Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:24, 19 August 2012

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 August	20 August >

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 keep. WP:SNOW applies, obviously. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kimberlin

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

Brett Kimberlin-Request For Deletion

More than a year ago, a Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia page was deleted after Wikipedia determined that it was a smear job. In the spring of 2012, a group of right wing activists launched a campaign to reinstate the page. They did this, admittedly, as part of a campaign to harm Brett’s reputation, undermine funding for his non-profit organizations, harass him, defame him, and harm those around him.

As a result of this campaign, Brett, since March 2012, has received scores of death threats by phone, email, and other online means. His family, children, and mother have been threatened, including calls and posts to his pre-teen daughter. He has had to call the police several times because of stalkers outside his home. He has filed multiple peace orders against persons who harassed him, and criminal charges against others. His employer has been harassed, his business associates have been harassed, and his donors have been harassed. He has met with numerous state and federal law enforcement officials investigating these threats. Many of the threats against Brett and his family are posted in an article at http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/thugs/swat-swat-question/#more-514

A hive of right wing activists demanded that Wikipedia be pressured to allow a post about Brett. http://topsy.com/patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed/ “Brett Kimberlin got his Wikipedia entry removed -- but we're fighting back!” Once the post was allowed, numerous right wing bloggers bragged about their “big” success in getting the Brett Kimberlin page reinstated on Wikipedia. https://twitter.com/Stranahan/statuses/219306487477059584 “One BIG victory we've all gotten - the Wikipedia Page for Brett Kimberlin still exists.” These bloggers used Wikipedia as part of their Everyone Blog Brett Kimberlin Day, which was a right wing campaign to Swift Boat Brett.

As outlined below, the Brett Kimberlin page should be deleted because it violates many of Wikipedia’s criteria for hosting a page. The Wikipedia text regarding deletions follows each request for deletion below.

First, the page was created in order to smear Brett, harm him and undermine his ability to earn a living. The page is an attack page “created to disparage” Brett. In fact, the right wing activists admitted this in their campaign to get the page reinstated, and have repeatedly tweeted and bragged about the huge propaganda coup they got by having the Wikipedia page reinstated. See e.g., https://twitter.com/Stranahan/status/207877839192727553 “Brett Kimberlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - See that? That's a sign conservatives can win on Wikipedia, too” And they have used their attack Brett blogs to increase the rankings of the page on Google. See e.g., http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/28/brett-kimberlins-wikipedia-page-reappears/

Attack pages

“Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once….”

Second, Brett is not notable under the definition set forth by Wikipedia. He is a living person who, for the past decade, has been the Director of a small non-profit organization, not seeking publicity for himself. His convictions 34 plus years ago were not national news but rather were local events. Brett is not a public figure but rather a private citizen who is working and contributing to his community. In fact, on February 9, 2012, a judge ruled that Brett is not a public figure. Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court Case No. 339254V, Kimberlin . Allen, “ORDER OF COURT (QUIRK, J.) THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECLARE BRETT KIMBERLIN AS A PUBLIC FIGURE RATHER THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN (D.E. #119) IS DENIED, ENTERED. He maintains a low profile by working behind the scenes, not blogging, not commenting, and not tweeting, He is entitled to privacy and respect. People who are relatively unknown “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.” Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects “Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed."

Third, much of the information cited is not reliable, such as information attributed to Mark Singer who Brett sued for defamation and breach of contract, and who settled the case in a manner agreed to by Brett. Other information cited from the Indianapolis papers is not reliable because much of that information was determined by a judge to be unreliable and inadmissible in court. Information about the civil suit is unreliable because the judge in the case, Michael Dugan, solicited a bribe from Brett’s lawyer and was convicted of taking bribes and sent to prison for 18 years. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/18/460/531288/ Information from Brett’s trials is unreliable because it involved the use of hypnosis on six witnesses, which has since been banned in all criminal cases in the United States. The information about swatting is unreliable because Brett had nothing to do with any swatting, has cooperated fully with the FBI, and those false allegations were made only to smear Brett by pushing them into the mainstream media in order to get them placed in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Persons accused of crime “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.”

Fourth, right wing activists have used the information in the article for sensationalism and tabloid journalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and cannot be used as a vehicle to harm people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, “and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.”

Fifth, the page is not balanced at all by focusing on crimes, smears and scandal. Brett’s life is much more, yet reading the page makes it appears that he has led a life of crime. Brett has not been arrested for anything for more than 30 years, and he has been engaged in positive activities as well as being a husband, father, and upstanding member of the community. He has been victimized by these vicious right wing attacks, including by stalking and death threats. This Wikipedia page only adds to the victimization by providing a reputable source for stalkers and others to attack Brett. Avoid victimization “When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.”

Sixth, there is guilt by association with regard to the swatting matter. No one has suggested that Brett did the swattings, but rather that someone associated with him did them, and therefore Brett is somehow guilty by association. But none of these allegations has been based on any evidence whatsoever, but rather only the conspiratorial coincidences as seen by people who want to harm Brett. The allegations about swatting are worse than gossip, because they are totally false and part of a campaign to smear and harm Brett, his family and his business. No information should be published regarding allegations of swatting. Swatting is a serious criminal offense and there is no evidence of Brett’s involvement in it, and certainly he has never been arrested or convicted of such an offense. Persons accused of crime “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.”

Avoid gossip and feedback loops

“Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.”

Balance

“Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.”

Seventh, the use of a 1973 teenage juvenile mug shot of Brett is unbalanced, disparaging and presents him in a false light.

Images

“Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.”

For all the above reasons, Wikipedia should delete the page about Brett Kimberlin. JusticeLeader (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is obviously notable and the current article is not an attack page. (BLPs with notability subject to WP:PERP are bound to contain some negative information. That's just how it is.) None of the other reasons given are valid criteria for deletion - indeed, parts of the nomination point to things that could be seen as bolstering the subject's notability. Editors should be mindful that the nomination is from an account that was clearly created for the express purpose of deleting the article. See: User talk:JusticeLeader. Also see previous Deletion Review discussion:Here. Belchfire-TALK 16:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh It does look like an attack article to me. I don't have any confidence in its neutrality. Yeah it has lots of footnotes, but sourcing is not magic fairy dust that turns partisan articles neutral. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons given by Belchfire above. Notable individual, of course there will be negative info in the article based on the subject's criminal past. Kelly ^hi! 18:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you have Salon and other news organizations reporting about you, you meet the notability requirements. Actually having had books by notable authors published about you/your famous crimes don't subtract from that score. It is clearly not an attack page. As relates to BLP issues, those should be addressed on the page as they occur. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is definitely notable for the Speedway Bombing in Indiana and has been listed in many newspapers [1] as well as a book written based on him as the requester pointed out. The claim that the Speedway Bombing was local news is absurd on its face because it has been discussed in many national newspapers regarding the Speedway Bombings. He even became notable when he claimed to have sold Dan Quayle marijuana which turned out to be a frivolous claim. Prior to all of this "right-wing conspiracy", TIME wrote an article on him [2]. I find it interesting that the user's name is newly registered & named JusticeLeader and Brett Kimberlin runs an organization called MusicForJustice. Honestly, this also reads like a request of a person requesting deletion of his own article because they don't like what they see. ViriiK (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that we need an article on this person, the current version contains a number of violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Compliance with that is not optional. Everything sourced to primary sources (and particularly the stuff sourced to Court records) must be cut out.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before anybody gets any ideas about removing material from the article based on this comment, it should be pointed out that WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Exercise caution in using primary sources." It doesn't say primary sources can't be used at all, and there are in fact circumstances where primary sources are appropriate. Belchfire-TALK 22:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What it says, specifically, is: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations for statements about convictions. I believe that clause is about using statements during a court case or in court documents- which are not necessarily true or otherwise citable. It cannot be read to disallow a statement of fact that a person was convicted or not. —apple4ever T 2:06, 2- August 2012 (UTC)
It would be useful to go back to the main article, WP:PRIMARY which WP:BLPPRIMARY is only summarizing, and, at your timestamp, was summarizing badly. In the larger document, it's clear that a court record stating that Kimberlin was convicted is permissible to use to establish that he was convicted, though not interpretive facts beyond the basic fact of his conviction. TMLutas (talk)

Keep: Although there may be problems in the article as noted above, the overall conclusion of this AFD should be keep. The subject is clearly notable for multiple events with multiple independent sources doing indepth coverage. Let's fix whatever problems can be found but keep the article. Sometimes infamy is the result of not wanting fame. WTucker (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable as established by the multitude of reliable sources. The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kimberlin meets notability guidelines and any bias issues can be fixed. This certainly isn't an attack article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kimberlin is notable even if the ridiculous twitter/blogger wars about him of recent vintage may not be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kimberlin is notable for the Speedway Bombings alone, and I find nothing in the current page that looks like attacks. Even if there are bias' in the article, they should be fixed- the page should not be deleted. —apple4ever T 2:06, 2- August 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Kimberlin has been at the center of several major controversies. As others have noted, bias in the article could be fixed if necessary. --Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. It should be pointed out that he also has a history of pursuing litigious means to suppress his past notoriety. This request should be viewed in light of that history. Ronnotel (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reluctantly. I hear "please don't throw me into the briar patch." I dislike giving the subject publicity but unquestionable notoriety. The article is not an attack page but does need work to get to just the facts supported by WP:RS. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 02:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject clearly has received significant coverage required by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I remember the marijuana accusations as being politically significant (multiple news cycle relevance) and certainly the bombings and his prior career as a drug dealer before he morphed into leftwing political activist and organizer. The page is currently a piece of lace that has problems because the pro-kimberlin crowd is working hard to knock out as much as they can. We might want to take measures to stop that. TMLutas (talk)

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 Trogloraptor. The overall opinion seems to be that Marchington the person is not quite notable enough for an article. I'm doing this as a straight redirect, keeping the history intact, so if someone thinks there's information not currently in the target that should be merged, feel free to do so in the course of normal editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Marchington

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

notability - only secondary mention in a couple of references Widefox (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slight modification - agree with Ryan Vesey, a redirect would be apropriate. Widefox (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning keep I'll not be making a specific notability statement for a while, but I'll start collecting some references here to see what we have. I'm leaning towards keep just on the basis that the species was named after him. Wikipedia avoids determining notability, instead it bases notability on whether others have considered the subject notable. If the scientific community has named a species after him, I believe the scientific community has determined him to be notable. I also think he might satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which states "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." in one of the explanations. This would be the significant discovery aspect; however, this is problematic because the discovery is so recent that journals won't be referring to it soon. The international sources might be enough to state that it was a significant discovery. I'll end this with the statement that straight deletion would be a mistake since this should be redirected if it is not kept. Here are some sources I've found. Ryan Vesey 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- New family of spiders found (Highbeam)
- Part of a cave group that received the State Land Board Partnership Award for mapping work (Highbeam)
- Being referenced internationally
  - Hungarian Source
  - German Source
  - Portuguese Source (from Brazil)
  - Indonesian Source
  - Italian Source
  - Vietnamese Source
  - Russian Source

