's solution of crudely blanking it and replacing it with a redirect to "ghost" is heavy-handed and comes perilously close to being just plain dumb. The ancient Greek word eidolon can sometimes mean "ghost", but in its most memorable and significant uses (such as in the play Helen by Euripides etc.) it did not in fact mean ghost. The fact that this article has two interwiki links to other-language Wikipedias is another indication that this word is really not simplistically equivalent to "ghost" in the way that User:GreenUniverse seems to believe. Furthermore, I find it completely incomprehensible how User:GreenUniverse can repetitiously claim that this is a 100% occultistic article when that's very obviously not the case... AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos you have not checked the full history of the article. The original title of the article was Eidolon (astral double), this is an occult term which is only used in about two books by Theosophists in the early 20th century, not notable. The consensus was to merge that article into the article ghost. I don't know quite whats quite happened here, but suddenly we have a new article titled Eidolon (apparition) I say new.. but not really, this article has been on wikipedia for about two years with no references whatsoever, again it looks like another attempt at an occult article with no references. You say Eidolon in its ancient Greek usage is not equivalent to ghost, - but what you seem to be forgetting is, is that this article is named "Eidolon (apparition)" - This article is about the apparition occult term, not the ancient Greek usage. So if anything the article needs to be renamed. GreenUniverse (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- the article may have started out with a occultistic bent, but origination is not destiny. Most of the rest of what you say doesn't seem to make too much sense, and consists of you tiresomely tediously redundantly monotonously repetitively claiming that the article is somehow supposedly 100% occultistic -- in defiance of the clear and plain fact that it isn't. AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the title - Eidolon (apparition) yet you want to make the page into the ancient Greek usage with has nothing to do with apparitions "(such as in the play Helen by Euripides etc)". Nothing else needs to be said. In other words you want to keep an article with apparitions in the title, but then have on that article nothing about apparitions. Makes no sense at all. That is why the article needs to be deleted. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- your tedious tiresome multiply-reiterated insistence (flying in the face of all evidence directly in front of you) that this article is somehow a 100% occultistic article is getting very old very fast, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make too much sense, and repeating your assertion won't make it come true... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think this is a misplaced dictionary entry. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The convoluted history of this deletion discussion is the result of a history merge; two different deletion discussions were created at about the same time, and they had to be spliced together. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dictionary definition gone astray; no solid evidence that this term is anything more than an inkhorn term of the sort loved by H. P. Lovecraft and his heirs; with an obscure theosophical use thrown in to pad it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough already to make a separate article feasible and certainly more than a dicdef. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Admittedly I only know the term as a concept used in Greek literature but I tidied the place up with lots of references and what I hope are helpful tidbits. My head hurts after doing it though - been years since I took classics! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It started as a dictionary entry, but Panyd has demonstrated that it's much more than that. There's room for improvement, but there's been enough improvement since it was nominated that the delete votes aren't really relevant anymore. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In light of Panyd's work, definitely more than a dictionary definition. WilliamH (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Panyd. Also, next time, ten minutes with any decent academic database and do the WP:BEFORE thing. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just visited the page through the link from H.P. Lovecraft's The Outsider (short story), and was curious about finally learning the meaning of this word, that can also be found in Edgar Poe's poetry (in "Dream-Land", 1844). It may well be an "inkhorn term" as Orangemike puts it, but even if that's the case, I find it useful as a reader to be able to look it up. 1904.CC (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azoteq

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. News archive results are rehashes of the company's own press release, no genuine third-party coverage found. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following, a related contested prod, belongs here.

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as the company's catalog. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt seems to fit aspects of this guideline. The ProxSense article certainly reads like a catalog. Both appear non-notable. Stormbay (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added ProxSense because of how Atmel's page was structured. When I originally wrote Azoteq, it was tagged with needing more links and information. So I wrote in more information and linked Azoteq to Capacitive Touch Technologies. Azoteq also has publications other than self press releases being distributed. Tingyo (Talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandaddy Mimm's

