Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:16, 14 November 2012

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 November	7 November >

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 speedily deleted by User:Amatulic under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform necklace

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

Promotional article for a product does not meet the general notability guidelines or the notability guideline for products. The citations listed in the article are either blogs or self-published, and thus not reliable. The PROD was contested. xanchester (t) 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no problem with this being userfied, but the issue here is that the necklace hasn't been the subject of any in-depth coverage. There are a few minor news stories that are about a paragraph long at best or some brief mentions, but they'd be trivial at best and wouldn't exactly show notability for this product. Of the sources on the article, here's my rundown of them:

[1] An order form for the necklace. This wouldn't show notability and is actually dubious as far as even using as a primary source goes since it's just a price page.
[2] The HuffPost isn't usable as a reliable source except in very rare circumstances since it's considered a blog source.
[3] This is a primary source, being just pictures of the product. Primary sources can't show notability.
[4] Another primary source that just shows how the necklaces are made, can't show notability.
[5] Just shows pictures and even if it didn't, this isn't the type of site that would be considered a reliable source.
[6] This looks to be your typical non-notable blog entry, which cannot show notability. At the very, very most it could charitably be put in the EL section but even then it would be questionable whether or not it should be even there.

I've removed several cites that were just repeats of the same links over and over again. This might actually be speedy-able as being overly promotional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with additional comment "unsourced biography of a living person". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eibh Collins

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

No sources demonstrating the subject's notability. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for biographies. PROD was contested. xanchester (t) 22:29, 6 November 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Kevin12xd/Twinkle sandbox

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. Just as in the very similar discussion about UFC 155, WP:NOT concerns need to be weighted far more highly than WP:N concerns. To expand, an article can pass WP:N and WP:V, and still be unsuitable for inclusion based on a single accurate WP:NOT concern. In this AFD, "keep" voters have not successfully overcome the concerns based on WP:NOT.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 156

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

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

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

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, the event does not even have a confirmed venue as of yet.
The sources are purely routine announcements of who is going to appear NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. They are also not from WP:reliable sources, the Bleacher report (see here is not, the mmaconvert source (ignoring the fact the url contains "rumors") is nothing more than a fight card and the mmajunkie.com one has a link recommending readers go to the rummer section of the website, something you would not associate with a source that has "a reputation for fact-checking". Mt king ^(edits) 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Much as the other 155 numbered UFC events that are notable and have stand alone articles, this event with a Championship event headlining it handily meets notability requirements. The article is in its infancy because more information is currently unavailable, but will become so in the coming weeks. There is already good work on the article and it would be a waste of effort to delete it, then just create it in a few weeks. Mtking is a troll, will a responsible admin put an end to this guy? He has done nothing beneficial at all with respect to MMA on WP, only antagonizing and trolling the members of the MMA Project. How long can people just bother other editors before something is done?I remember halloween (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP is, may I remind you a Encyclopedia, not a place for fans to read up on speculation (that is what mmajunkie, Sherdog and mmaconvert are there for) nor is it a place to have an article for every sports event, yes summarise seasons or years on an overview article using good and reiliable secondary sources. If after the event it is clear that there is non-routine coverage of more than just the results, in other words something non-routine happened and more than the MMA blogasphere is talking about it then that's when the article should be created and not before. In the mean time absent the non-routine non reliable sources this should be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As another simple example of the rank dishonesty here, it was already made clear to the OP in the AfD for UFC 155 (and also in the past) that mmajunkie is simply one brand for USA Today's sports coverage (this is clearly noted at the bottom of their website). Yet not a day latter, he again tries to pass it off at a different venue as the blogosphere. It would be interesting to see if anyone takes these AfD's seriously given these plain facts. Agent00f (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow that just because mmajunkie is owed by USA Today that it is what WP classifies as a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, in fact given the rumour section of the mmajunkie it would not come close to the bar of "reputation for fact checking".Mt king ^(edits) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was also noted previously in the UFC 155 AfD that many if not all papers have gossip or editorial section, yet MtKing is quick to conveniently forget. To be clear, MtKing is now calling USA Today unreputable; but it's not clear whether this is because it reports on MMA, or because reports on celebrity gossip. Agent00f (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion - It's too early for me to make a decent defense argument for this article, as many things can happen in four months. Per WP:EFFECT ("(...) It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.") i suggest to postpone this AfD discussion. As stated above by I remember halloween, the article will be deleted just to be recreated later. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone not familiar with the _history_ of these deletions, nominator/user MtKing above has been copy/paste AfDing MMA entries to be deleted for an entire year now to approx zero effect. It's a low-cost troll and has been nothing but an atrocious waste of time on everyone's behalf (dozens and dozens of editors) and a blemish on wiki's record for this joke to be allowed to continue for so long. However, I can only imagine that history repeats itself in these cases of asymmetric pestilence against MMA on wiki until some responsible admin chooses to fix this problem. Agent00f (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a simple example of the blatantly disingenuous nature of the AfD text, it tries to imply that no good sources exist for this event. Yet a trivial search for UFC 156 on google or google news show 23 sources for *just the announcement* the first of which include USA Today, Vancouver Sun, Las Vegas Sun, etc, each with different writers/source. It's up to the reader to judge whether the AfD OP can't be bother to do the most basic of research, or could....

pure routine coverage of the announcements nothing more, which WP:NOT is clear on. Have a look here there are over 2,100 google news hits on tonight's NFL game Colts at Jaguars all from the last 24 hours (that goes up to 43,000+ if you look back over the last month) still does not make the game notable as it is all routine coverage of an sports event, nothing out of the ordinary, yes the fans that watch the game will remember it, they might go to NFL.com or some other site to read up on it but (not wishing to tempt fate here) nothing will happen that will be worthy of encyclopedic note. Mt king ^(edits) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If basic honesty were to be observed here, there are not 2100 hits but rather 374 sources, and the comparison should be between searchs for events that have occurred, not just announced. Also, it's notable that MtKing is well aware (given it's been clarified about a dozen times in the past) that a UFC event is not simply 1 contest, but a conglomeration of distinct contests between separate/unrelated contestants gathered on one night for convenience; this convenience is only reflected in the coverage (eg. wiki). Whether it's notable or not is clear enough from the thousands of contestant bios linked to these events as references for their life accomplishment (about dozen or so on average). This is the default level of wiki coverage across all of sports coverage on wiki whether it's racing, tennis, boxing, and the list goes on. In fact, I can't seem to find one item in what I'm replying to that's accurate or honest. Agent00f (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets notability. UFC 156 does in fact have a venue (Mandalay Bay) and I swapped a few references. --Hmich176 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge or Delete This is not about amount of information, nor is it about number of sources. Says WP:N: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." This is all just routine sports coverage, reliable or not. I fully recommend we delete or merge all upcoming MMA fights. Coppaar (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong" Keep - not routine coverage. Is covered by multiple significant sources. Nominated by anti-MMA editor who should be ignored. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep After an entire year of absurdly draconian edit wars I thought it had finally been settled that individual UFC events both meet notability guidelines --which yes, are enough to keep a page according to most admins if the page is also popular-- and that they were not to be deleted. As for treating it differently from other sports, it's because it is different from other sports. However, you can find pages for individual second-tier tennis tournaments, some individual Sumo bashos last I checked, and even a few individual curling events. This is not a "walled-garden" argument and these pages have been both popular and functional for several years now. The UFC editing contingent has just been more organized than most of those other sports (probably due to a larger fanbase as a reflection of its larger popularity). Can we please not devolve back into completely ridiculous edit wars again? Also there is a Featherweight World Title match and a Light-Heavyweight #1 Contender's match on this card but that shouldn't even matter. What is worth noting is that on any given UFC event there are between 9 and 13 fights with separate ramifications across 8 weight divisions (11 is the usual number). By that standard no one is asking to give pages for individual episodes of the UFC's reality show The Ultimate Fighter, which usually has one fight an episode, but individual seasons all get their own page and that has gone unchallenged. Beansy (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While it may not be big news to some of you, it is major for MMA fans which is an extremely large portion of the population and growing. IF you think in this way, then delete all of the future Super Bowls, College Bowl games, NBA Finals, etc. This is a major sport and many people use wikipedia to learn more about the UFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbin630 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But WP is not a news source, it is not the place MMA fans should come for news and results, our long standing policy is clear on that. Mt king ^(edits) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. It's a notable event. --Hmich176 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of cause it is relevant, WP is not a sports speculation or results service. Mt king ^(edits) 05:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias do provide results of important events. --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that speculation is not permitted on Wikipeidia. With that being said, if speculation is written in an article, remove it. The event has been announced, so it's not a speculatory article. I'm not sure how your argument of Wikipedia not being a results service is relevant. There are many articles which provide results of games. UFC information is just as valid as MLB or NFL scoring information. --Hmich176 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Gonzales keep per WP:DENY as it is obvious the nominator is just a deletionist fan boy trying to create a compendium of Afds. Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles; it is not a collection of deletion discussions. The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:RS (policies) due to extensive coverage in neutral sources with a reputation for fact checking. Saying otherwise is akin to saying butts don't defecate! --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet [reply]