Comment species are sometimes named after organisations that donate money, children's cartoon characters, celebrities etc. I doubt that is a robust way of discerning notability per se. Out of the references so far, I don't see one with him as the subject, rather than the species. I refer you again to WP:ONEEVENT "major role in a minor event" - that of discovery of a specimen of a new species. Although yes if I'm wrong, this is a major event and there are bios of him and his role. Widefox (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I replied to WP:ONEEVENT on the article's talk page. The German-language source focuses on the name. Wakari07 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is the discoverer for which the species is named, by my reasoning this is WP:ONEEVENT but ok, we can differ... The German source doesn't give me anything more (either translated or in German - and the photo caption confuses the discover with the second expedition members which includes the scientific describer). But this source gives the etymology - "in gratitude for his help and kindness". That seems weak for a BLP. Another example of a similar weak BLP article would be "Christine" in a rat named after girlfriend. Widefox (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Naturenet | Talk 09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to reason per WP:VOTE? Widefox (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His actions to help the discovery can be described in the article on Trogloraptor itself. The article on Marchington is certainly short enough for a merge to be possible (within reason of course). Having an organism named after you is not something that automatically makes you notable. I agree that there are interesting stories behind most scientific names of organisms but these ideally go under the Taxonomy or Etymology sections in their articles, not split off to a new article. Organisms being named after people, both famous and ordinary folk is a very common practice in biology, so Criteria 1 of WP:Notability (academics) does not apply. Zoology even goes further than that by quite frequently giving joke names to organisms. Notice, for example, how the scientists themselves aren't automatically notable just because they described a new species. How much more a layman? This !vote does not preclude recreation if/when any of these people achieve true notability in the future per our criteria. Nor am I saying that people can't achieve notability with only one event. But this, as it stands, is still a WP:ONEEVENT. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone proposing that having a species being named after someone is a notability criterion per se should take that up at the relevant BLP notability criterion. I agree Criteria 1 of WP:Notability (academics) is not relevant as spelt out in the etymology source above - it is named not for his scientific work but for his "help and kindness". This seems in-line with not having BLPs in other unrelated discovery fields like the Staffordshire Hoard (although I tread carefully with WP:OTHERSTUFF!) Widefox (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although in this case, Marchington could be a borderline case, as he is an amateur biologist (which is more or less, equivalent to being a naturalist). But yes, though his contributions are significant, he did not formally take part in the description of the species and has published no academic work (yet?). Thus his notability must stand on other criteria. The discovery of the organism itself is highly notable, but notability is not inherited and the discovery can safely be described within the context of the organism's article. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Trogloraptor - He's mentioned in [3] and then articles about the spider he discovered:[4], [5], etc. The coverage might be in a variety of countries, but its mostly from the days around August 17, 2012 and the articles mostly have similar content. There's not enough info per WP:GNG for a Wikipedia biographical article on Marchington, but there's enought for a redirect to the Trogloraptor marchingtoni article and mention of his efforts in that Trogloraptor article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:55, 27 August 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. Doubtful if the incident is worth a mention in the main articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simba (rhinoceros)

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

Delete Doesn't seem notable enough Tomer T (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 19. Snotbot t • c » 13:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is part of the illegal trade in rhino horn, which is (all too) notable and a disastrous risk to a part of wildlife. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence either in article or via Google that this rhinoceros is actually notable. The attempted theft of Simba's horns was a newsworthy item, but the subject of this newsworthy item was, obviously, not the actual rhinoceros but was instead the attempted theft. No independent notability, and Wikipedia isn't the news in any event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable animal although most of the article is about a criminal offence only marginally linked to the actual animal but itself not notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to related articles. Either on white rhinoceros or the illegal ivory trade (rhino horns are included under it, though it's technically not ivory).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs better sourcing. but has recieved a fair share of publicity so seem also to pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BabbaQ, please mention examples for the publicity of the case. The article states a page in a newspaper, which I cannot determine wheter is a trivial mention or actual coverage. The other source in the article seems out of date. Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a full newspaper article about the theft. It was not a casual mention in text which was primarily about something else. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but what length? Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I think the particular question that needs to be addressed is to what extent the article in question was about the animal, and to what extent it was about the crime (along with a consideration as to whether that one article is sufficient to cover WP:GNG); of course, if more sources were provided, that might modify people's positions. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That can modify, but also the lack of sources and clear information about the coverage should also have an effect (like - let's keep articles with reasonable media coverage, but articles which are not clear on the extent of coverage - which possibly don't have enough coverage - should also be kept, for the benefit of the doubt). Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while this evidently is a newsworthy event, neither the animal, smuggler or crime is notable in the WP sense. Simba is only mentioned in passing by in articles about a non-notable smuggler's crime. This is all I could find on this rhino: 'Simba, 41, white rhinoceros from southern Africa, died from natural causes at the Colchester Zoo in 2009, body should have been incinerated, but his horns was stolen.' If we have a list or article where this could be added, please merge, otherwise, delete. jonkerz ♠talk 21:48, 27 August 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 Hortapharm B.V.. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Paul Watson

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

Apparently, this person fails the notability guideline. Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this person fail the notability guideline he is the CEO of the most important legal cannabis producing companies in the world that has deals with bayer and other biopharmaceutical giants, he also wrote Hemp Diseases and Pests: Management and Biological Control : an Advanced Treatise (book)

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

he is also known for creating a stain of cannabis that is the most used in the world called SKUNK and you might found this irrelevant but many people might find it interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjiced (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Hortapharm B.V.. His company appears to be more notable than he is. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The same appears to be true of his partner in the company, Robert Connell Clarke. Nominator might want to consider nominating that article for deletion or redirect/merge as well. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep (and don't merge to Hortapharm). He's notable as both a cannabis grower and also for his connection to mainstream pharma via Hortapharm. I fail to understand the nomination: the sourcing is there. Is this some moral stand against illegal cannabis? If so, why do we have Howard Marks? In this case he's also an important bridge between the illegal and legal manufacture of THC. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing of WHAT is there? How does it show notability?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hortapharm B.V., per WP:BASIC. I see he contributed to the book Marijuana and the Cannabinoids [6][7] but that doesn't add a great deal more IMO. -- Trevj (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Astrology Prince

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP. Last AfD had low participation so I am renoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I put this in AfD last year, there was only one Keep vote by an IP editor, and he didn't bring any policy based point on the table. So, it was rather puzzling to see it closed as no-consensus. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a page that exists to advertise the existence of some psychic hotline and nothing more. Sædon ^talk 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only thing resembling a reliable source I found was an article in the "Life" section of the China Daily. Unfortunately, it looks like the writer worked from her desk and drew her information entirely from the subject's website or books, so it doesn't count as real reporting, all the more so as it was published in what is essentially a "human interest" section of the paper rather than the news section, and thus probably did not undergo rigorous fact checking by the writer or editor. Aside from that, I found absolutely nothing in reliable sources, so it appears that the subject is not notable enough to meet the requirements of any of our guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:35, 24 August 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 University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, had no lasting effect. First afd was when this was in the news, second afd was a mess, and none of them really had policy based standards. Delete Secret ^account 08:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign also deals with this same strike. I haven't figured out why the two articles exist, but they need to be merged. --Orlady (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but combine (merge) it with University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign. I don't know which title should be retained, but I prefer this one as the more neutral title. This event seems worth of attention as a long and significant strike, it got significant nonlocal news attention (New York Times), and at this page, I find that a scholarly journal article about this strike [Jason Albright, “Contending Rationality, Leadership, and Collective Struggle: The 2006 Justice for Janitors Campaign at the University of Miami,” Vol. 33, No. 1 (March 2008), 00. 63-80.] won an award as "Best Labor Studies Journal Article published in 2006-2008". --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge to University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign. In reviewing the overall sources in the University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign article and this one, this topic passes WP:GNG. Merge to University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign because this is generally part of the Justice for Janitors social movement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Simon

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

I stumbled across this article through her book series Cupcake Diaries, which is also currently up for deletion. The issue with the book series is the same as the author: there are just little to no reliable sources out there to show that this author passes WP:AUTHOR. A search for the author brings up the typical junk hits, merchant sites, primary sites, and non-usable blog reviews and mentions. She's published a kid's series, but unfortunately just publishing (no matter how many books they might have done) does not in itself give notability. It just makes it more likely that reliable sources will be found, which I wasn't able to discover. Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—There is little to no coverage of this author in RS. No reviews in notable publications, small holdings in libraries. This is almost certainly a case of not yet, but...not yet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG 2602:306:39E1:C830:59AF:528A:3B0A:CE20 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR in any evident way. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macbuntu

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Page has multiple issues. Also software is unmaintained and will not work on most current Linux distros. Zombifier^talk 03:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: though mentioned in several reputable blogs (which would be normally enough for weak keep !vote), this topic is excluded per WP:NOTDIR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam/advert. This needs a complete rewrite in order to become an encyclopedic article. A few reviews in a blog isn't enough, not much in HighBeam or Google News. Could have been speedied as a G11. 2602:306:39E1:C830:59AF:528A:3B0A:CE20 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly written, no inline citations, the project is inactive, it currently looks like advertisement.--KDesk (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Neither the artist nor the label promoted this compilation. Ryoga Godai (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage for this album I could find is the Allmusic review, which is already quoted in its entirety in the article. The lengthy "Writing and composition" section of the article offers song details that do not relate to this album; i.e., the references in that section make no mention of the album. The only other refs in the article that do mention the album are Amazon and Sony, neither of which offers independent significant coverage but merely demonstrate the album's existence. This release does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 16:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with the above. Unless it actually charted etc.... these Playlist albums are created by Sony Music's legacy records division and are not marketed or promoted by the artist. Virtually every major artist on Sony Music has one and none receieve coverage as none have any new material, just a recycled track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:05, 23 August 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. Unlike the other Lana Del Rey AfD I just closed, in this case, there does appear to be a consensus that this subject is not notable. While the criteria of standalone lists are different than those for articles, there still must be some evidence that the subject (here, "unreleased Lana Del Rey songs") is notable. No one has demonstrated that it is. Furthermore, it appears that many of the items on the list cannot even be verified (as a side note: linking to unofficial YouTube content is a form of copyright violation, and must always be removed immediately; the same would apply for any other uploading of the singer's material without her/her recording company's explicit approval). If there are any individual items on here that have been discussed in independent sources, information about those and only those could be added to some other page (assuming the information met WP:DUE). For clarification, the policies that apply here are WP:N (specificallly WP:LISTN), and various parts of WP:NOT. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs

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

The previous AFD on this list closed as no consensus. So I am revisiting this, as from the start I tried to get rid of this content, and only created the page to satisfy another user.