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, apart from a brief mention in Zell Miller's book. Article in its present state seems to be WP:Coatrack promotion for the "Granddaddy Mimm's" line of spirits being sold by his grandson, and the article was apparently created by the head of the distilling company planning to produce them. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from one article in his city paper the St. Petersburg Times. Scopecreep (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stromg delete The article does not meet WP:N or WP:NRVE. coverage in not indepth. No sources other than a single memoir by a former politician. I wish the admin that removed the WP:SPEEDY tag had dug a little deeper. this whole article was written by the CEO of Georgia Distilling Company, Inc. of Milledgeville, GA, mentioned in the last section of the article. This should be nominated for WP:SPEEDY under G:11 WP:PROMO.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An admin pulling a speedy tag doesn't mean it is or isn't notable, it only means that it doesn't meet the strict criteria allowing it to be speedy deleted, ie: deleted without discussion. The criteria WP:CSD is limited intentionally, to prevent deleting too much without bringing it here first. They don't research so much to see if it is "notable", only to see if it qualifies under this narrow criteria, and otherwise, it should come here. We aren't in a hurry, and if it isn't notable, it won't be around for more than one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched every possible way to search his name and nicknames as well as Georgia Distilling Company, Inc, and other possibly related terms, particularly in the books section of google, knowing I would find something, but found exactly nothing. I can't find a searchable copy of Zel Miller's book online to even verify the one source in the article (which isn't significant coverage anyway), although that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. In the end, I just can't see a case for verifying or establishing notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stuttgart, Arkansas#Healthcare. Nobody appears to object to that. Sandstein 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttgart Regional Medical Center

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

Delete. Not notable organisation and SPAMish. It was changed to a redirect after I had requested a speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect to Stuttgart, Arkansas#Healthcare. I have already merged the info to that page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capture Assistant

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability; created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Leader

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

The article is about a Sri lanka based newspaper. Its website is down and there's no indication that the newspaper is currently in circulation. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being defunct is not a valid reason to delete. If the newspaper was notable it still is notable. —Al E.^(talk) 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the several publications of Leader Publications (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka. The Sunday Leader is their major publication. This paper, Morning Leader doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria either. A Google search verifies that fact. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I couldn't understand what is actually in the mind of Astronomyinertia. Initially he is coming out the reason for nomination is - "....No indication that it is currently in circulation" and when Phil Bridger is raising his objection he is jumping into a different reason. That reason is also not valid since under one group there can be many broadsheets and tabloids and they all can be qualified as separate Wikipedia articles whether they are in existence or defunct.Sudar123 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - The source showing is sufficient to support the stub, in my estimation.~~ Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sunday Leader. Two editions of essentially the same publication. Needs to be retitled, probably. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:N for a Sri Lankan Newspaper.It was founded Lasantha Wickramatunge and is part of the Leader Publications (Pvt) Ltd. It has received international coverage from Reporters Without Borders ,CPJ,BBC amongst others which is notable for Sri Lankan newspaper.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Genie

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

Article does not signify the product's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. I also submitted a speedy delete request for A7 (it's web-based software, so not sure whether that qualifies as 'unremarkable web content' or not.) In case it doesn't get speedy deleted, deleting it through this venue works just as well...JoelWhy (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no 3rd party references, no indication of notability for this software, created by an SPA as possible spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I do think that criteria 5 makes no sense as to why it shows notability. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra (band)

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

I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria #5 is "Has released two or more albums on a major label...", which applies to them. You can't find much these days because they were active 1973-1977. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with withdrawing if you can source it. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the two albums on Capricorn Records:

Hydra

Land of Money

and a third one on a minor label:

Rock the World

Plus there is a recent one on a minor label. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le Group

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

Italian clothier. Not able find references about this outfit; does not appear to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing really coming up on Google. Lots of hits mentioning the shop in passing but not really an awful lot ABOUT the shop/business itself. Maybe one day, but not notable right now. Mabalu (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved, and can be kept now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Marinas

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

SPAM article about a non-notable company. Of no encyclopaedic value. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having been raved at for calling David, the author a spammer, I dare not use the word here. Indeed David's COI may actually be limited to the fact that he keeps his boat at one of their sites. But I still say delete - no attempt made to demonstrate notability. David probably cannot try "other stuff exists" - how many other marina companies have articles? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM". Sorry Monty Python.

. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been copy-edited to minimize promotional tone. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have asked for guidance, none is forthcoming, I have to disagree with the 'no attempt to demonstrate notability comment', I have included as referrence an article from the Yacht Harbour Association (an independent body) discussing the award of Gold Anchors to a number of Marinas operated by Premier, also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Village_%28marina%29 for an wiki article regarding another unconnected marina, I feel that your approach to content is completely subjective is damaging to the objective of Wikipedia as an open platform that requires new contributors in order grow. --Dcbreeze (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments and guidance both, I have added further references from established boating publications featuring Premier Marinas --Dcbreeze (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article has been copy edited to minimize promotional tone. This topic passes WP:GNG:

Significant coverage:

"Premier marinas keep Gold Anchors". Boating Business. September 1, 2005. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Campbell, Stewart (May 9, 2007). "Team Premier competes in '24 Peaks Challenge'". Motor Boats Monthly. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Premier celebrates 30th Used Boat Show". Boating Business. September 1, 2009. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Premier launches berthing commissions scheme". Boating Business. December 1, 2009. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Premier to launch Gosport dry stack". Boating Business. May 4, 2010. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Further accolades for Premier with'Five Gold Anchors' in the Yacht Harbour Association's Gold Anchor Scheme". British Marine Federation. March 1, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Nineham, Laura (March 30, 2012). "Open days at Premier's south coast marinas". Yachting and Boating World. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Melotti, Robert (April 12, 2010). "Premier sells brokerage business to Ancasta". Yachting Monthly. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Coverage beyond a passing mention:

Petit, Marchand (October 21, 2000). "Investment that's a shore thing". The Telegraph. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Innovative Dredging Project Improves Access". Maritime Journal. July 1, 2004. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find refs for companies so it is easy to say they pass WP:GNG. Doesn't mean they should have a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic also passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Alan and RHaworth, we have demonstrated that the article complies with WP guidelines on promotional content and that Premier Marinas pass the WP guidance on notability. I have yet to see any genuine justification for your continued negative input. Of course it is easy to find articles on notable companies (that is the point), are you in fact saying that companies, notable or not have no place on WP? In which case I suggest that you submit a case to the relevant authorities for the removal of all commercial organisations from WP, I suspect that you will find that you don't get very far, as companies and businesses are a reality and have an impact and influence on real people in the real world, so excluding them will leave a huge hole in the objectives and purpose of WP. So can I also suggest that you stop trying to create a walled garden of WP based on your own subjective opinion of other peoples contributions and start contributing some notable and objective content yourself.--Dcbreeze (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet the spirit of what WP is or the sentiment of WP:NOT. Allowing articles to be created under the notablity guidelines would mean that, taken to its limit, there would be 100,000s of article on companies watering down WP into virtually a business directory.

You also are putting up the fallacious argument of "all or nothing" with regard to the inclusion of companies. I am not saying or suggesting that we purge all articles about companies from WP. Some companies are well and truly notable . Microsoft is one example.

As for you comments about my subjectivity and the suggestion that I "start contributing some notable and objective content" they hold no weight since you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is and you quite obviously have not done an analysis of my contributions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dcbreeze, the primary issue at hand is that the article, as written, does not demonstrate why the company is notable. The article is written more like a brochure, which is almost certainly the reason behind the delete votes above. There seems to be decent amount of sources, which would help satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, but the sources are merely a list in the reference section. They are not necessarily used to support the text in the article. I suppose they establish the fact that this company exists, but there's a larger burden for inlcusion in WP. If you're going to change anyone's mind regarding whether or not this article should be kept, I would suggest that you A) focus on adding material to the article that demonstrates why this company is notable, and B) adding inline citations to support this (and the previously existing) material. None but shining hours (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let the article be modified and fixed.Marikafragen (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the 'Spirit' of WP with what you wish WP to be, they may be different. I dont think you could say that the PM article is in anyway promotional or a brochure, great effort has been taken to ensure it isn't, it is simply descriptive of company that is notable in the sailing community and operates a number of facilities that are already listed on WP. So MS is a notable company if you are interested in Software, agreed, however Premier Marinas is notable if you are interested in keeping boats on the South Coast of England, why is one of higher value than another? unless of course you are being subjective.--Dcbreeze (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of this post, the article has been expanded and more inline citations have been added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on its current form. The article is well sourced with reliable sources, not overly promotional (maybe a bit peacock, but it's not advert), meets WP:CORPDEPTH, and is well-written. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after massive improvements by User:Northamerica1000. It sure is hard to argue with that guy! The Steve 04:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rplan