Keep There are numerous sources for this article and it's not even an event taking place this year. It'll be headlined with a title fight (source), the co main event is set to be a fight between the top two contenders in another division that will likely determine the next title challenger, and these are just the first fights announced. The fact that wikipedia isn't a results site is fine, nobody expects it to be. But it's been shown, multiple times, that these events are notable. A championship fight, a fight with contenders that will shape the division for the coming year, huge impacts that will be cited back to for months and even years to come. If you've ever noticed, every fighter bio on the site links to the event pages so that's one major clue that they're not just routine coverage and boom, irrelevant. Does it really matter that the Patriots beat the Jets in 2007? Not really, no. The season's over and they're moving on. But because of the difference between MMA and other sports, any particular fight becomes a major part of somebody's career. Victories that sparked large momentum, losses that led to a downfall, etc. This is all worthy of note in an encyclopedia because it's relevant when getting context. That's my two cents on the matter. THEDeadlySins (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment this issue needs to be resolved in a different way than individual page AfDs. The user Mtking has now taken part in the 100+ mma AfDs. two interesting examples would be UFC 152 now a B class article, and UFC 148 which has been nominated as a good article. the focus should be on building high quality articles, not bulk deleting mma articles. i would really like to see some sort of Dispute resolution on this issue as it does not seem to be working itself out. Kevlar (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Given the history of the user proposing AfDs related to UFC or mma in general, some sort of dispute resolution should be had. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article contains virtually no well-sourced prose and is largely just a list of future, anticipated, fights. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock[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 Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson's Second Law

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

No indication of notability per WP:V#Notability; no third-party sources cited. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's First Law, but more so. Sandstein 21:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson; law is not inherently notable but may be usable as a search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as above MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:11, 8 November 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 Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson's First Law

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

No indication of notability per WP:V#Notability; all cited sources are of the self-published variety. Could be mentioned briefly in the article about the author instead. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's Second Law. Sandstein 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson; law is not inherently notable but may be usable as a search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (might want to edit down/combine with his Second Law). A web search shows the phrase is widely used in fantasy fandom (blogs, forums, sites like TVTropes). It may be possible to find passing mentions in WP:RS sources (e.g. published book reviews in specialist journals) if you look hard enough, but it doesn't come close to notability requirements for a stand-alone article (notability would require detailed discussion not just mention and definition). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per rationales above. No references on Google Books, Google Scholar, Newsbank, Trove but plenty of references available in other sources. If the section became big enough to independently spinoff because of undue weight in a biography and emergence of media coverage or academic coverage, no bias against undoing and having it back as stand alone. --LauraHale (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as aboveMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:11, 8 November 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 speedily deleted G1 by Amatulic (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kizh Gabrielenos

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

It’s not clear what page is: original research? and/or copyright violation? and/or republication of primary sources? In any case it doesn’t appear to belong in Wikipedia. It seems to be connected with the same author’s rejecting the redirection of Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians to Tongva people. —teb728 t c 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) —teb728 t c 20:56, 6 November 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. Unanimity that the subject fails to meet the notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Domínguez

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

Non notable minor league free agent... article has a few sources but this guy is already 26 and seems like a run of the mill career minor leaguer Spanneraol (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources present indicate WP:Run-of-the-mill and no other coverage out there is extensive enough to meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable--Yankees10 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject never played in a regular season MLB game and is not entitled to presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, and I can find no evidence of substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources as required by he general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines. AutomaticStrikeout 04:21, 13 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Police Department

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

Extremely non-notable police department of a local community college; totally dependent on self-sourcing. Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point about its significance, but the fact is this is still a government law enforcement agency. So I'm less concerned with reliance on primary sources here (is a police dept. in the U.S. going to misrepresent its manpower, for example?) and think it should be covered somewhere regardless of formal compliance with our guidelines. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - actually, no; government entities are not exempt from our standards of organizational notability; and this department fails them miserably. At most, it should have been a paragraphy at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (has been on union bargaining teams side-by-side with campus police LEOs)[reply]
  - Yeah, the answer to your citation of notability guidelines is already in my comment above. Maybe it should be merged into the community college article; maybe it should also be a list of all law enforcement agencies in Virginia. Neither would involve a deletion outcome, so why are we here at AFD on a topic that should be covered in the encyclopedia? postdlf (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Minimal notability, no real reason to be its own article but could be worth some mention in the main article for that college. Feather Jonah (talk) 05:43, 8 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable police department, delete per Orange Mike's reply to Postdlf. Buggie111 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of being a notable law enforcement entity. No opposition to a merge. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Th. Gries

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

There are concerns about the notability of the subject, the source of the content (appears to be copy/pasted from several sources online), and the style of the article (needs lots of cleanup). The copy/pasting may not be a breach of copyright if the subject is writing the article himself, but then the issue of autobiography and notability is raised. FratHoneyBee (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second paragraphs were once all of the Amazon pages for Stefan Gries, but they were removed recently. They still appear when phrases are searched with Google. The first paragraph appears here: http://books.google.com/books?id=c6Ii092IX9oC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249 The second paragraph appears here: http://english.ua.edu/life/symposium Most of the third paragraph appears here: http://www.ugent.be/doctoralschools/en/doctoraltraining/courses/archive/2012-2013/2012-2013-digital-humanities.htm

There is a notability argument on the article's talk page that goes along the lines of the journal he is editor of was founded by himself, and thus not the same as being appointed the editor-in-chief of an established top journal in the field (rather than a journal in a sub-field). FratHoneyBee (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - Generally speaking, an article needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion, but rather a reason for cleanup. Remember, there is no deadline. As for the copyright issues, I haven't yet looked into them, but even if there are problems, AfD is not the forum to discuss or address these issues. Please see Wikipedia's deletion policy. Thank you. Go Phightins! 22:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According the 'professor test', "[a]cademics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.":

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

As of 11/1/2012, Gries has an h-index of 25, >2200 citations on Google Scholar, and he has given >10 invited plenaries in the last 6 years (source: <http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/overview-research.html#PastPresentations>). Gries currently serves on 10 editorial boards of journals and book series.

"2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."