This list of every single song ever recorded or performed by Elizabeth Grant (currently performing under the name "Lana Del Rey") under her various stage names is massive and unwieldy. While it is meticulously sourced, almost none of the sources are considered reliable. Several dozen, in fact, are to postings of "leaked" demo tapes to websites such as YouTube, Vimeo, or Soundcloud, and I've seen several references that go to several Lana Del Rey fansites. The other major selection of references are to search results on the ASCAP database, which likely features every song ever written or recorded by members of ASCAP. These search results are no longer valid, as a log in is required, and the site simply shows that the songs exist in some form to be used by ASCAP members.

The previous AFD brought up that similar pages by other artists have also been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Rihanna songs due to similar poor sourcing issues. While List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Madonna songs, I do not think that the coverage exhibited on this page satisfies keeping the content in any form, even if it is merged to a list created at the time of the previous discussion (which I have also listed for deletion). The other pages feature reliable sources beyond bootleg copies and a summary of the ASCAP database. —Ryulong (琉竜) 09:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find it extremely ridiculous that you're nominating this after an obvious extensive previous nomination that happened within a month ago (not to mention you had one comment on and didn't respond to anything else). The page is far too long and detailed to be included on List of Lana Del Rey songs. If these lists are unacceptable then please give me a valid excuse as to why List of unreleased Britney Spears songs was a previous featured article. Lana Del Rey consists of multiple previous personas where she has hundreds of songs. Neither artist you mentioned have done anything like this. The ASCAP references WERE valid but obviously they EXPIRE and you have to replace them. It's simple as that. And they are 100% reliable. Also, if you go to my talk page you did not create this page to satisfy another user (me). --MrIndustry (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nomination closed as "no consensus", which means that no proper conclusion came about and the status quo was kept on a technicality. That means I can properly open up a new AFD with better arguments so an actual conclusion can be met, regardless of the level of involvement I had in its previous form. And what I said to you in May has no bearing on my actual opinions on the page's content, which are free to change.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also stated above that the two articles have reliable sources unlike List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs, which is actually incorrect. I'm also not sure if we're looking at the same Britney article because it's sources are BMI/ASCAP and a few indie music blogs which is exactly the same as Unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. As you stated ASCAP lists what exists, this proves my point of ASCAP being a reliable source. These are songs that EXIST. Leaked and UNLEAKED. You guys keep claiming no policy, no policy, but there is no policy so we'll keep arguing the same exact thing as before. The article is far too detailed and is more important than List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured article. Britney has no past personas and her unreleased songs are not notable, Lana's are, it made her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of unreleased Britney Spears songs is not a featured article. It is a featured list. And just because something exists, does not mean we need to cover it. Your arguments are still not supported by any policy or guideline of the English Wikipedia. This will be my last comment directed towards anyone in the debate, as I have a bad habit of turning things into massive threads of arguments that lead no where. (Several of MrIndustry's comments are to things I decided to remove in this edit.)—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the featured list. The article is a highly active article. This would be a different situation if no one used this and no one updated it. Why remove something that's obviously active and helpful? That's stupid.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason the last AfD was No consensus was because there was a three-way split between keep, delete and merge. I won't make that mistake again. "Unreleased" is rarely notable, irrespective of the name of the artist/s and this is no exception. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: Seems obvious enough. Could use some better sources, in some cases, but otherwise notable enough. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely keep. This article is highly notable. I don't think I know another artist who has had this many personas and unreleased songs as Del Rey does. I don't think a list of unreleased songs is notable for every artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. It is very active and is constantly being updated and used. teammathi 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC+7)
An article cannot be "notable". The subject of an article is notable, but lists are held to different criteria. And as I said before, it does not matter how many "personas" this individual has. The nature of Ms. Grant's performance is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia's content policies. Same thing goes or the level of activity a page receives. Arguments for retention should be based on policy, which seems to be lacking, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lana Del Rey still performs some of these songs at concerts. These songs are who she is and what made her. No other mainstream artist has this many unreleased songs. --MrIndustry (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Ryulong. I don't have any policies to back this up since this is an exception. As I have said, I don't think a List of unreleased songs is needed for any other artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. teammathi 8:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC+7)
If some of the songs are performed at concerts, then that information can be kept in some form on Wikipedia. However, there is no reason anyone should be exempt from the rules. If reliable sources support the notability of these several dozen songs, then we have a reason to cover them. However, this is not the case when 100 sources point to social media and fan blogs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete— per previous nomination, the items on the list aren't notable. The arguments for keeping the article are ridiculously feeble. Till 09:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did the nominator may no mind to "No prejudice toward a future merge discussion"? That is what should be done here. A second deletion nomination is pointless. A deletion nomination is created with the objective of all the content in the article to be deleted. Statυs (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see the nominator also nominated List of Lana Del Rey songs for deletion, what this page should be merged with, claiming no other types of list exist. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This whole nomination is ridiculous.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what the closing admin said after it was closed as "no consensus". This discussion is working to seek a consensus on whether or not this article should be kept in any form. Merging is out of the question due to the poor sources on this page, and the other page which I've listed for deletion is also entirely unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not poor and eliminating a merge option because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Although I don't agree with merging because it's too independent of a section. I'm going to add a few more sources right now.--MrIndustry (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" is "no consensus". This discussion will result in a consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Concerns I have with this list: (1) It relies quite heavily on poor/unreliable sources, with little actual coverage on the topic. Compare the references to those in the aforementioned List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. (2) The Lana Del Ray A.K.A. Lizzy Grant album was released, so even though it was pulled after two months, its songs would not seem to qualify for this list. Gongshow ^Talk 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it's on the list is because it was pulled from its entirety. You can't just not download it from Amazon anymore, its entire page was deleted as if it never existed. But I can see your point where it shouldn't be included on the list. The sources are the same as List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, so I'm confused. Can you please elaborate? --MrIndustry (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the album is no longer available on Amazon just means it's now more difficult to purchase. Albums can't really go from "never released" to "released" and then back to "never released". As for the sources, both Lana's and Britney's articles use lots of BMI and ASCAP refs. What I meant is that besides those, Britney's article - with few exceptions - mostly uses reliable sources such as MTV, USA Today, Billboard, New York magazine, People, Entertainment Weekly, and The Observer. Lana's article - with some exceptions - mostly uses sources like social networking sites (YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace, Tumblr, SoundCloud, last.fm, ReverbNation), fansites (lanadelreyonline.com, lanadelreyweb.com), and non-notable blogs (afistfulofculture.com, besteveralbums.com, hardcandymusic.com, WackyMusicCrazy.org, josepvinaixa.com, shyampareek.in, etc). Gongshow ^Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The album actually has been pulled and is no longer available for purchase anywhere. I'm honestly not clear on Wikipedia's terms of reliable sources, but if the link provides the material, it should be considered reliable... because it is the material? I do remember reading that the source is considered reliable if it is independent from the artist. Which would allow non-notable music blogs acceptable.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if independent of the artist, self-published blogs like the ones listed above are discouraged. WP:BLOGS states: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." For example, media publishers like MTV, Billboard, and The New York Times are considered reliable, but not the blog my friend and I put together. Gongshow ^Talk 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added more reliable sources such as Entertainment Weekly and MTV.--MrIndustry (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can the admin who closes this please analyse the discussion based on citing policy and guideline. The last Afd should have resulted in delete as none of the keep !voters linked to either, and this discussion looks like it's heading the same way. Till 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering we're giving valid reasons why it shouldn't be deleted and proving you guys wrong on countless occasions should deem this nomination a speedy keep and close. You guys claimed no notable sources and I give you MTV and EW and a few others. Britney Spears' unreleased songs are NOT notable whatsoever and Lana's are. Has Britney ever performed an unreleased song? Nope. Time to move on and leave this article alone. And can you please give me one GOOD/VALID EXCUSE as to why we should delete an article that is informative and helpful and ACTIVE and is NOWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET?--MrIndustry (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You and teammathi both have been suggesting that the article be kept for reasons that are not at all supported by Wikipedia's policies. An article being "active" really doesn't mean anything. This information being "nowhere else on the internet" also shows that no one in serious discussion has found a need to completely catalogue every single song written or performed by Elizabeth Grant under her various pseudonyms or bands, which means Wikipedia shouldn't likely either. And we didn't claim "no notable sources". We claimed "no reliable sources", as everything (including those Entertainment Weekly and MTV articles) is being sourced back to bootleg copies on YouTube. Those sites don't particularly state those songs are of critical note. They simply point out that recordings exist. Till, Richhoncho, and I are all providing reasons based on our knowledge on Wikipedia's content policies. You are acting as a rabid fan who wants to use this end of Wikipedia as a fansite dedicated to everything Lana Del Rey and are incensed that someone dare try to take down your pet project. Perusing your article edits, I'm finding that almost half of them are in regards to the list in its time on the discography page and in its current incarnation. You need to take a step back and look at things objectively, rather than through the lens of adoration of the subject. I like her music (under Lana Del Rey), but I do not find this massive page at all useful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think you're getting a little personal, Ryulong?
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings says : "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I do think that criterion has been met.
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources says: "To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable." 23 of the songs are registered on ASCAP, 12 songs are registered on BMI.
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If the subject is not notable says: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." The article is constantly being updated. teammathi 10:57, 21 August 2012 (CET)
It's not personal when I mention the only two editors who have been constantly updating the page and are vehemently opposing its removal from the site. You're ignoring the word "significant". Finding things under ASCAP or BMI does not denote notability, it's only useful for finding ownership. And just because an article is constantly being updated (in this case the discovery of more and more bootleg recordings of unreleased songs) does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. You are picking out phrases on the page to suit your side without acknowledging the full scope of the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely ignoring the fact that I said I sourced MTV and Entertainment Weekly and a few other reliable sources. Can you shut up with the notable because it obviously is..--MrIndustry (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not making critical commentary. Fine. You found two whole reliable sources to source the existence of only 4 songs out of the 50 or so on the page. The only one that's remotely notable for coverage out of them is Ghetto Baby, which doesn't even have its own article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two? Hello? Go look again and I had previous reliable sources such as Ryan Seacrest which you ignored. Some are critical, some are not. Either way she's still notable enough to have it written about.--MrIndustry (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Elizabeth Grant as Lana Del Rey is notable for coverage has no bearing on whether or not her entire unreleased catalog should be discussed on Wikipedia. And this edit summary shows that you are no longer worth arguing with on this topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should any unreleased material list be on Wikipedia then? You're constantly changing why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You also claimed someone was condescending in the other Lana AFD when they weren't. You just made a condescending comment towards me. --MrIndustry (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the other nomination, merge with List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. Statυs (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that AFD is kept as keep, I would agree that any content from this article concerning songs that Ms. Grant performs at concerts under the name "Lana Del Rey", which are supported to be performed as "Lana Del Rey" by reliable sources, should probably move there. However, there is no way that the page as it stands should be kept, and I fear that a merge (just turning it into a redirect) will not be sufficient, as it will allow for the re-creation as it still exists in the page history.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This should be kept because this resource is a wealth of knowledge for those interested in Ms. Grant's discography. I think this list only adds value to the entry of Lana Del Rey as it shows her dedication to her songwriting.--DDrdashing (talk) DDRdashing (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— DDRdashing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Notable list. Great sources for the list. I also have to say that I find the bickering above entertaining but totally ridiculous from both sides.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are 80 posts on YouTube, Soundcloud, and fansites "great sources"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've solved this problem. Seriously, MrIndustry? You thought that directly linking to an MP3 hosted illegally on Tumblr was a good idea to use as a source? This whole page is garbage. I've only managed to leave links to the reliable source entertainment news sites, ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox archives, and even then the news sites and BMI links are the only ones that are working.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one sourcing and I'd rather an admin make the decision if we should keep direct links to the piece. The source shows the item exists on YouTube. If they're worried about it, they'll contact YouTube to remove it. I'm not sure why you're so mad at Lana Del Rey.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have an admin make a decision. YouTube and other social networking sites are not reliable sources, unless it is an official account owned by the subject. There is no reason for you to have reverted my removal of all those invalid sources and adding {{dead link}} to every dead link. And I am not mad at Lana Del Rey. I have previously said somewhere (in this debate or the other one) that I enjoy her music. It's just that this article is so incredibly poorly constructed that it should not be on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously user Ryulong your very confronting editing style is not appreciated from me. You need to relax and stop attacking people who simply do not agree with your perception of what is and what is not notable. And the fact that you started a edit-war on this article isnt exactly something I appreciate either to be perfectly honest. You need to relax. Just being real.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references are not acceptable and I'm almost certain that they cannot be used per WP:BLP. More than half of the article is sourced to recordings posted on YouTube, Soundcloud, Vimeo, fan blogs on Tumblr, and other fansites. Those should not be used on any Wikipedia article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to stop edit-warring now. It is starting to look ridiculous with both of you throwing accusations and claims against each other. Stop now before it gets completely out of hand. And let the AfDs run its courses. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I self reverted, but went back to remove links to blogs, add dead link templates to dead links, and then used reflinks to fill in the references properly (several URLs were put right up against the title of the page which made the links broken, and it also showed other deadlinks). There are still 50 external links on this article that should not be there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still going at it I see. OK that is you decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice - A large number of the refs are deal/rotten links, the youtube ones are utterly useless, since Youtube is not considered a reliable source, and with that many unusable links, the article violates BLP. This needs to either go, now, and quickly, or be userfied back to the contributors page so that they can repair it and fix the utterly devastating fall-apart that is the references section. Fish ^Barking? 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Clearly a case of "needs improvements and not deletion". So not a reason for deletion if the article subject is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no improvement to make because the article is in no way salvagable. We can't use a fan's illegal upload as a reliable source, which is all there appears to be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, BubbaQ, but I'm back Ryulong on this one. We cannot use material from Youtube, because it is user generated content, and most of the music videos uploaded are in direct violation of copyright - therefore, all the Youtube sources need to be removed from the article immediately, which reduces the references.