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

No 3rd party sources, written like an ad. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability for this software, created by an SPA as possible spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree on the WP:SPA and no refs found even when searching Internet. Does it even meet WP:GNG? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in My Head (song)

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

Non-notable song. I didn't find coverage and it didn't chart. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Weak Delete. This should be merged with Nick Lachey and/or merged with an article featuring singles written and/or performed by Nick Lachey. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Yogan

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

Objected to prod. Junior player who has yet to play professionally or otherwise achieve notability or meet WP:NHOCKEY. The objector mentioned he received press for being the first Floridian drafted. But that would just be a case of WP:BLP1E. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sufficient sources in the article now to indicate sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. While some of that coverage is the result of being the first Floridian drafted, we do not deem being drafted WP:BLP1E for 1st round picks. And in any cases, several of the articles about Yogan in the article precede the event of his being drafted. And there is coverage for him resulting from his signing a pro contract, winning OHL player of the week, and his scoring 2 goals in his pro debut. While the latter items on their own may not necessarily be sufficient to indicate notability, they do represent further coverage beyond the event of being drafted, further invalidating the BLP1E argument. And the Hartford Courant article about his joining the Whale is a full length article about him, which would be an indication towards notability even without the draft coverage. Rlendog (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We consider draft coverage to most definitely be a case of BLP1E as well as WP:ROUTINE. First round picks being notable is because we assume they have articles outside their just being drafted. Signing the pro contract and a passing mention of winning a player of the week award or getting a goal in your first game also are all WP:ROUTINE coverage as well since every player would receive that coverage. That isn't even mentioning that most of the references on that page are blogs or press releases. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction reports of being drafted or being signed are WP:ROUTINE. But Yogan received several full length articles about him. Those are not WP:ROUTINE. Some of those preceded his getting drafted; the full length Fox News article doesn't even mention the draft other than to note his Central Scouting Rating several months before the draft. You say that 1st round draft picks are assumed to "have articles outside their just being drafted"; well, 4th round picks like Yogan aren't "assumed" to have them but Yogan himself does. Some stories about him were coincident with his being drafted - not routine coverage saying "Yogan was drafted in the 4th round" but full length stories about Yogan at the time he was drafted. At least one was when he signed his pro contract - most players don't get such an article but Yogan did. Some of the coverage Yogan received upon signing his pro contract was routine, e.g., this or this. But the full length profile he received around that time here is not routine coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The March 22 2012 Hartford Courant article about Yogan is not a blog. Nor are the February 10, 2010 or June 21, 2010 (pre-draft) Sun-Sentinel articles about Yogan. Not is the March 26, 2010 Palm Beach Post article about Yogan a blog. And even blogs by staff writers on papers like the Miami Herald or the Daily News qualify as reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The The Peterborough Examiner story about him not related to the NHL draft I just added is also not a blog. It was inspired by a trade, which in itself is a transaction not indicative of notability, but the full length story about Yogan inspired by the trade is indicative of notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A local paper having an article about the new addition to the team is the definition of a routine article. Now if say Edmonton (completely random city) had an article about him being added to the Petes then that would be an article that showed some notability. But local articles about routine things like new players being added to the local team do not show much notability. Blogs of staff writers don't necessarily qualify as reliable because they don't go through the same quality checks that the actual articles do. This is why we don't generally use blogs to establish notability. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a local story about a new addition to the team by itself is not "much" notability. But it is some evidence of his notability, especially since not all players added to teams get full length stories about them. What would be routine would be if the paper had a few lines stating that the Petes traded a couple of draft picks for Yogan and perhaps a sentence or two of background. And the Peterborough article is just one of several non-blog articles in the article that are entirely or primarily about Yogan. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He apparently attracted additional coverage back in 2007 when he became a rare player to join the OHL out of Florida. [26] I know there was another story about this that I saw a while back but can't find it now. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet the GNG. --Hockeyben (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wreggitt