Gries has been awarded the Honorary Liebig Professorship of the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, only the second such professorship to be awarded (source: <http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/other/private.html#Experience> and <http://www.giessener-anzeiger.de/lokales/hochschule/11163781.htm>).

"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."

Gries has authored the only textbook on corpus linguistics with R (reviewed positively in the field's premier journal International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, on the field's largst newsgroup (LinguistList), and on Amazon) and one of only three textbooks on statistics (reviewed positively in the field's premier journal Language, on the field's largst newsgroup (LinguistList), and on Amazon)for linguists with R (

"8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area."

Gries has been co-editor-in-chief, then editor-in-chief, of the international peer-reviewed journal Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (source: <http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt>). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.246.106 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has been around since it seems 2007, the fact that academic departments or events needing to characterize the scholar in question use the Wikipedia article should not be held _against_ the article, but _in favor of_ it. Thus, given teh age of the article, it is not article that is pasted together, it's pages at ugent etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.246.106 (talk • contribs) 18:35 1 November 2012

Keep but reduce to stub - As far as I can tell all of this article has been copy/pasted, they match almost exactly the text in the links provided above by the nominator. The first and third paragraphs could be seen as copyright violations and should be removed, the second link doesn't seem to be copyrighted and could stay, but may need to be cleaned up a bit. I think there is enough evidence that the subject meets notability (as pointed out above by 184.189.246.106 ), so once the copyrighted text is removed there is no reason to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, it is clear that my vote is delete, but I wish to address several of the points that 184.189.246.106 made.

1. This doesn't seem to be automatically satisfied just with citations.

2. It is not clear that this award is on the same level with awards listed in the criterion (e.g. Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History).

4. Just because the only textbook written in a field was authored by Gries does not imply it has a broad impact. Further evidence of this is needed.

8. The webpage for CLLT states that it is 'newly founded'. The issue is that this is a new journal started by Gries and being the Editor in Chief of it does not carry the same weight as being the Editor in Chief of an already established journal.

Moreover, there is substantial evidence that the page was created by Stefan Gries (see User talk:Stgries). This is a contradiction of what Wikipedia Is Not (Self-Promotion and Autobiography). In the end, I think this article should be deleted and, if someone else starts it from scratch later, let it stay. But this page seems to be used by Stefan Gries as a means of self-promotion. FratHoneyBee (talk) 17:21, 3 November 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, Spinning Spark 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be pretty well known in the linguistics field. He has several non-vanity published books with multiple editions. Please note that his full name is Stefan Thomas Gries, and the article should probably be moved there. The Steve 06:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. I looked at his Google Scholar profile and he has an h-index of 25 and five papers with over 100 citations. That should be enough to pass WP:PROF criterion #1. His position as the editor-in-chief of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory also points to a clear pass of WP:PROF criterion #8. The article needs to be investigated for more possible copyvio and given a general cleaning up, but it doesn't need to be deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:29, 8 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regify

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

Non-notable software company; again, sourcing is mostly regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Press releases and articles written by employees seem to be the extent of coverage here. These sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find reliable, third-party sources to support its claim to notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:01, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10 as much of it was a personal attack on a named person. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--xanchester (t) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in america

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

Original research with no citations. Wikipedia is not a host for essays. Article title indicates a POV and is not impartially descriptive. Contains a section that qualifies as a WP:ATTACK. Prod was contested. xanchester (t) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate why or how this event will have any lasting significance, the sources are purely routine announcements of who is going to appear NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Mt king ^(edits) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - UFC on FX 6 is a notable event because it will be the conclusion of The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes, a reality TV show broadcast in (at least) the UK and Australia. UFC is the largest MMA promotion company in the world. A quick count shows that there will be 30 UFC events in 2012. That should be compared to ~380 matches a year in Premier League for instance. In other words, you cannot compare UFC events to football matches when it comes to notability. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event in question will be a TUF finale, therefore it passes WP:EFFECT. Also, the creation of these articles was already discussed here: WP:MMA Talk/Archive 4. The finales are first and foremost their own MMA event, and are worthy of their own articles outside of the articles describing the rest of the series (this is actually a quote of a Drr-darkomen's comment from another AfD discussion). There are many fighters who aren't related to the show in the same event. Here's another comment from the same discussion made by jhanCRUSH: "(...) I was wondering myself why they didn't have their own articles, as the links on the MMA record boxes of the fighters who fought in the finale would lead to an article about an entire season of a show that they had nothing to do with. (...)". If you wish to know more about the subject, see The Ultimate Fighter and List of TUF champions. Poison Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to both Oskar Liljeblad and Poison Whiskey as with the final episode in all reality TV shows, they are coved in the article on the series as a whole. Your !votes do not address the lack of non-routine coverage of the event (as opposed to the reality TV show) and absent that policy is clear. Mt king ^(edits) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corn cheese (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles fall well under the scope of wiki policy. These are objective articles written from a neutral point, which includes sources from USAtoday MMA website, MMAJunkie; Sherdog; ESPN; TSN; Sportsnet, amongst others. Taken from the UFC 155 page: To address all those that say delete, WP:NOT DOES allow sporting events to be written, as long as they're written objectively, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Crystal Ball also allows for future events to be written as long as they are not speculative or unverifiable. MtKing could also included the ENTIRE quote, and not just the part that says no articles to be written on sports, or celebrities: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This articles are not being reported as "breaking news." Now, there is another quote that could be taken out of context which would also lead one to believe MMA/UFC/Sporting articles should deleted, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." However, that sentence is refering to writing articles as diaries, which has also not happened. Writing objective, neutral POV articles on UFC events is not breaking news, and is not a diary; so it has every right to have it's own articles. But, even if they were strictly against Wikipedia rules, then why deleted the information without retaining any? Why just delete pages without including the information on the page where it is being redirected?Autokid15 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im kind of getting annoyed with the recent articles being chosen for deletion, this mark the finale of one of TUF programs, confused as to why Mtking would even do this. Sepulwiki 16:47, 10 November (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per all keep votes above. Farcical anti-MMA biased editor who should be ignored. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:12, 11 November 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, TBr and ley 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per WP:EFFECT, as described above. I've been following this debate about the deletion of UFC articles for several months now, and it has become very clear that User:Mtking's actions fall under WP:WITCHHUNT. He has been trying again and again to not only delete this UFC event article, but nearly all of the event articles in UFC history. I posted on the discussion for deletion for another UFC event in the past and argued in favor of Keep, and because I was voicing an opinion in opposition to User:Mtking, I was immediately labelled as a sockpuppet. Several users have made clear, thought-out arguments as to why the UFC event articles should be kept and cited several Wikipedia policies to support their claims. Despite the fact that the number of Keeps widely outnumbered the number of Deletes, and despite the fact that the event articles were considered Notable as per Wikipedia policy, User:Mtking abused his powers as an administrator and deleted the articles. It is very clear that User:Mtking is on a WP:WITCHHUNT to delete nearly every UFC event article on Wikipedia. People who argue against User:Mtking are labelled as sockpuppets, and their arguments are either deleted or ignored as User:Mtking clearly has an agenda in mind and nobody is going to stop him from completing it. If User:Mtking is as sincere as he claims to be about cleaning up Wikipedia and only allowing Notable articles to exist, than I strongly suggest that he recuse himself from this discussion entirely and ask another Administrator (one who is not on a WP:WITCHHUNT and is impartial) to join the discussion and come up with a solution that is fair to both sides. Courier00 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to answer this, since it was well-written. The case is that UFC 27 is deleted, and some minor events as well. If you keep shooting from the hip many times, you ought to hit something once in a while. When that said, the admin Black Kite shouldn't be involved in the MMA community. He is biased and has said off-topic/off-discussion that he wouldn't see anymore of the noise that MMA makes. Doesn't sound neutral to me! Mazter00 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Evenfiel (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable event for reasons already noted.I remember halloween (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event serves as "The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes" finale. A title of "TUF winner" is being fought for here, and it's a competition of countries: UK vs. Austrailia, I find it funny MTKing would wanna delete this, since he is from Austrailia... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TUF finales are the starting point for many people's UFC careers, and they are the culmination of a months-long TV show as well. I just wish we were getting as many reasonable people on all the other article for deletion discussions. Byuusetsu (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment I just want to add in addition to the well-reasoned arguments above that any given UFC event includes 9-13 fights (usually 11) across multiple weight divisions with individual ramifications for each match. It's not comparable to a single soccer match, or American football game. Also a number of the "MMA media" sites are owned by mainstream media outlets such as Sherdog being a subsidiary of CBS Sports, and their journalists are accredited as such. Mtking at this point it really does behoove you to answer why you've gone well out of your way to target MMA pages specifically. There is no one else I have encountered on Wikipedia with your level of enduring zealotry. You've never given a coherent answer to that as far as I know and it seems you have gone well against the spirit of WP:WIN. Beansy (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep please! Stop this nonsense crusade against UFC on Wikipedia. The article is valid.TheAmazingChandler
Keep this is just another in a long line of MtKing attempts to have all things MMA removed from Wikipedia. The article is valid, and this argument has been had over and over again over the last year (see the huge number of AFD's on UFC pages). it's time to end this crusade/jihad against MMA articles. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way to have an overarching final decision made on a consensus driven portal like wikipedia. Trok333 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MMANOT: "Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event." This article has 12 citations, from 6 different sources. Both http://www.theherald.com.au/ nor http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ are typical newspaper websites and therefore "independent of the subject". The event is scheduled for December 15th and the sources range from September 7 to November 16, 2012. If this does not pass WP:MMANOT i'm not sure what will. if WP:MMANOT is not how we determine if an MMA article does or does not meet WP:NOTNEWSPAPER then we need to come up with a more clear standard. Kevlar (talk) 22:46, 20 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Roberts