Then we have the dead links, which are broken and go absolutely nowhere - so now we're down to a point that not everything in the article is referenced - which violates BLP - anything included in a BLP must be properly sourced and referenced, or it can be challenged and removed.

So at this point, what we have is an article with a rapidly decreasing amount of references, which violates a strict site policy, it's in a condition which in medical terms I'd describe as "Critical". If it had a Do Not Resuscitate order on it, I'd obey it :P Fish ^Barking? 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was still 50+ references when the unreliable ones were removed. Therefore I believe this classifies it as notable.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those 50 are nearly all dead links to the ASCAP and Harry Fox websites.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main argument against this article seems to be that the subject isn't notable enough, or there aren't enough reliable sources. This is a fair argument but it seems to be one that is going nowhere. I'd say the notability of Lana Del Rey's unreleased discography is unclear, but that doesn't warrant deletion. ("For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort"). I think at this point deleting the article which is so detailed would be a waste, so at least merging the content here with something else, (I saw someone mention a list of Del Rey's songs) would really be the last resort. I genuinely feel deleting the article would remove good information because no one can be bothered to find the right sources. Why not preserve the article and fix the problem? 94.169.100.224 (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the sourcing is so poor that there is nothing to preserve. It's a list of any song that can be tenuously linked to having been performed or written at some time by Elizabeth Grant a.k.a. Lana Del Rey. They are not even all songs written or performed under the Lana Del Rey moniker. The level of detail is unimportant. You can create a massively detailed page about anything on Wikipedia, but that does not mean we need to cover it. Half of the article is sourced to YouTube or similar sites and the other half after that is sourced to a bunch of rotten links. This is not acceptable by any chance, and much of it appears to be based on assumptions (I've never seen mention of a rerelease of her major debut that includes some of the songs on the list).—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also this IP's first ever edit was to the article in question, and now it suddenly returns after no edits in a month to this page, which is somewhat telling.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last comment to your ridiculous claims, but assumption means they're assumptions. If a song has leaked, it's not an assumption. It has LEAKED. It's a FACT. The Born to Die: Paradise Edition has a few assumptions, but the songs still EXIST. Some of the sources for Paradise Edition include song titles. Now can we stop sounding like broken records and only respond when there's something NEW to talk about?--MrIndustry (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had promised myself to stay quiet, but copyright is quite a serious issue at WP. Mr. Industry, please be good enough to read WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. I'm out of here again. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get my point. You can remove the YouTube sources, but the songs still exist so saying a list is made up of assumptions is ridiculous. The songs have been leaked, they're fact, not assumptions. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I do get it. I asked you to read a guideline without any comment whatsoever about notability, assumptions or anything else. I did not try to make any other point. I didn't even suggest that you would have to act on what you read. Did you bother to read the guideline? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already spoke to an admin about it yesterday. I never spoke about keeping the YouTube links on there after that. I simply corrected his use of the word assumption.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the offending sources, again, in regards to WP:LINKVIO, which is a policy and not a guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:31, 26 August 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. It appears from the discussion that the real questions here need to be answered somewhere other than AfD. If the concern is that this is partially duplicated, I recommend a formal merge discussion. If the concern is that no articles of this type should exist, then we need a centralized discussion (on either a WikiProject or somewhere in the Village Pump). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey

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

This is just a list duplicating the content of the three articles on the album releases by Lana Del Rey. No other musician has a page that just lists the songs, and was solely created as a result of another AFD in an attempt to find a better place to move other content. —Ryulong (琉竜) 08:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom before we have a "list of songs" article for every artist who releases more than a solitary song. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too late; see: Category:Songs by artist. RJH (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite , that's a list of WP articles with common characteristics. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That category simply contains categories, as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It only includes categories, but I am certain we all know what each other means --Richhoncho (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tangentially, when did everyone forget how to properly indent?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close Did the nominator seriously just claim no other musician has a list of songs article? May I direct them to Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers? There's around 350 or so of the same type of lists. I know a lot of people say "lol" and they aren't actually laughing out loud, but I actually am right now. You got a better reason why the list should be deleted that is an actual reason an article should be deleted? Statυs (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— an unremarkable list that duplicates items found in the album articles. Till 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the list is in bad shape doesn't mean it should be deleted. Statυs (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call the list in bad shape. I said that it duplicates the items found on the album articles. Till 01:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared to vote the same in the other 350 lists of the same premise? Statυs (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took "unremarkable list" as meaning the list is unremarkable looking. Forgot that it's a Wiki-term. Statυs (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm laughing at this ridiculous nomination. Why exactly should this page be deleted? Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers--MrIndustry (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For an artist with only one major label release, this list is pretty much unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now the list is "unnecessary"? I thought this was nominated for deletion because no such other article exists. Very strange. Statυs (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you stop being so condescending? I will accept that I was wrong that there are other articles of this type. However, as it stands, it is simply a duplication of the track lists on her two EPs and two LPs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ageed. Try to assume good faith first, being condescending rarely results in a satisfactory discussion. Till 02:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, you've given no valid reason for deletion, which is annoying. Statυs (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Condescending and telling you that you're completely wrong are two different things. You say one thing and change it when you know you're wrong. Can you please explain what "List of songs" is supposed to be? Since obviously it's not supposed to include songs that are on an album. This nomination needs to be closed asap.--MrIndustry (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. I've begun to make the list look a bit better; I don't have much time though, as I'm preparing to go away on vacation. Statυs (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely looks better, but I'm not sure if it's at all necessary at this point in her career.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the contents of List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs are added in here (I assume that the songs in that list are actually "recorded," too.). Then this will become a useful reference for all LDR songs rather than splitting because some contributors are more interested in creating article space than worthwhile content. As creator of List of songs written by Bob Dylan I can assure you there are more unreleased songs in that list than songs LDR has recorded in toto and, probably one of those unreleased songs would get more Ghits that the whole of the unreleased LDR --Richhoncho (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'd like to see happen, but voting delete unless is rather silly, in my opinion. What if they aren't added? What would be your reason to delete? Statυs (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for delete is as a list of (released) recorded songs is all rather pointless and unnecessary - there is nothing new or different included (hence my comment about article title -v- article content) that isn't included elsewhere. If the supporters of the unreleased article had noted what you and I suggested we would not be wasting time with this AfD --Richhoncho (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the songs on the unreleased page were not ever recorded. They were performed live.--MrIndustry (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecorded songs? How trivial!!! You should appreciate that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not a fansite for every every song performed by this or any other artist. Your comment above should read as "delete with extreme prejudice" --Richhoncho (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a simple comment that not all of them were recorded. Britney's unreleased list has no songs performed live. Lana's does.--MrIndustry (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bickering.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho, you're in the wrong AFD. I asked why this list should be deleted. Statυs (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status, I shall repeat, The reason for delete is as a list of (released) recorded songs (it) is all rather pointless and unnecessary - there is nothing new or different included that isn't included elsewhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. For some reason, my eyes saw unreleased. Statυs (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would second user Status arguments for Keep. By quoting Status, Did the nominator seriously just claim no other musician has a list of songs article? Yeah seriously?.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that there was a precedent for creating lists of songs, when discographies surely sufficed and when "lists of songs" usually just include songs written by the artist, rather than duplicating a discography listing, which is how the page appeared initially.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should NOT be nominating things you don't know about then.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline that states that. Just because I was not aware of the other articles before does not make this list any less useless on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been using Wikipedia that long and I still know that most artists have a list of songs. So I'm not sure why you're going around nominating articles and saying they don't exist when there's hundreds of them. You are targeting Lana Del Rey and I have no idea why.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not targetting Lana Del Rey. I'm only targetting these articles because they are not in line with the rest of the content of Wikipedia. Just because they both happen to be about Lana Del Rey is a coincidence.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you're admitting that you only nominated these articles because they're not in good shape? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that's an appropriate reason to delete an article.MrIndustry (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an appropriate reason when they do not fit in with what is acceptable content on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop changing why you don't think this article is fit for wikipedia. Thank you.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The list of unreleased songs with more than half of the references pointing to bootlegs on YouTube and other websites? Not acceptable. The other quarter of the references pointing to search results in databases? Not acceptable. This list of songs that's just duplicating the very small released discography? Not acceptable. These two particular pages have no place on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate if you stopped using "lol" in your edit summaries because it shows that you are not here to work on a serious encyclopedia and you are only trying to make sure that Wikipedia keeps this massive walled garden of any song ever released by an artist that I've already told you at least 3 times now that I am a fan of, but not clearly as much of a fan as you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, stop edit-warring on both the actual article and on the articles AfD now before you both get out of hand completely. It will only lead to misery for one or both of you. Just move on. This is starting to look ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reverting because there was no point and it seems he's fixing some of the sources now.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that much of the sources on the other article do indeed violate WP:BLP. However, I will not touch them, again (even though edits to remove content that violate BLP are exempt from edit warring rules).—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You two are in a way to infected edit-war and need to let other users deal with this article. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 24 August 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 Star Soldier. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Soldier vs dodonpachi DAI-OU-JOU