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

Not a notable person Nasnema Chat 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Really tricky. Article does not establish notability and lacks content: not even clear which HoF he is supposed to be in (I can't find him). On the other hand, there are some gnews hits which suggest that he could be notable, but these are behind paywalls. Difficult also as Lacrosse is generally badly covered on WP. Tigerboy1966 21:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help... Dru of Id (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Wikipedia

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

Non-notable web site. There are third-party citations, but they are all in Hungarian. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quote from WP:NOTE: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." (my emphasis). The Hungarian Wikipedia is widely reported about in Hungarian. See some of the news coverage specific to the Hungarian Wiki since 2008 and 2004-2007. These include many reliable secondary sources such as the Hungarian national TV and national newspapers. The article can be much improved, including improving referencing, but notability is established. --ELEKHH^T 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. Beyond that, there seems that "Wikipedia studies" is a minor growth industry in academia and it really is about time for Wikipedians to start taking their own history seriously. So Bravo to the creator of this one. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is perfectly appropriate for Meta. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep wait since when did 3rd party citations have to be in english? --KarlB (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response They don't have to be, but how can I know if a source is reliable or credible if I can't understand it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use google translate or ask a Hungarian speaking Wikipedian, before nominating for deletion. --ELEKHH^T 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asinine (silly to the point of being stupid, or stupid to the point of being silly) rationale from nominator, meriting sanctions. Satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwinds Symphonic Band

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

A bit promotional and no established notability. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND. There are some newspaper articles listing upcoming concerts, but such coverage is explicitly inadequate to establish notability. (There is a Georgia band with the same name, so some Google News archive results are false hits.). Are any of the musicians independently notable? If 2 of them are notable musicians that would appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Edison (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Pavel Pepperstein

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

Biographical info is copied directly from source word for word which is a copyright violation.

Subject may not meet criteria for notability. INeverCry 19:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist has been shown at the Venice Biennalle, "one of the highlights" according to an Art in America review, is described as "acclaimed" as an artist and an author of "best selling novels" in the Guardian. I've added these references to the article (and cleared out the large quotation from a Frieze review which was effectively a Copyvio); all in all these multiple sources are sufficient evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in major contemporary art magazines and national newspaper. More here:[27][28] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No clear consensus for redirection, so that remains an editorial decision. Sandstein 04:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4'-Hydroxy-5,7-dimethoxy-8-methylflavan

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

A search of the chemical literature shows that this chemical compound has been mentioned in only one scientific paper. (Ali, et al. Chromones and flavans from Pancratium maritimum. Phytochemistry (1990), p 625-627). The paper merely describes this compound as one of many isolated from Pancratium maritimum. As such, this compound is completely unremarkable and has generated zero scientific interest since it was first reported over 20 years ago. There is nothing more to say about this compound than the simple fact that it has been identified in one plant. Web searches turn up listings (here, here) in autogenerated chemical databases, but do nothing more than confirm that this chemical exists. As such, this topic completely fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chemical compounds, no matter how little has been written, should be automatically be notable as soon as they are mentioned in even one study report. Significance can occur at any time and such an article is an asset to the encyclopedia even with such little content. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over 100 million chemical compounds known. Do you think it is reasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on any one of them, or every one of them? I think we must draw a line somewhere between what we include and what we don't and the general notability guideline is the consensus on where to draw that line. Suggesting that all chemicals are somehow inherently notable is contrary to that consensus. ChemNerd (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this is has in fact been mentioned in a notable scientific journal even if it was 20 years ago. It is fine, it provides decent and to the point info as well and that is enough for me. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect ~~per Hghyux. Chemicals are inherently notable in my opinion, especially those formed naturally.~~ Redirect to Pancratium maritimum SÆdon^talk 21:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:GNG, multiple sources (ideally secondary sources, not primary sources like research papers) are generally expected to establish notability. There is no policy that chemical compounds are an exception to this rule (nor is there any particular reason to have such an exception). The whole point of the notability guideline is that our personal opinions are not the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia; rather, something is notable if reputable sources agree that it is such. A single academic paper does not establish notability—the question is, did the paper withstand the test of time to be accepted as correct and noteworthy in its scientific field, as evidenced by being cited (approvingly) and its conclusions (or in this case, the chemical) used repeatedly over time by other papers. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the point of a notability guidelines is that our personal opinions don't matter. Guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are reflective of community norms and consensus, but they don't dictate it. WP:5P trumps all else, and last on the list is of course "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." You are right that there is not much in the way of sourcing here, but a stub on a chemical has the potential to be beneficial. The lack of information conveys exactly that: there is not a lot of info on the subject. If some chemistry nerd happens upon the article and it sparks interest in research then H!, it will have been worth the 1kb in server space. We have nothing to gain by deleting it, and maybe nothing to gain by keeping it, but there's at least the potential that spreading this information could lead to something good and from a perspective of utiliy the latter makes more sense. SÆdon^talk 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - not all compounds are automatically notable. This is about as obscure as they come. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, to me it seems odd that all high schools are inherently notable but the actual mathematical foundations of the universe aren't. But that's WP! :) SÆdon^talk 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a broad perspective, Wikipedia guidelines for notability are inherently based on how many people have heard about a topic. The WP:GNG merely makes the evidence confirmable beyond a reasonable doubt. Any given high school will likely be known about by potentially hundreds of thousands of people, if you include family, friends, and so forth. I'm going to be bold and predict that the number is somewhat lower for this compound. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it has only been mentioned in one publication, it appears to fail WP:N. There is no inherent notability for every possible arrangement of C, H and O atoms in a molecule. Edison (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not clear that anything is really known about this compound, other than that it is made my a particular flower. Might reasonably be redirected to Pancratium maritimum. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Edison. We shouldn't have a separate article for each possible compound any more than for each possible arrangement of Lego bricks. Possibly could be merged with some list of possible compounds of which it is a member. lws (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pancratium maritimum. The Steve 06:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Rare Coin Wholesalers