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

Non notable minor league baseball player who is a free agent. Previously nominated for deletion as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players - Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has anyone else looked at the edit history of this article? The first AfD cited above right was regarding a minor Australian author; the current article concerns an American minor league baseball player. Somehow the edit history for these two different subjects has been combined (see [diff]). Can someone explain to me what the heck is going on? 18:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an unintentional history merge. Both the writer's and the baseball player's articles were deleted at different times. When the player's article was undeleted, the edits for both articles were restored. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gene, that's damn odd, but that sounds like some sort of clerical/administrative error. No grand mystery. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Subject never played in a Major League game and is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, and I see no evidence that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since he doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and no longer satisfies the neutered WP:WPBB/N. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable--Yankees10 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some coverage in The Tribune (San Luis Obispo)([7]), but no other publications discuss him, so he falls short of GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. AutomaticStrikeout 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:GNG. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Late to the party, but I agree. Go Phightins! 02:29, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cormalis

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

Not notable. Unreferenced BLP This is also Sven Manguard 19:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and the article is borderline spam which appears to be created by somebody related to the subject as pretty much the same bio appears here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 8 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 16:52, 15 November 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 Rockstar North. There is consensus that the subject alone isn't notable and that a redirect is more appropriate. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Garbut

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

Fails GNG, unreferenced BLP This is also Sven Manguard 19:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References now added. As can be seen by using the Google links above, the subject crops up in quite a number of places. The only question is whether these all derive from his role at Rockstar / Grand Theft Auto and fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. AllyD (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources added contain mostly interview content which does not support notability. Based on the sources I could find, I do not feel the person is notable by any of the criteria at WP:BIO. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:58, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rockstar North - I think deleting the article wouldn't be appropriate because it seems he has a rather significant role at Rockstar North and there are plenty of sources (though more than half of them appear to be only interviews) but there isn't much aside from his Grand Theft Auto work. If he happens to gain attention for other work, non-GTA or Rockstar North (except if it's another large and well-known series causing him to receive better and more in-depth attention), then the article could be restarted with better information. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per User:SwisterTwister. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garbut's name is only mentioned in the Infobox. The redirect might confuse users. Perhaps some of the content should be merged as well? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlin Vassilev

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

Blatant autobiography which adds insult to injury by attempting to explain why references are not available. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article points out itself, this is unreferencable. Morwen (Talk) 19:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FRom user Orlinski": OK, edit it, just dont removbe it! The world needs t6o know about certsin people! So i am not in the NY times - is this a reason to delete my article??? Again, every word in it is true, checkable, and i have not made judgements inside there. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.93.18 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single result comes up in a High Beam search. Nothing significant comes up in a google search (except the unreferenced Wikipedia pages themselves). Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails our fundamental policy of verifiability. If this artist is selling his paintings and making a living, good for him. But without any reliable sources being presented or found, we cannot consider including such an article. The two references provided in the article puzzle me. The first is a book that was published in 1971 which predates the birth of the subject. The second article I must rely on a machine translation, but from what I can tell, the article is not about this subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just published the firsrt two articles mentioning my name. A search in google books or other verigiable sources shows my name a lot. 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.93.18 (talk)

Comment - I have no idea what two articles you are talking about but material that you publish about yourself is not usable for establishing notability. As for searching google books, the results are about other people named "Orlin Vassilev". -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 11 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

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

Unsourced BLP, individual does not appear to be notable. Sole claim to notability is that he publishes academic papers... like all professors do. This is also Sven Manguard 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 7 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no claims that would pass WP:PROF and I can't find anything elsewhere that would show notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 17 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator has a good argument with respect to WP:PROF/C1, the usual handwavey h-index metrics don't seem to be met via Google Scholar in isolation. However, once some of the book authoring is taken into account, well, I think there's more to consider. Worldcat, which generally focuses on English-language library holdings, notes a couple hundred copies (each) of two of this books in different libraries, a book he co-authored got a review in The Hindu here, another book reviewed at the Daily Times of Pakistan here, he's interviewed here [8]. I could couch this in WP:AUTHOR terms, but more generally I think there's some components of signficance in the academic papers, the books, and in commentary in the popular press, and that those sum to greater than our notability threshold. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat tells us nothing in this case because Pakistan is not part of the worldcat collective. Pakistani works don't make it in. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep as per the book reviews found by User:Joe Decker, suggesting he meets WP:Author. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides satisfying WP:AUTHOR, he also passes Professor test as I find his works are cited in a number of academic publications (Clause 1) and as he has chaired a notable research institute (Clause 6).--SMS ^Talk 18:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about WP:PROF? None of the highly cited papers for 'Cheema' match publications listed on the page. I suspect there's more than one person with a similar name. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden flight dates