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

I did a search for sources on the subject under all three possible names: Star Soldier vs dodonpachi DAI-OU-JOU, Sutā Sorujā vs Dodonpachi Daiōjō, and スターソルジャー vs 怒首領蜂大往生. I found three things. First is this, but it appears to be only a sentence mention of the game. Second is this, but it appears to just be a press release for the 2006 limited edition of the game. Third and last was this, which appears to be a proper review of the 2006 limited edition version of the game, but I don't know how reliable the site is and it was the only review I could find at all. Thus, because of the lack of sufficient reliable sources discussing the game in a significant manner, I would say that this game is non-notable. A sentence or so merge to another article is possible, but i'm not sure where it should go. Silver seren^C 07:01, 19 August 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) 00:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Soldier or delete This is, apparently, a mobile phone game available solely in Japan. While neither of those facets are a reason for deletion, add them both together and you get "what the hell are we supposed to do with this?" when it comes to sourcing and expanding the article. The links in the article mostly lead to 404 errors, a search brings up a lot of WP mirrors and 'lecture notes' sites (?) which don't link to anything. The chances of anyone having both the ability and the inclination to do anything with this are non-existent. Someone another 04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' (Agent X song)

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

No indication of notability besides mere existence. The are some trivial mentions but significant coverage is required to meet WP:GNG. Till 06:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable single and has no significant secondary independent reliable coverageCurb Chain (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a weak keep, as the sourcing still seems pretty patchy. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Young Musicians

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

Non-notable article and I have found few appropriate sources to establish notability. The links here and here contain useful information but read like business directories and thus wouldn't be appropriate references. Additionally, there is a small mention here which also wouldn't be enough to support this article. I should note that I have searched with both Google US and Google UK and found nothing useful with both. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this article in the Independent helps establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG. There's a piece in Classical Music magazine about it joining the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, it has an affiliated group in Hackney, is mentioned on barbican.org.uk, visited the Aberdeen international youth festival and had its funding discussed in the House of Lords. -- Trevj (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzy Jordan

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

Article not written from a NPOV, and seems non-notable Mdann52 (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This person is the definition of non-notable. See my arguments on the VGMG talk page, but brief summary follows:

All of Jordan's accomplishments are at and for his various record labels, with the exception that he started two failed enterprises: Jordan Music Group, and co-ownership of an Indy 500 car for one year (the car placed 12th).
Most of the article reads like Jordan's résumé. What doesn't read like a résumé reads like a summary of what I did last summer.
Unlike other heads of similar companies (e.g. Clive Davis, or L.A. Reid), Jordan has received no awards and done little outside of direct work. He is virtually unknown outside of his artists and their die-hard fans. In contrast, Clive Davis and L.A. Reid have each received multiple Grammies. Davis has been inducted into the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, and Reid judges on "The X Factor."
The article creator and primary editor, Hansomd, is a single-purpose editor who has written and taken ownership of this article. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the sources read like warmed-over press releases or are interview pieces. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against creating List of Indian tennis players as a traditional list article. -Scottywong | comment _ 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian tennis players

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

A baseless list. What are the criteria of inclusion and therefore exclusion? This is not a historical list like List of English cricket and football players or List of Israel international footballers. Wikipedia is not a directory. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Indian tennis players and delete their performances and rankings. It's not Wikipedia's job to track them, as a group, in every non-major tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
Delete a bit of hodge podge of ideas would really be better starting again as a straight List of Indian tennis players. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this list serves no purpose whatsoever on Wikipedia.--Zananiri (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional tennis players from India (which resulted in delete on 7 April 2011) are applicable here: "While the topic is a legitimate one for a list, the article as currently written is poorly formatted and organized. ... -- Metropolitan90." We do have Category:Indian tennis players, but that doesn't list all indian tennis players in one location, so this topic may have some value in Wikipedia. I didn't find any other "nationality intersected with tennis" list articles deleted, but I don't know whether we have any nationality intersected with tennis list articles. For example, there's no List of Australian tennis players. Category:Lists of tennis players seems to be limited to players in specific tennis events. If a List of Indian tennis players list looked more like List of female tennis players but with references, I think it could be a keeper. However, like in the AfD for List of professional tennis players from India, I think the topic still needs to wait for someone who can format and organize. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany's Restaurants

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

No evidence of notability for this local chain (6 locations) of bars. No reviews in high-profile guidebooks. Three of the four footnotes are deadlinks, apparently to the trade press; the fourth is to Urbanspoon. Macrakis (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in secondary sources and per nomCurb Chain (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Annus Horribilis Project

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

Apparently unremarkable arts project - aim is to compile a book based on public submissions with no publication date set yet (despite project starting in 2007). Mostly sourced to project's own publicity material. Would be likely candidate for speedy deletion except there is some press sourcing. TheGrappler (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for any variation of the title doesn't bring up any signs of notability for this project, finished or not. This is ultimately an overly promotional page for a project that never seems to have gotten off the ground. There is zero notability here. I'd almost suggest a redirect to the artist's page, but it looks like he's having notability issues as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked author's contributions: turns out that this was originally made at Article for Creation, and declined as a potential speedy deletion candidate. I would have speedied except for the offline reference which I took as an assertion of notability (albeit one I disagree with). TheGrappler (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, only substantive edits are by a single editor who has contributed to no other articles. That may not be a formal cause for deletion, but it smacks of WP:PROMO and probably WP:COI. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Christopher Pottenger

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

This article is about a pairs figure skater for which I cannot find significant coverage; only results reports from competitions. Looking at WP:NSKATE, I don't see that any of the criteria to establish notability are satisfied. He has competed in only one senior event (US Champs) finishing 11th. All other competitions are novice and junior, and none of those are the Junior World Championships. Whpq (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as nominiationCurb Chain (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clixtr

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources here, here, here and here (just about) seem to assert notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As this article is an abomination of company and service, there are two subjects to discuss:
1. Service: all the references I could find are clearly connected with the launch event of the service, which is what "multiple sources" was not supposed to mean. Given the content of these news items, I doubt if anyone could tell a difference between this particular service and, say, Flickr or Google Picasa, so the references are clearly lacking depth. I would add that I have no doubts that this coverage is paid promotion, which would invalidate it for the purposes of establishing notability.
2. Company: absolutely nothing to suggest notability, just the startup announcement, which itself is covered not as such, but as an event during TechCrunch50.
I would specifically note, that if this article survives AfD, it should be cleaned of the company-related information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources that are readily available all seem to cover just the launch announcement or basic existence, so that doesn't help with WP:ORG. The product/service offered may be significant enough to meet WP:NSOFT, but it is not evident at this time (right now it seems to be more in the order of WP:MILL). If someone can improve the article with more in-depth knowledge I am open to revise, but right now I don't see it. -- BenTels (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ~~The topic of this stub article~~ This company meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Clixtr Wins Social Networking Category at Emerging Tech Awards - Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal article
TechCrunch Clixtr Web Launch Announcement - Techcrunch article
TechCrunch50 Launch Article - Techcrunch article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of this article's topics do you refer to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised !vote above to clarify: This company meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete for sheer low quality as an article.