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

Delete. Non-notable company and SPAMish. Half the article is not actually about the company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Alan Liefting. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The non relevant half of the article should be deleted or shown to be connected to Rare Coin Wholesalers. Could the remainder be rewritten in a more neutral vein? There appears to be some notability. Stormbay (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would that notability be? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 2nd paragraph points toward a notable presence in the rare coin business. The article needs a fairly major do-over but that means work, not deletion. The "advertisement feel" of the piece can be changed if sufficient notability exists. Stormbay (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific as to what part of WP:N the second paragraph is relevant? IMO the rest of the material in the article can go in the Flowing Hair dollar and Brasher Doubloon articles, at least whatever information is not already in them. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the material that is relevant could be merged and a redirect applied. I'm done with the discussion. Cheers! Stormbay (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See my comments above. I've checked some more sources. Rework the article but keep it for the notability.Stormbay (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is one of three numismatic companies challenged by the same editor. One of these is a good challenge (the dot-com), one of these is a bad challenge (Littleton Coin Co.), and about this one honest people may differ... There are a handful of really big numismatic firms like Bowers and Merena Inc. (now Stack's-Bowers Numismatics, I see) or Heritage Auctions that would doubtlessly clear the bar. This one? Eh, maybe. I'm a ways out of the numismatics loop these days, hopefully WikiProject Numismatics picks up on this and lends advice. In any event, this one is less certain one way or the other... Carrite (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise - obviously the notability information about the proprietor should be mentioned in the article. Marikafragen (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The key to life is searching the name of the proprietor, Steven Contursi, rather than the generic-sounding firm name. There are copious independent published sources that pop up indicating this is one of the top big-ticket numismatic firms in the country. See, for example extensive coverage of his purchases of the King of Siam set ($8.5M for an anonymous buyer) CHARLESTON DAILY MAIL, 11/2/05, VIA AP, the 1794 Dollar (sold for $7.85M, footnote in article or AP ACCOUNT here), and the BRASHER DOUBLOON. Whether this is framed as a bio of a recognized expert and leader in a field of endeavor (Contursi) or as a piece on his company RCW) is pretty much irrelevant — this meets GNG through multiple, published, independent sources... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 22:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by User:Carrite above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Carrite The Steve 06:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Youth

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

Mainly positively written. NPOV violation. WP:SOAP violation. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Another advertising agency advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, advertisement. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Wright2011-1] Wright, Robin (2011). Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World. Simon and Schuster. p. 121. ISBN 9781439103166. Retrieved 19 April 2012.

[1]