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

Duplicates information already in Year in aviation articles and if every maiden flight is included it could easily get to over 10,000 entries. The year in aviation articles have included this information by consensus for a long time and putting all the entries into one really huge list doesnt add any value to the encyclopedia, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article assembles information in a convenient format. If the article becomes too large, then it can be split (WP:SPLIT), by century or by country or by another criterion.—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what the year in aviation articles already do. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For convenient reference, here is a link to Category:Aviation timelines.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every item in "2000 in aviation" is a reference to a first occurrence, and presumably the other articles in Category:Aviation timelines are similar in that respect. Therefore, they are disqualified from being categorized in Category:Superlatives. In these respects, the article "Maiden flight dates" is distinct and merits retention.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Foo in aviation are not complete is not a reason to start a new article instead, not sure what superlatives has to do with the first flight of aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the year in aviation series (which constitutes a timeline) serves a different purpose than this article. Wikipedia does not require that information be displayed uniquely; although we try to avoid content forks, when there are different systematic means of conveying information, we will generally allow multiples to coexist (that's the principle behind WP:CLN). There's a partial list of these also present in maiden flight. I'd like to see the contents of that list merged here, and the resultant article renamed to list of maiden flights. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be both comprehensive and manageable, it is a case of "When" not "if" it gets too big. Probably needs a name change to "list of aircraft maiden flights" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a very indiscriminate list and dupicates existing information in the "year in aviation" series, plus the individual aircraft types articles. If this were completed it would probably contain about 25,000 aircraft type first flight dates and would require splitting into dozens of sub-articles, making it even less useful than it currently is. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne and Ahunt. Either the list will be comprehensive (and I note that it already contains first flight dates for different models of the same aircraft type), or it will be selective. If it is comprehensive, then it will obviously be massive, such that the only sensible division will be by year - doing it by country makes no sense, doing it by century doesn't solve the problem, and doing it by decade will still result in massive lists. As has been already pointed out, we already have a home for this info by year. If it is selective, what are the exclusion or inclusion crieria; and what would the purpose be of having only a selective list? No-one has come up with an actual raison d'etre for having the list; what is the purpose of listing all aircraft types by their first flight date? If I want to know when was the first flight of the Boeing 247, I'd go to the article. YSSYguy (talk) 23:28, 7 November 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☽ 02:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list, does not really define its inclusion criteria, large parts of the list are missing information. No context describing why this list should be encyclopedic or notable. JIP | Talk 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant list, subject is already covered in the "X year in aviation" articles (like 1995 in aviation or 1996 in aviation). Too indiscriminate for a stand-alone list.--xanchester (t) 12:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously incomplete, and it would be very large if it was. It would not be useful even if it was complete. JMcC (talk) 15:26, 20 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megabeat

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

Subject of the article is a dance group, however, only vague claims of success are mentioned and there are no reliable sources. The article fails to demonstrates the group's notability and fails WP:GNG which states that significant coverage should exists. All I can find is trivial coverage of this group. Additionally, the group fails WP:MUSBIO Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google US and Espana provided nothing useful for this article. I found a magazine article here that mentions some of their past work, a forum which also lists some of their past work (but would probably be unreliable). Considering they may have received better coverage for their most recent work in 2005, I searched but found nothing. Like I mentioned at one of the Megabeat album nominations, any substantial coverage may not be Internet-based or considering they were only active for two short periods and used multiple names. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 9 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tried looking for Megabeat, Sonido de Valencia, Música Mákina, and all I can add to the two links above is this blog, which is very generous towards the subject but is far from being a reliable source. The best claim I can see for notability is that some of their songs may have been widely played in the early 90's, and they are commonly included in compilations of the genre. The Spanish article on música mákina gives a detailed yet unsourced account of the movement, and Megabeat is not mentioned at all, while Fran Lenaers is just mentioned in passing once. This could be case of WP:FUTON bias, but it appears that the movement in general got shunned by the media, and only got coverage surrounding issues of drug use, accidents, etc. [9] — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Mallen

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

Non-notable executive. Appears to have no notability independent of the company ViSalus. A redirect to ViSalus has been objected too. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject isn't just an executive at Visalus. Subject is also founder of Visalus--a notable company--hence his notability. Carlang (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited by the executives of a notable company. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The rule certainly applies to executives working at the company. But isn't notability inferred when a person creates a notable company? i.e Zuckerberg is a founder of Faceboook--a notable company--and that makes him notable (alongside the other four facebook founders). Blake Mallen founded Visalus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlang (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User is blocked for advertising, see Wikipedia:AN#elance_problem. MER-C 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to have been created as part of a campaign to advertise the company and people related to it. There's no evidence of genuine notability (the Bloomberg entry appears to be a directory-type listing, probably submitted by the company). Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable outside of founding ViSalus. Any relevant information should be included under the ViSalus article. Kaldari (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno wikipedic notability, and appears to be part of an advertising campaign for Visalus. Notability of the company does not transfer to its founder.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable BLP subject. Mallen can be covered in a sentence or two in the Visalus article. No redirect should be added either. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable BLP subject. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:57, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Rivera

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

Non-notable singer, tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 18:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having had a notability tag on the article is not a reason for deletion. Have you checked whether the subject is actually non-notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but after five years it might be an indication. Non-notability can't really be proved, only disproved. I did a search on him, and didn't find anything in particular, hence the nomination. Bjelleklang - talk 16:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)#[reply]
  - That is what you should have written in your nomination. If you've searched for sources, say so. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 23 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In addition to the source already present, these two are the best I could find in terms of coverage, but it isn't too significant, and both articles from El Comercio are more focused on Aníbal López instead. There's also a series of passing mentions [10] [11] [12] [13]; they're not exactly trivial, but still fall short of what we need. Going for a weak !vote because while notability is not clear, the links do show that the subject is a somewhat recognized salsa singer in Peru, so no prejudice to revisit this if better sourcing becomes available — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 14 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:12, 22 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some sources. Plus I am not happy with how this was nominated in the first place per Uncle G and Phil Bridger --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage from reliable sources. Morefoolhim 19:41, 1 December 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 that multiple reliable sources exist for this subject. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rise & Shine (Ian McLagan album)

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

Non-notable album with no refs except a review from AllMusic. Tagged with {{notability}} since December 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE: There are also reviews from Paste magazine, and PopMatters, and several other articles discussing the album from sources such as the Chicago Sun-Times, No Depression, and there was a NPR item that shows up in GNews. Even if there was no coverage, deletion is rarely appropriate for studio albums by notable artists as there are better alternatives. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 7 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Michig says, sufficient reliable sources exist. GNews reveals a number of potential sources[14], some behind paywalls, but here's No Depression[15] and Austin Chronicle[16].--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources exist (online) that demonstrate the notability of this album, as other editors have already pointed out. — sparklism ^hey! 11:17, 21 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gac

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

Non notable minor league baseball player who is a free agent Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 6 November 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 November 6. Snotbot t • c » 17:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage I see refers to him being the Carolina League MVP in 2011. A+ at age 25/26 means he isn't a prospect, and there is no other coverage to speak of, aside from game logs that don't detail him in depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable--Yankees10 17:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players, since he's under contract with them for 2013. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that argument, every single player in the Royals organization should be listed on that page (and every other player in every other organization on every other page for that matter). Some level of notability is necessary to prevent these pages from becoming cruft farms. I believe these pages should be reserved for players on the cusp of GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every single player in the Royals' organization SHOULD be listed on that page, if there's someone interested in adding the information. Wikipedia is not paper. There's no reason to restrict membership to a totally arbitrary and unenforceable standard like "players on the cusp of GNG". Particularly given that we're talking about a player who won his league's MVP award in the not-too-distant past... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the inclusion criteria for the list in question don't say anything about it being exclusively for players on the cusp of individual notability. They just say, as follows, "Below is a partial list of minor league baseball players in the Kansas City Royals system." Well, Gac is a "minor league baseball player in the Kansas City Royals system". He falls under the stated criteria. If you don't want players like Gac on the list, you should try and get consensus to change those, first. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines at WP:BASEBALL/N do mention these minor league player articles also... so those should be consulted. I've always felt that these should mostly include players who are actual prospects rather than career minor leaguers. Spanneraol (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that adding every player in the organization would be cumbersome, making the pages useless, as it would be hard to find the more notable individuals in the sea of hundreds of, frankly, nobodies. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with Muboshgu's findings. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Dirtlawyer1's concurrence. AutomaticStrikeout 04:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the concurrences so I say delete. Go Phightins! 02:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Reynolds (agriculturist)