As that isn't strict policy though (I wish!), then it would appear to scrape basic notability on its 2009 award. That's a lifetime ago in dotcom years though, and if they haven't seen meteoric success since then, then are they at all relevant today? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please read WP:NTEMP in entirety. Also, topic notability is based upon sources, and not upon the state of Wikipedia articles. Period. Please consider reading WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Suggestions to remove articles from the encyclopedia that are not based upon Wikipedia deletion policy and notability guidelines are essentially invalid. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:NTEMP suggests that coverage in relation to single event does not contribute to notability, which is Andy's point. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 19 August 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Progressive Christianity

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

Non-notable and considering that this is a religious group, I assumed I was going to find very little with search results and yes, I ended with zero reliable third-party sources. The links I found were either irrelevant to the group itself or not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It seems the article has never contained information appropriate for an encyclopedia and may never will, judging by the lack of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know about "never will", but there certainly doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:ORG right now. And the presumption of WP:GNG seems out of reach as well. -- BenTels (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just about enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG: abc.net.au, Chicago Tribune, The Gazette (Colorado Springs) and Christian Science Monitor. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the news sources mentioned above, there are quite a few more along that line, and several references in books on alternative Christianity.[8][9][10] The last book listed, by Ian Bradley, calls the group "Almost certainly the most significant" theological liberal Christian group. First Light (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's taking some digging, but I'm finding sources. As of the AfD listing this article I would agree had unclear notability per WP:FAILN. Looking at it finding sources to fulfill WP:GNG seems reasonable as well as finding sources to justify a neutral non-advertorial tone. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per First Light and Tom Morris — meets GNG. I additionally add that in my opinion including religious umbrella groups such as this on a "low bar" basis is desirable, in the same way that maintaining a low bar for political parties is desirable. This is the sort of information that should be in encyclopedias. The article needs to be brought up to norms of style at some point, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Okay, work by others has yielded convincing results. -- BenTels (talk) 18:03, 26 August 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. Consensus is that the list only requires improvement through normal cleanup. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland state senate delegations

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

Article should be either merged or deleted, since it is non-encyclopedic. and is only a long list of politicians, most of them red link pages. The chart goes out of bounds. Tinton5 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As Almanac-type material; currently red-linked or not, Wikipedia recognizes de facto notability for all elected state legislators, and if 1 of the 47 was appointed and no article is ever created, I don't see how deleting the chamber in toto improves the project. Dru of Id (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this article intended as a break-out article from Maryland Senate? I.e. for use with a template:see also-hatnote? Because I can certainly see the validity of the article in that role (although it needs sources first). -- BenTels (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment (userfy) - Encyclopedic list with useful navigational function. That said, the layout needs to be made vertical rather than horizontal. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title also needs to be tweaked: List of members of the Maryland State Senate for the 2011-2012 session or some such. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the problem... this is just the START of a tabular list. I seriously doubt that they have a 4 year session in Maryland, more likely 2 year sessions with staggered elections, so it looks to me that this needs to be userfied as Not Ready For Primetime. Also, to repeat, the session dates should run on the X axis and the districts on the Y access so that the orientation is vertical. I'd also suggest that having one page for each session is probably the way to approach things without it becoming Too Much Too Much. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the work of a new content creator here, I dropped them a line offering to help. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the creator is trying to do for the Maryland Senate: Virginia state senate delegations. It's an interesting way to present the information, political science-wise... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy. As Carrite notes, this is a start of a tabular list. More complete lists of this type exist for Virgina and Massachusetts. This list may not be ready for prime time, but it has encyclopedic value. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could be cleaned up. Redlinks are irrelevant. Nearly all of those people are notable and should have articles. Savidan 04:03, 23 August 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. While Unscintillating keeps asserting that there are hundreds of sources, xe has not produced even one that meets the requirements set forth in WP:GNG, and the concerns of the nomination have not been met. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eipass

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

no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources given and google searches not finding anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources can be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources exist, but you have to be ready to go to at least the third page of Google hits. Note that the nominator should have mentioned that this topic is covered on the Italian Wikipedia. According to this Italian source, "The Eipass Certificate is one of the 4 international certificates recognized at European level..." Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That link is to a company offering the test. In fact, almost every google hit I found that was not facebook, twitter, youtube, vimeo etc was from someone trying to sell it. And for what is supposed to be an international certificate it seems to be only marketed in Italy and one Kosovan website. I am not finding anything written about it in independent sources. noq (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am reading, Politea is an association of social scientists, not a "company". Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it explicitly states "The Politea Association is an EI-Center, an Eipass licensed Center, where you can take exams and attend training courses to obtain the Eipass Certificate ( or European Informatics Passport), with all solutions that Politea Association offers." I cannot find anything other than sites offering it, mentioning it.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not in Italy or Kosovo, so I've never heard of this certificate before. Nonetheless, what I'm seeing is that this is something that started with the European Union Council and the actual authority for the EIPASS certificate comes from an Italian government ministry, Ministry of Education, University and Research. Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where are you seeing that? noq (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Italian Wikipedia article? Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? The one you linked to above which does not mention it or the eipass article which is sourced entirely to a primary source? Either way, it does not help the case. noq (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BEFORE step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." Following this procedure yields: Italiano. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is sourced entirely to the company website. And a Wiki is not itself a WP:reliable source. noq (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So have you read the Italian Wikipedia article? Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every hit on at least the first three pages of this Google search: [site:.it EIPASS] has "EIPASS" in the title of the article. Here are two of the first few in Google translate: [11] [12] Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: So far since the original relisting, a lot of conversation but no actual new opinions on keep or delete... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a rather unimpressive, commercial certificate that (in its most general capacity) certifies that you've had some training in front office software. It was created and is offered by only one company. There are very few sources for it because it is not very widely offered or very sought-after by employers (again, it basically means you can work on the reception desk for a company). And any claims to involvements with European programs are overstated; the Committee launched a recommendation (here it is) for member states to do something about life-long learning in the digital competences area. Certpass is trying to claim to be doing that with EIpass. -- BenTels (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that encyclopedias care if a topic is "impressive", toilet seats are a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic topic. As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." That is, unless you want to argue to the "worthy of notice" clause of WP:N. I.e., that even if WP:GNG is satisfied, the consequent "presumption" of notability is still insufficient due to special circumstances. But arguing that there are "very few sources" seems to be an argument that WP:GNG is not satisfied. And this is something I don't understand, I've already shown that 30 out of 30 webpages for the search [site:.it EIPASS] have EIPASS in the title of the article. I checked the next page and I can now say that 40 out of 40 of these sources have EIPASS in the title of the article. How many more sources are needed? Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as most of those google hits are to youtube, vimeo, facebook and the eipass website that is not really very useful. And the others are from sites offering it so they are not independent. noq (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there are zero youtube, zero facebook, and zero vimeo sites in that search, how do you explain that? Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post the search you are using. Clicking find sources above shows lots of youtube, vimeo, facebook etc links. How are you not getting them? noq (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted it twice already, but here is a URL that does the same: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.it+EIPASS Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As before, all I am seeing from these are places offering courses that include it. No one that is not involved in selling it seems to be covering it. noq (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 594 hits after those 39. Could it be that because there are so many sites that offer it, it is hard to use Google to find sources that only talk about it? Surely you aren't claiming that even though hundreds of sites offer it, it is not "worthy of notice" to be on Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a book:

<ref name="PepeCaruso2012">
{{cite book
 | author1    = Mauro Schiano di Pepe
 | author2    = Marco Caruso
 | author3    = Diego Ettari
 | title      = Computer certification guide. Manuale propedeutico al conseguimento della certificazione informatica Eipass. Con CD-ROM
 | url        = http://books.google.com/books?id=WPeDtwAACAAJ
 | accessdate = 2012-08-19
 | year       = 2012
 | publisher  = S.E.F. (Napoli)
 | isbn       = 978-88-97245-04-9
}}</ref>

The translation of the title in Google translate is Manual prerequisite to obtaining certification Eipass computer. Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems to have been published by a company that have not published anything else. And yes, hundreds of google hits are not significant - I can google my own name and get hundreds of hits - none of which makes me notable. The article makes claims about being a European recognized qualification but nothing backs that up. The only refs you are coming up with are sites selling it. noq (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at all 633 sites? What is your basis for saying that all of the sites are selling it? Have you read the Italian Wikipedia web site? Unscintillating (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, no I have not - have you? But the large sample I have looked at have been selling it (my default page size on google shows 100 results, not 10). Can you provide some that are not? And your question about the Italian Wikipedia article, of course I have read it - or at least the google translation of it - otherwise I could not dismiss it as being sourced entirely to the company providing it. noq (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. (BTW, the sourcing can be obtained by looking at the Italian version.) Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at dozens of links. I found two that were not selling it, but they were both involved in the distribution and recommendation of the service. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that we have an article on European Computer Driving Licence. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 August 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 Demographics of Ghana. Though there have been some arguments for keeping the article in this discussion and in the previous AfD debate, none of them have been based on Wikipedia's deletion policy, and so I have placed very little weight on them in my decision. After looking at the "delete" and "merge" !votes, I see a weak consensus to merge. (Ignorant Armies's !vote is for "delete", but seems to be arguing for a merge.) I would like to caution the participants that only material that can be cited to a reliable source should be merged, however, as all material on Wikipedia must comply with the verifiability policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Ghanaian

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as not notable; more input needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Ghanaians of European ancestry There was a previous Afd here less than 1 day ago already. A suggestion to rename this article was made and I think this is reasonable. This is my final comment on this AfD. --Artene50 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you address the issue of there being absolutely no sources that support the notability claim? How do you support your rename, where are your sources for that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in that debate and my delete nomination still stands. I agree with the nominator. The notability of this article is questionable as stated in that discussion. In my opinion, that discussion was perhaps closed too soon, and a rather quick decision reached. If the closer believed concensus was not clear, perhaps relisting would have been better than closing. I was also surprised it was closed the way it was and was thinking of making a query to the closer, but I've been busy. In that respect, I can understand why the nom decided to renominate. Tamsier (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some people of European ancestry in Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe. All I'm saying is that one shouldn't deny their existence because they do exist. If those in Ghana are called White Ghanaians, perhaps a simple renaming to the suggested new article name is better. But do we need sources for their existence? I would think not in this general case when there are some Ghananians of European descent who exist. This is not a hoax. This is definitely my final statement here. Goodbye, --Artene50 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We need sources for someone's or some group's notability; just like last time, your !vote seems to be "they exist." I exist. You exist. As does your neighbor. Doesn't mean we are to be written about on wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to suggest this article is notable. Any useful information can be merged to Demographics of Ghana (and there isn't a lot of it). Ignorant Armies (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Demographics of Ghana. There is already way too much WP:OTHERCRAP listed on Wiki. Since a "White Ghanaian" is by default a matter of demographics, lets put the stat where it belongs. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Яεñ99. Belongs in the main article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NAG.TV Media Oakland

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

could not find any references for this group, and none exist so far. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged as un-notable and unreferenced for almost a year, without progress. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trae. Der yck C. 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Texas

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

Desired recommendation would be to redirect to artist and protect, due to lack of established notability. Article creator removed PROD and continues to revert redirect without communication. In essence, all articles on singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unreleased material is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. This song is only released on iTunes. Sources include iTunes and a blog. The article as created stated it would be released on the album Street Life (Trae album), date unknown. Now the article states it will be released on a future mixtape, Tha Blackprint or Street Life (Trae album), date unknown. Simply WP:TOOSOON; see WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 03:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Merge ALH (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing properly sourced to merge. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to where? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trae. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trae or Tha Blackprint (redlink), per WP:NALBUMS. No reliable sources in article to warrant merge. I found two sources,[13][14] which aren't sufficient to establish notability. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC) This page should never have been removed![reply]

It is very usefull for people who want to build a trex of a specific type/version, and is far from promotional; it is very useful and needed info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.179.62 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rex (RC helicopter)

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

Declined PROD. Ironically, the PROD decliner provided even more of a reason for deletion... My original rationaile for prodding is that this line of model aircraft does not meet the notability standards for a Wikipedia article, in addition to smelling somewhat promotional. The editor who removed the prod gave the following edit summary:

"I have removed the request for deletion, as this is a single source regarding specific models not found elsewhere on the web or the manufacturers site"

...which implies that large portions of the article may be unverifiable original research in addition to being non-notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The cited German booklets probably provide notability for two specific models of this model helicopter, but not for the line as a whole. And the other cited sources cannot carry the article as a whole; there's not enough there to meet WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - For the level of detail in the article, I find it surprising that there aren't reliable sources providing some of this. There are a lot of links to buy it, and there are a few youtube videos showing people flying them too. I found a reference in a book (ISBN 0857296345) (can't see full content) to the model. It's hard to find references because the "t-rex" name is so common. I am concerned about original research in the article, but I'm leaning keep because I think there's more here beneath the surface. I regrettably can't find anything slam-dunk right now though. Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable model and most of it is most likely original research if not verifiable. Seasider91 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable just one of many similar toys on the market. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 19 August 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 Timbaland. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Value III

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

After cleaning up the gunk and fancruft there isn't actually enough information to make this page notable. Apart from a released single which was nearly a year ago and a second un-notable single there isn't any sufficent information which warrants a page. There isn't even confirmation of a release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This is sort of like WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would be best if we wait for more information. The article looks like its gonna be released soon judging by the number of singles it has spawned so far. We shouldn't delete all this information here yet. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment two singles in the space of a year is no indication that the album will "soon be released". IMO there's not enough information to warrant incubation. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply to comment I guess you're right. But I still don't think that all of this information should be deleted. It seems like its got enough to expand once it has been released so I'd vote Redirect instead.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timbaland. The "2010–present" section of his main article is better written/sourced than this page, and I don't believe this yet qualifies under the "few special cases" for unreleased material described in WP:NALBUMS. That said, I'm not opposed to WP:INCUBATION. Gongshow ^Talk 08:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply to comment yeah I guess so. I just don't think that it should be deleted yet.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony E. Pierce

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

Actor who has had a series of very minor parts throughout his career but does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. I have failed to find significant coverage of Mr Pierce in reliable third-party sources so I don't think he meets the general notability guideline either. Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person fails WP:GNG as there is not enough coverage of him. Even imdb, typically forgiving for semi-famous actors, has no listing of his work. No indepedent, secondary sources either. Not notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, IMDb does have him under the IMDbesque name "Tony Pierce (I)" [15] (though my experience is that IMDb tends to get things wrong quickly with multiple people sharing one name). However, I think that profile, if it's correct, still shows only non-recurring TV appearances and minor parts in movies that are often minor themselves. Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, Tony E. Pierce, don't want my article to be deleted??? I was only trying to help out one of the movie's I was in, Number One With A Bullet, with the movie picture.jpg from a movie poster web page that's all. I didnt' think I was going to cause my article harm with possible deletion. 11:10 P.M., 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyepierce (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roles in Dances with Wolves and The Bodyguard aren't significant enough, and I can't find any real media attention. The fact that he still works as an estimator says volumes about his acting career. Also major WP:COI as the creator of his own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Seto

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) specifically and Wikipedia:Notability in general. Published one book on pedophilia in 2008 which received no mainstream media coverage. Article was created by Seto’s friend and co-author, a single-purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends. Jokestress (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article appears to be well-referenced, and the subject should pass WP:ACADEMIC under category 7 (influence outside academia) on the basis of noted testimony before US committees and commissions. The argument that the author is an WP:SPA seems to be somewhat spurious; User:James Cantor self-identifies that he edits under his real name and works on or has worked on a large number of articles related to his field of study (sex and psychology). Yes, there is some degree of WP:COI here - author and subject are clearly colleagues - but that should not and does not detract from the notability of the subject. The author has already recused himself from editing a number of articles to which he may have a COI (see here) and it is recommended he add this one to the list. That same pledge also indicates a potential COI on behalf of the nominator.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulcan's Forge reading of WP:ACADEMIC. Not happy about the COI, but deletion isn't the answer. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandakumar ToolKit

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

No reliable sources, written like an ad, generally non-notable. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 01:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: failed to find anything to support the claim of notability. Probably it is WP:TOOSOON issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no evidence found for notability) TEDickey (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not even a single reliable source covers the subject. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 20 August 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 Skylar Grey. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Dark:Thirty EP

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

This article fails WP:NMUSIC, the guideline for notability on music-related articles. While the artist themselves are notable, the information in the article isn't. Simply listing a tracklisting which is taken from a primary source does not warrant a seperate and individual article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey. A good review here, but the source might be too local, and I can't find anything else but listings and a handful of forum posts — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I came across a few passing mentions like this one but I'm not finding enough significant coverage for the EP to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skylar Grey. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Buried Sessions of Skylar Grey

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

While the artist might be notable, and the songs covered are notable in their own right, this article is not notable. The subject did not recieve any chart information and beyond a track listing there is no sustainable information. this could be easily written in two sentences on the artist's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey. Apart from a few sites giving a tracklist and what's in the album, a Google Search returned little to no significant discussion from reliable sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While there isn't much in terms of critical coverage post-release, which may be in part because the EP consists of three mainstream songs that have been reviewed separately elsewhere, I find the available coverage to be enough to satisfy notability (see [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]). Note that I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, I just doubt that the parent article it is the best place to deliver this information, as limited as it may be — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Skylar Grey. As said by Frankie above. Not enough information on the article. It may need some expansion. Bleubeatle (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Skylar Grey. When there is no new information present, the article can be restored as a stand alone. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invinsible

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

The article is lacking in depth that warrants an individual page per WP:NMUSIC. Unfortunately the album has no confirmed release date, nor does it have a confirmed completion. The subject has been quiet in nearly a full year and actually when looking at the sourcing there's few sources: one youtube video, an LA times article and a press release - the latter of which is not really an independent source. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I considered suggesting to temporarily incubate and merge/redirect, but there is a really significant amount of ongoing coverage available, dating from one year ago, and with that level of expectation together with the question of when it will be released (if ever; this interview is the latest I could find about it. The short answer: no date yet), I think that the reader is better served by the article as it stands now than by a simple mention at the parent article — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey. There is potential to beef up the article with sources like these [22][23][24][25][26], but over the past couple months there does not appear to be new information on this upcoming release. This info might best belong in the artist's main article for now, at least until the track listing and release date are confirmed. Gongshow ^Talk 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skylar Grey. I agree with Gongshow that this material best belongs in the artist's article until we have a release date and a track listing. We can always split it back out again when it looks a little bit more like an actual album and a little bit less like speculation. And it's not as if the artist article is particularly long, so I don't think space will be an issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge to Action

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be mainly advertising. Not notable. Media coverage not material. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - lack of third-party coverage, promo material. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics (musician)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. {{db-band}} declained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: "Founded the '111' movement" might be evidence of notability if we had other sources that there was such a movement, and it was notable. "Ran Methodology Recordings" might be evidence of notability if we had a source for the claim, and Methodology Recordings had some significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:22, 19 August 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. Wily D 08:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Edition (operating system)

AfDs for this article:

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

This distribution failed to receive enough of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only piece of coverage is a Linux.com article, which implies lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there a lot more articles with less significance. --79.224.228.156 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Although there are a lot more articles in worse situation, it is not an argument to keep this one. We are talking about this particular case. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 21:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. The sources presented are not convincing proof of notability but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete at this point. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Rho Eta

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

Non-notable local fraternity, with less than 9 chapters. Not recognized by any national umbrella organization. No evidence of any notable achievements by fraternity. Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of coverage in third party sources. GrapedApe (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Local would indicate a single campus, not one with that many chapters. Additional news articles have been added to wikipedia article.Naraht (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having only 9 chapters and no affiliation with a national umbrella organization does make it local. All the sources are student newspapers or facebook, which hardly seem to demonstrate "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", per WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Facebook ref replaced.Naraht (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization does exist at multiple universities and so I would be inclined to consider it to be notable enough to meet WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not based on some arbitrary number of chapters; it is based on significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Even a single-chapter fraternity could be notable if it meets this test; a dozen-chapter fraternity which does not have such coverage is not. No significant independent sources are given at the article, and a Google News Archive search found only passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure if I specifically voted above or not.00:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Some sources: [27][28][29][30] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 of those 4 reference are university sources, which, while they are reliable sources are not indications of notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What part of WP:GNG do you think it fails?Naraht (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of high school fraternities and sororities

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

This list of high school fraternities and sororities is not a viable standalone list article. Of the ~188 organizations listed here, only 8 are linked to an article, making this nothing more than a directory, and we all know that Wikipedia is not a directory. GrapedApe (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable list of non-notable groups. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to do a great job of fulfilling WP:LISTPURP. Other than being alphabetical and splitting the frats and sororities, it's not structured in any particular way and it contains hardly any internal links to the items it lists. Also, do these really exist in high schools too? Ugh, glad I missed that boat. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 26 August 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. Despite more links being added to the article in recent days, there still don't seem to be any reliable sources to meet the concerns of those requesting deletion. If the creator would like, I will make a copy available in xyr userspace in case the subject should someday become notable (in a Wikipedia sense) Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Youth Press

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

Promotional article. Telltale signs include: a) none of the member organisations has a Wikipedia article (Because they together build the EYP, and each of them is to small) b) this is the only contribution of the article creator.

Having said that, let's run down the list of "references" to show why they do not establish notability:

This is EYP's own website; no further comment is needed.
This, this and this are the sites of various projects/NGOs of a similar nature to EYP. Not independent sources by any means.
The European Parliament Information Office in Ireland? Please. || Just check before writing some nonsense.
EYP's own magazine? Again, I don't think so. --> If you have a look to M100 a important Media Colloquium you can see it's a partner of the EYP. Also the orangelog has some articles about M100. May that are facts enough. On the right sight of orangelog you can see a powerd by button. That shows also that orange is a part of EYP.
And a PR release.