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

~~No refs since tagged with {{notability}} in december 2007. If notable, refs should be added, or article recreated when someone finds a source. Bjelleklang - talk 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn after Phil added refs to the article. Bjelleklang - talk 15:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What stops you from being that "someone"? This seems to part of a bot-like series of deletion nominations designed to clear out a maintenance category rather than to improve this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a significant figure in the British Agricultural Revolution. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rizzotti

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

Non notable minor league player who is now a free agent. Page was previously deleted and then recreated. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expected that I would endorse deletion after glancing at the article, but I found a good deal of coverage. Also note that the deletion you're talking about was from 2007, which was prior to these articles.[17][18][19][20][21][22] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~He played in the Phillies organization...end of discussion.~~ No, in all seriousness, I do believe that he's notable due to what Muboshgu presented. I've heard his name before, but that also has no bearing on his notability. So really the only relevant part of this tangent would be the second sentence. I think he's notable. Go Phightins! 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I shared Muboshgu's initial reaction, and his conclusion after reviewing the list of regional sources compiled by him. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline case, but several references exist that aren't cited in the article. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Katt

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

Non-notable minor actor Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete at this time. i did find a primary source verification that he won the LA Film award, but there does not appear to be any third party coverage of that award or any of the other awards or nominations to show they are significant; nor any coverage of his appearance in films other than basic credit lising. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoever made this page has his age wrong. He was born in 1975 or even before. Like most actors, it is likely he made the page to gain notoriety and have producers think he is younger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.25.138 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He made the page to gain notoriety"? Presumably a malapropism, unless you think he deliberately tries to get a bad reputation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is problematic because the subject of the article is in an editing conflict over content and is currently blocked. The subject has significant coverage in one reliable source: Interview in Greek Reporter. Looking at other coverage, it tends to be mentions in passing in film or theatre reviews, blog interviews, or comments in other non-reliable sources. He has an interview on Time Warner's "On the Beat", which appears to be a cable show. I'm not sure how important that show is, but we don't have an article on it, and there's little information available on the internet. I did note that at the start of the "On the Beat" interview he is described as "not a household name" - however, the interview appears to have been done in 2009. His films do not appear to be notable - the most recent is "In Montauk", made by an unknown independent film company, and directed by the little known Jonathan Spottiswoode. The film has not gathered reviews by any reliable or noteworthy sources. I think the subject is just bubbling under as regards notability, but he is not yet at the stage where a significant number of readers would be looking for an encyclopedia entry on him. The traffic to the article has been very minimal until the recent edit conflict. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that this is a definite keep, but neither is there a sufficient lack of evidence to say this is a definite delete. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SilkTork, you are normally a very reliable and careful editor, but I think you have slipped up on this occasion. You describe the piece in Greek Reporter as "significant coverage in one reliable source". However, Greek Reporter's self-professed purpose is to serve as a medium for people of Greek background to publish self-promotional material. Just to quote one sentence from the "about" page on its website: "However, we will try to promote your name and reports as much as we can", and there is a lot more conveying the same message. By no stretch of the imagination is it either a reliable source or an independent source. That is the one source that you seem to regard as clearly good, but I'm afraid you are mistaken. The rest of your post seems to say, in effect, that there are various mentions in sources, but that you are unsure how much they are worth. My own searches, once I had filtered out hits for other people called "George Katt", turned up, apart from the "On the Beat" interview that you mentioned, the inevitable georgekatt.com, IMDb, FaceBook, YouTube, vimeo, and Twitter, and some clearly promotional sites, such as independentfilmnow.com, which says of itself "IndependentFilmNow is a new website dedicated to providing independent filmmakers a unique, comprehensive space to promote their work". So we seem to be left with the one interview in "On the Beat", the value of which you are doubtful about. My searches about "On the Beat" have failed to turn up anything to suggest that it's a particularly significant source, but even if we give it the benefit of the doubt, that one source comes nowhere near the substantial coverage in multiple sources that we need. My conclusion is that there really is no evidence anywhere of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re the Greek Reporter and reliability -when I look at this page on the bottom right hand column, the submission portal is identified by the banner "YOU WRITE! WE DON'T EDIT" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that, but it gives even more support to what I wrote. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAP AG

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

This page, along with the numerous SAP-related pages to which it links, is just an advert for a company that doesn't seem especially notable. (Pages for similar companies have been deleted with broad support for doing so.) This article has been tagged as an advert for a year and a half with no improvement or claim to notability as far as I can tell. B.Rossow · talk 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you serious‽ Asilv (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep 2e. While there's probably a valid argument that this article, and the related ones, are in need of cleanup, that's not what AFD is for. However, there really cannot be any serious argument that this company lacks a claim to notability. It is, among other things, the 3rd largest software company on the Forbes Global 2000. Globally scoped, widely-traded, multi-billion-dollar companies are virtually assured to have sufficient references available on account of their financial activities alone, much less their actual products. And, indeed, while I'd like to see more of the company-derived referenced replaced with third party material, there's plenty of sources already present, ranging from CNET to Der Spiegel to the New York Times. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep SAP isn't notable? Wikimedia probably runs some kind of SAP software, along with many major companies! Major stock, major German company, pretty much just as big as Oracle. WP:BEFORE definitely not done, this nom should get the WP:TROUT it deserves, along with the usual rebuke that "AfD is not cleanup". Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - What! Nom may be right that some of the SAP pages could be merged, and perhaps that all need editing. WP:SOFIXIT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of SAP products

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

This page, all of the pages it links to, and its parent page (SAP AG) are all thinly veiled (if that) adverts for a company that doesn't seem especially notable. (Pages for similar companies have been deleted with broad support for doing so.) The parent article has been tagged as an advert for a year and a half with no improvement or claim to notability as far as I can tell. B.Rossow · talk 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAP AG; company is inherently notable; list of products is also notable and appropriate as a spin-off list article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not significantly less notable than e.g. Microsoft. —Ruud 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, not a particularly good contribution in its present form, but SAP is a pretty major enterprise software company, even though it may not be known in consumer computing circles. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usher (application)

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

One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor, sourced to regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With a basic search, I couldn't find references that would show notability for this product, only two small magazine-style pieces that sound like stories placed by PR: Tap, AGBeat. The comments of the cited ByteNow post even note that it was "pitched" to the blog. I'd redirect this article to MicroStrategy#Social products, which has its own COI problems but is at least a reasonable place to mention this software. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly SPAM. No extensive third-party coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unambigious promotional page. No extensive third-party coverage. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:54, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emma (application)

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

Non-notable software; no substantial coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find references that would show notability for this product, just lots of press releases, small PR pieces, and a newspaper article about Microstrategy getting sued over the name (not mentioned in this Wikipedia article). I'd redirect this article to MicroStrategy#Social products, which has its own COI problems but is at least a reasonable place to mention this software. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly SPAM. No extensive third-party coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unambigious promotional page. No extensive third-party coverage. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:53, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MicroStrategy Gateway

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

One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor, sourced to regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only references I can find for this subject are the two already in this article, which I agree aren't strong enough to support a whole article. I'd redirect this article to MicroStrategy#Social products, which has its own COI problems but is at least a reasonable place to mention this software. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly SPAM. No extensive third-party coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unambigious promotional page. No extensive third-party coverage. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:53, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MicroStrategy Reporting Suite