I the absence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is also an earlier analysis of the extent to which the given sources are not independent reliable sources at Talk:European Youth Press. Since then an IP editor has added a further source to the article. This is from a 2010 "Task Force Policy Report on Democracy in the European Union" from the University of Washington Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. However I feel this is just a passing mention ("Another program that has successfully promoted mobility among students is European Youth Media Days. ... It was hosted by the European Parliament and organized by the European Youth Press.") and insufficient to establish WP:CORPDEPTH for European Youth Press itself. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added some reliable 3rd party sources

[10] Europe is more than you think award of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Press, accessed 22/08/2012 http://ijnet.org/opportunities/european-youth-journalists-can-submit-works-competition
[12]Europe is more than you think award of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Press, accessed 22/08/2012 http://bruxelles.cafebabel.com/en/post/2009/12/04/Europe-Is-More-Than-You-Think-Award-2009!
[13] Youthmedia award of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Press, accessed 22/08/2012 http://hub.coe.int/en/youth-media-award-2011/
Changed link to Council of Europe Website: [16] Assises Internationales du Journalisme & de l'Information - Orange coverage with the Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/anti-discrimination-campaign/what_new/campaign_news_en.asp

Better? sol777 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of these added references is a Blog deadlink, the others are competition opportunity notices etc. They fall short of being in-depth 3rd party coverage about the organisation. AllyD (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Unified Provisioning Manager

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

AFD - concern = No assertion of notability, no secondary sources. 65.242.18.131 (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC) - discussion page created on behalf of IP by Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: though I found some mention, the sources are either primary or lack depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:N - LES 953 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somnioverus

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

Non-notable neologism. Google doesn't turn up this word outside of this page, Gbooks doesn't have anything, Google Scholar has nothing. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if only neologisms were covered by WP:CSD). Searched Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR: no use of the term at all. Obviously fails WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete sometimes neologisms can be covered by the db-hoax criteria if it's blatant enough, but this seems to narrowly avoid it. Per Tom Morris 2602:306:39E1:C830:59AF:528A:3B0A:CE20 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navnindra Behl

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:SCHOLAR. Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. The Tribune has around 5-10 results on the subject, but few of them would be sufficient to write an article. Secret of success (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:46, 26 August 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. The sources and information from PWilkinson and Secret of success raise enough doubt that there isn't a clear consensus to delete, even after a relist. If a Punjabi speaker has more information that indicates that these aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, then there is no problem with a speedy renomination. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surjit Singh Sethi

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:SCHOLAR. Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google book search gives 10,000+ results for the subject, with some of them mentioning his name with commentary. I am unaware as to whether this is sufficient, but we need to take a look into this. Secret of success (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The GBooks search is frustrating: after promising thousands of results, it then tails out after less than 100, many of which are the subject's own works in, presumably, Punjabi. However, a significant proportion of the rest are admittedly passing mentions in surveys of twentieth-century Punjabi literature or Indian literature in general - but the kind of mention that, in surveys of literature in English or any major European language, would pretty much guarantee the subject's fulfilment of WP:AUTHOR#3 and #4 several times over. In this case, the two GBooks references most likely to establish notability that I could spot are this short discussion in English of one of his works, apparently in the context of a longer discussion of similar work by another author and these two in Punjabi, both of which appear to be book-length studies of the subject's work. I would guess that there are significantly more similar reviews and studies in Punjabi, and that the only reason we are picking up just these two is that GBooks has descriptions of them in English. However, we could certainly do with a Punjabi speaker to advise here. PWilkinson (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sirawata

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

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability. Google searches not finding anything mentioning Sirawata and Jats. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found the Jats, and Sirawata is listed on List of Jat clans. I agree it does need references, maybe someone more familiar with the subject or who speaks Hindi could be more successful in finding one.Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was added to the list of Jat clans by the editor that created this article. This article was created as it would be removed from the list without an article. noq (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and impossible to verify. Delete with no prejudice to recreate if sources are found. --regentspark (comment) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still on the fence about this... no strong policy guidelines to support either. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theo polisme 17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though this caste (or sub caste) may exist but I find no mention of it in reliable sources that can indicate its notability. --SMS ^Talk 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable cnote

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

Promotional article for a record producer of questionable notability. A Google news search on "Honorable cnote" shows only 9 results, with no significant coverage from reliable sources - primarily passing mentions. Standard search shows a lot of social media and YouTube, little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been copied to userspace at User:Cakeupboy1/sandbox without attribution. The userspace version needs to have its attribution fixed consistent with the outcome of this discussion. (templated, histmerged, or deleted) Monty ₈₄₅ 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero cites, has some bare external links listed as "references". Upon quick review, none appear suitable for wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This seems like decent coverage to me. He also seems to be mentioned in this book, but in what capacity I am not sure. I don't think this is sufficient by itself. I couldn't find anything else, but if someone else can, or has access to the book, please let me know. I am open to changing my mind. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moral dilemma (Band)

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

Band of questionable notability - Google news search on "Moral dilemma" hardcore band shows 33 results, but only one appears to relate to the band with a passing mention. Standard search on the same shows a lot of social media mentions, but little (if any) significant media coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief mention in this German source, but this doesn't amount to significant coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails most of WP:Band. No notable work released.Bleubeatle (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric B. Hughes

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

Filmmaker of questionable notability. Google news search on "Eric B. Hughes" shows zero results. Standard search on the same shows a lot of social media and passing mentions in directories and the like, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's an award winning film director with 3 projects in the can. Why delete? Google E.B. Hughes, there are links suitable for Wikipedia. No reason to delete.Bellatarr (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. MikeWazowski did Google the subject and found nothing suitable. If he'd turned up reliable sources, this discussion likely wouldn't have been started. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation later. This filmmaker does not appear to have achieved notability yet. If any of his upcoming films manage to get some kind of regular distribution, or he otherwise receives more media attention, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

League of rebels

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

Not notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some brief mentions of the company on page sources, but nothing really amounting to significant coverage of the company. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Remittance (UK) Limited

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Available sources seem insufficient to meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH as an independent article or WP:GNG in general. Sources also do not seem sufficient to merge to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company. -- BenTels (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSQ Analytics

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Available sources do not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH of WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 God-Grilla. SarahStierch (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke BBQ Company

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

Company built a giant barbecue. Delete. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to God-Grilla: All of the sources are more about the BBQ than the company (and notability is not inherited). The article is more about the BBQ than the company. -- BenTels (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Renaming is congruent with WP:PRESERVE. Methinks deletion of the entire article per its current title is a little hasty. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to God-Grilla and rescope - the King of all BBQ Grills seems like it's attracted enough attention to pass WP:GNG, not the company (at least not yet), and notability is not inherited. And now I'm craving pulled pork. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve because the overall topic passes WP:GNG. Note the international news sources already present in the article for examples. Then rename if it's necessary to do so. Also, this nomination fails WP:DEL-REASON in entirety. No qualification for deletion whatsoever has been presented based upon Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off God-Grilla and delete the rest: Does not appear to be notable apart from the God-Grilla p b p 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and just rename it to either God-Grilla or its official name. Being the world's largest barbeque device is something noteworthy, and it does give coverage for this. Dream Focus 20:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep God-Grilla is notable. AFD is not for renaming. CallawayRox (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company built a giant barbecue. Warden (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename it God-Grilla. The company is not notable but the 'God-Grilla' is. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note: I believe the notability is inherited in this case. What does the company do? They make BBQs, such as this really famous one... Also, the company is mentioned in every news piece, which meets the standard for SIGCOV. The Steve 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. If Joe Blow makes the world's largest fishing bobber, of course every news article on the bobber will say Joe Blow made it - but that doesn't make Joe Blow notable, just the bobber. In this case an article on the grill with a redirect from the company is appropriate. (Think of it as the corporate version of BLP1E.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like to have a grain of common sense in my rules. For instance, if an author has a really famous book, then you should probably have an article on that author - they are to some extent inseparable. This is actually mentioned in the rule - if you bother to read it... Here, for instance, you should not have an article on God-grilla - the company is just a better place for it, that's all. And Joe Blow is famous - for making the worlds largest fishing bobber. That is his claim to fame. People are, after all, usually famous for something. In fact, it doesn't make sense to have a famous man-made thing without the man being famous. The Steve 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough - but in that case, WP:BLP1E would apply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly. I'm pretty inclusionist, and I think this is a weakish sort of keep. :) The Steve 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename and recast Either would be acceptable to me. Perhaps the The Bushranger has the right idea. In any case, do not delete. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Game Foundry

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 12 August 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) 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The available sources are all about the spin-out from Microsoft. And CGF has yet to produce a product. So it seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- BenTels (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:59, 19 August 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. In terms of numbers, we have three !votes for deletion and two for keeping the article (note that the nominator changed his stance to Keep). Dmitrij D. Czarkoff and Electric Catfish offer good arguments for deletion, arguing that it lacks the coverage needed to satisfy WP:CORP. TheChampionMan1234 made a weak argument, as the two voters whose comments he voted delete per did not articulate a good reason for deletion. Northamerica1000 and Philafrenzy argue that the article should be kept because of the extent of the coverage it has received in the sources that have been found. This is a guideline-based argument and therefore fairly strong. So we have two users who believe the coverage is not significant enough to justify keeping the article, and two users who say the opposite. As the closing admin, it's not my role to pick a side based on my personal definition of which level of coverage is acceptable, so I've closed it as no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cardmobili

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP, WP:MILL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, this topic passes WP:NCORP, specifically the section WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:MILL is an essay about "ordinary" topics, and essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources – Please read WP:NRVE. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: GNews turns up some stuff in Portuguese which may tip the scale on WP:NCORP, but my Portuguese is not good enough to be sure. Someone else will have to look. Also, a local from Portugal may have better sources to add. -- BenTels (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per nominator and BenTels TheChampionMan1234 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:BenTels comment is as "Undecided." Why delete an article partially upon the basis that another user isn't fluent in Portuguese to a degree of certainty to analyze sources? Importantly, see also WP:NOTAVOTE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per the following sources (others are also available):

(in Portuguese) "The technology that puts the wallet inside the phone"
(in Portuguese) "Loyalty cards are in the digital world"
"Cardmobili and RouletteCricket: great startups, Vodafone Mobile Clicks winners"
(in Portuguese) "Customers are more loyal to brands with cards on your phone"
(in Portuguese) "Portuguese want to do away with plastic loyalty cards"
The Register article
(in Portuguese) "Ten thousand Portuguese joined the digital copy of voter registration card in the phone"
(in Portuguese) "Cardmobili wins global competition for applications in Barcelona"
(in Portuguese) "Cardmobili represent Portugal in the final contest of Vodafone"
There's also this article with mentions: The Register article

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are about service, not the company; the rest just mention the Vodafone's investment and give a brief note about service. Nowhere close to passing WP:CORPDEPTH. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, this nomination doesn't qualify why this topic is "not notable." Stating why and how the topic isn't notable would be an improvement, because as worded, it could be interpreted as based upon personal opinion, rather than the sources comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I change my vote to keep as the extra references seem adequate to demonstrate notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two-word nominations to remove an article from an encyclopedia can be ambiguous. Perhaps consider being more specific in future nominations. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have changed your stance regarding your nomination, you may want to consider striking the nomination using <s> </s>. This would clarify your stance regarding the topic. Otherwise, users will likely still think you consider the topic non-notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: CORP, as it lacks reliable coverage. Electric Catfish 18:17, 19 August 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Marchington}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simba (rhinoceros)}}