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

One of a series of adverts for non-notable MicroStrategy software maintained by an obvious COI editor. Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly SPAM. No extensive third-party coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like unambigious promotion to me. No real notability indicated and the article is probably eligible for speedy deletion anyway. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unambigious promotional page. No extensive third-party coverage. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Rafy talk 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the article a lot to meet all criteria. The book is highly notable and has influenced a lot of people. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now.--Rafy talk 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been cleaned up, although some of the neutrality issues may need to be addressed per History2007. The subject has been covered by multiple secondary sources, and sufficiently meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but.... The page needs to make it clear it is not a mainstream idea. Look at Allegro's other book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and it rightly says it was described as "notorious and as one of the strangest books ever published on the subject of religion and pharmacology". That is "Allegro land". So this one was not as crazy as that, but still is far, far from mainstream, and should reflect that if it is to survive. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've mentioned "numerous rebuttals" and "some consider bizarre", which I consider a fair reflection of mainstream opinion. You may add to it if you like, but that's about all I see fit to write. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllotaxy towers

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

The page seems to be about a prospective style of building designed by the writer. No evidence that any building have been constructed using this technique and no sources about this type of construction. There are two groups who have similar designs [23] [24] but dont use the term Phyllotaxy towers and these are concept pieces. The central concept has no references and fails WP:N. Salix (talk): 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term doesn't seem to exist outside of uses by its creator. Similar concept projects use different terminology and are not directly related. Taking them as a whole risks novel synthesis, but still fails to demonstrate notability. Note that although the article is facially well-referenced, none of the references address the subject. Most of the citations are used to reference points unrelated to the topic (primarily, the lack of yards in traditional high-rise construction, and similar topics); those which appear to reference things directly related to "phyllotaxy towers" (such as the two references in the Outcomes section) do not mention the topic and do not support the claims they are being used to cite. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read References Has anyone above read entire of the article's references including five 300-pages books and 10 scientific papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not literally read every page of every reference, I have examined those which are available online. There is a great deal written in these works about sustainability, about interfacing with the environment, about considering climate and biology in new building design. There is not, so far as I have been able to determine, anything about "phyllotaxy towers". Nor have I been able to locate any substantive coverage in other reliable sources that are independent of its creator. I understand that the topics these references do discuss provide the background for this article's topic, but without similar references that directly address the topic, Wikipedia considers this original research and will not be able to retain it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia is a second-hand source of knowledge?

ALL OF THE ANALOG AND DIGITAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCES RELATED TO THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) The main problem is: Wikipedia MUST first asks ALL of the experts in the field of architecture and botany. Also editors of wikipedia MUST read all of the digital and ANALOG sources (one by one, page by page, line by line and word by word) about the subjects, because something may be found about "Phyllotactic Architecture" and it may take years and years. Without proceeding these stages Wikipedia hasn't the right to delete an article because it is an illegal action.[reply]

Wikipedia is not a second-hand source of knowledge. It is a third-hand source of knowledge; a tertiary source. Wikipedia's policies prevent its editors from, for example, polling experts in the fields of architecture or botany. The results of such an effort would be considered original research and could not be included. Likewise, Wikipedia editors cannot reach a conclusion from disparate bits of information, even when the sources of that information otherwise would meet our standards for references. Here, that is called novel synthesis, and is considered another form of original research. I understand that you are saying the sources cited in this article contain the information that you have syncretized into "phyllotactic architecture" or the design of "phyllotaxy towers" (or any similar phrase). But those sources do not make those connections themselves; they do not use those terms. For inclusion of a concept, reliable third-party sources must address it directly and must provide it significant coverage. And at least at the present time, I do not see evidence of any such sources that have done so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--2.187.98.165 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)You do not see evidence of any such sources because you can not see all the sources about the subject. Just everybody can do such a huge work (It can be a research itself). Therefore, there is always possibility to exist such a phrase in for example an analog book in indian pesrsian or Japanese language. who knows? It will take some years for you to prove it.[reply]

You have it backward. The burden of proof is on you to find such a source if you want to keep the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an expression says: Just everyone knows every-things.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Degree

Who has any official academic Architecture PhD. Degree here? I think it's better to ask an expert in the field.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can not judge an article just through searching a "phrase" on Google. there are lots of analog books and other sources we don't know about them. just scientists in the field can judge truly.--2.187.111.34 (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak point of Wikipedia

It's very weak point of Wikipedia that only 2 or 3 people participate in most discussions!!!

A new source

You can find more about "phyllotactic architecture" here--2.187.126.37 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't support the claims in the article. The article talks about applying phyllotactic patterns to high-rise construction. The reference provided (a published doctoral dissertation that is a reliable, if primary, source) only makes brief mention of application to physical building construction, where it cautions against direct application to supportive structure, and is concerned primarily with domes regardless. Furthermore, even if the community were to concede that this reference did contribute toward notability for the article's topic, Wikipedia's inclusion standards require multiple, independent, third-party sources. As an aside: it would probably not hurt if someone was willing to refactor this AFD discussion for readability; as I'm clearly involved in the discussion, that someone won't be me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 Case Studies

BAMBOO SUNFLOWER TOWER
FIBONACCI TOWER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.187.97.249 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Analysis, Refactoring of Discussion

Well, since there's an open invitation on an undoubtedly interesting topic, let's be bold and venture a try. I've not often seen an AfD where both points of view were so clearly at cross purposes.

The Phyllo-architect(s) believe that a concept - let's call it "Phyllotaxis in architecture", say, is interesting, well-defined, and plainly discussed in numerous reliable sources such as (... Le Corbusier ... P for Thames Gateway ... in Eden Project Arno Pronk Jerry Tate: Eden ...P in Shadow Pavilion ...P for Domes and indeed the seeming CoI source Phyllotaxy Towers by Saleh Masoumi. What, the architects ask, isn't that easily enough RS for you guys?

In the opposite corner are the experienced Wiki-pundits. They believe that an article that reads like an essay by someone clearly unacquainted with the finer points of citations and unafraid to be an expert in a lofty profession is positively unencyclopedic. Why, the article reads as if it was written by an architect! And a careful Google search for "Phyllotaxy Towers" returns no result but a CoI! Let's take it to AfD at once.

There is, I think, easily room in Wikipedia for a new, properly sourced article on "Phyllotaxis in architecture". Whether that article would be named "Phyllotaxy Towers" is, I suspect, quite doubtful - Domes and the Eden Project don't fit in that box at all easily. The white tower image from the article at AfD would do nicely as an illustration - if we can clean off the watermarks (more cross purposes). The article would bluelink neatly to Biomimicry, Patterns in nature (blushes), and to Kröller-Müller Museum and Jay Kappraff, for example.

Finally, is there useful text in Phyllotaxy towers, and does it have worthwhile sources for the new article? I think yes. Does it need rewriting and citing with the sources listed above? Yes. Should we edit the existing or start over? We need to decide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally like to play the role of the "Wiki-pundit" and criteria stickler; I think of myself as fairly inclusionist. In this case, though, the problem really is the content in the article. I think some intersection of biology-inspired structural design and architecture could form the basis for a properly sourced article, although I'm not at all certain what that article should be titled (personally, I suspect the solution is to widen the scope further for an article at biomimetic architecture, which has some currency in the field). In any case, it's not this. The problem here is that this is a single author's work, with a bunch of references that don't really support its claims. You'll note that most of the new references you provided are to dome-like structures, blobitecture, or ornamental construction. Reliable sources do not really discuss the idea of a residential high-rise on this model. They do not discuss the idea that apartments with more sky access might be psychologically considered houses. They do not discuss using a floorplan inspired by phyllotaxy as a means to put yards in apartments. They do not make the claim (or discuss the claim) that such a residential structure would have sufficient additional solar energy availability to negate or exceed the additional energy costs of climate control inherent in the larger surface area. Those are the salient points of the article, illustrated with computer-model mockup images that aren't declared as such. There may be (indeed, almost certianly is) article potential inherent in the broader topics, but what we've got at AFD is still all OR. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've been making notes for such an article, and there is a place in it for a paragraph on towers, pointing out that they offer a neat way of giving each flat/apt. a bit of sky and privacy, ref Masoumi. The rest of the article, using the refs we've listed above, is on domes et al. Whether it's P. architecture or B. architecture is likely not v. important as we can redirect. The current WP:OR content is only causing confusion. Do we edit or WP:TNT? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to TNT. Reliable sources in the field are just silent on the claims in this article, and the central issues to the mainstream field are very different than these. I'm not even sure we can import a paragraph on this tower material because the Masoumi ref doesn't appear to be a reliable source (Archivenue is a Wordpress site). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion above - article is OR with sources that largely do not support the text as written. We believe that a different article on a broader topic such as Biomimetic architecture could with benefit use the sources discovered here, and could cover phyllotactic architecture in its various forms, including towers. Perhaps when various such towers have been built there will be sufficient sources on the narrower topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of not been proven theories on Wikipedia. why don't you delete all of them?--2.187.97.249 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to replace images with UN-watermarked ones...Regards.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHYLLOTACTIC ARCHITECTURE or PHYLLOTAXIS IN ARCHITECTURE

Phyllotaxy Towers (Phyllotactic Towers) are a kind of "Phyllotactic Architecture" or a sort of practical applying of "Phyllotaxis in Architecture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new Architectural System not an specific building

Important point is "Phyllotaxy Towers" ARE a system of architecture not just a specific building. on the other hand there would be different types of phyllotaxy towers with using different phyllotactic patterns for different geographic areas.--Saleh Masoumi (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:HAMMER. Perhaps later? Bearian (talk) 20:59, 13 November 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 Marie-Louise Bruyère . MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruyere Suit

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

This page was obviously created in good faith, but a Bruyère suit simply means ANY suit designed by Madame Marie-Louise Bruyère, unlike say, a Chanel suit, which has certain rules and details that denote it, for example. However, there is certainly scope for an article on Marie-Louise Bruyère herself. Mabalu (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also looks like one of the unfortunate saps who rehash Wikipedia articles into overpriced "books" has fallen for this. Oops. But does the existence of a book titled this mean that the article should be made a redirect to a yet-to-be-written article on the designer herself? Mabalu (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to note that I have rustled up a quickie stub article on Marie-Louise Bruyère so that if a redirect is considered appropriate, there is a target for it. Mabalu (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel the editor who called me a "sap" and suggested that I rehash articles is being unfair. He should try doing research instead of making comments to denigrate what others have done. Also, I feel that an article on the Bruyere Suit is appropriate, as opposed to one on Mademoiselle Bruyere, because it links the two of them. It associates the suit as the most noteworthy, which it is. It is also more likely that readers will come across Bruyere Suit and want to know more. Robert (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dear Robertg9, I was not calling you a "sap". Please re-read what I wrote and see that it is in reference to a person/persons who has taken Wikipedia articles off the Wikipedia site and published them in (ridiculously expensive) book format but has - by pure chance - used the title of this article as the name of the book. See this link, which was linked to above. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions or throw around accusations. Mabalu (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, there is no such thing as a "Bruyere Suit" - there are "Bruyere suits" but a glance at Google News shows that they are all different types of suits: one link says "blue and white ottoman silk". Another says "welted wool". Another says "brownish wool and astrakhan". Yet another says "black knitted wool". The last link on says "gray wool with welted pockets and little tucks." The only thing that links these suits is that they are all designed by Bruyere. There is no need for an article on "the Bruyere suit" for the exact reason why we do not have an article on "the Dior dress" (which could refer to any one of thousands of individual Dior dress designs.) Mabalu (talk) 01:52, 4 November 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) 14:13, 6 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic that fails WP:GNG for coverage. TBr and ley 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The stub has two reliable sources cited, and there are plenty of precedents in fashion for a classic design being named after the designer. "Chanel suit" actually does refer to a specific design (it's a pity there isn't a standalone article on the design): boxy cropped jacket with no collar, typically with square upright pockets, emphasized a flattened chest, with a matching miniskirt, the whole ensemble in tweed (see description of "the Chanel suit" here [25], and a Dior dress most likely refers to "[New Look]" that he launched, with a voluminous skirt (or naming a particular design after someone else -- as with the Birkin bag or when Marc Jacobs designed the Stam purse and named it after Jessica Stam). Bruyere designed many dresses and suits, sure, but if she originated a specific design, as described in this article, why is it implausible that it would have been named after the designer in her honour? You are making Madame Bruyere spin in her chi-chi designer grave. OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is simply no evidence for this. The sources in the article do not support the statement that there was a design that became known as the "Bruyere suit", as opposed to a Bruyere-designed suit. The Google news results give plenty of hits for Bruyere suits, but as I pointed out, every single suit is clearly different to each other even in the snippet views of pay-per-view articles. The "Chanel suit" was emulated by other designers who were not Chanel, the "New Look" was emulated by lots of other designers. Please note that I did cite the Chanel suit in my original nomination as an example of a suit where the designer name is associated with a specific style of suit beyond those by Chanel. "Dior dress" could also refer to the A-Line, the H-Line or the Y-Line, depending which year the sources are from or referring to. The point I am making is that the designer is notable as a person, but she did not create an enduring style named after her. There are no sources showing consistency of design of Bruyere suits - they are all different. (Incidentally, original Chanel suits don't have miniskirts, which she famously loathed - this is a 1980s onwards Lagerfeld variation on the theme) The only 21st century Google Books hits for "Bruyere suit" are Wikipedia article rehashes, the only 20th century hit that's relevant is from a fashion magazine describing a suit that Madame Bruyere designed, and it is called "La Maslowa", not "Bruyere suit". To be blunt, Marie-Louise Bruyere has not enjoyed lasting widespread renown or fame, but is one of hundreds of French couturiers from her period - like Marcelle Dormoy, Juliette Vermeuil, Jeanne Lafaurie, Mad Charpentier, Kostio de War, Ardanse, Suzanne Laroche, Goupy-Larose, etc. etc. etc., who are sadly largely known nowadays as background names to the Chanels, Patous, Lelongs and Schiaparellis. A shame, because they were talented too and there is enough material out there on most of them to create articles on them as designers and businesses. At the very least, the term is only valid as a redirect to the designer's article. Mabalu (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are links to those "reliable sources" - the first one can be snippet-viewed here - and all it says is "The Bruyere suit illustrated on this page bears out the point." The other "reliable source" is snippet-viewable here and again, all it says is "Famed for clothes of quiet distinction, a requisite for the world's chic Mme. Bruyere Suit Simple to Sew, Elegant to Wear". They confirm, like almost all the news archive sources, that Bruyere was known for designing nice suits of many different styles (not a specific style like a Chanel suit) - but that is all. Mabalu (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Madame Bruyere article. And thank you Mabalu for the extensive digging for info. I tried looking into French sources, but kept getting buried under links to sources about La Bruyere, the writer. Anyhoo. It'd be nice to at least have start class articles on a lot of these couturiers from the late 19th C/early 20th C. Many of them are so collectable among vintage fans, and they originated scores of classic trends, even though the names are hardly known by most people nowadays. OttawaAC (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Madame Bruyere article. I am unable to find any references to "Bruyere suit" and a specific named style. - PKM (talk) 19:27, 21 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dever

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable professor who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps to look at the books. Teaching persons with mental retardation : a model for curriculum development and teaching published by a standard educational publisher, is in 243 libraries, and was translated into French. Translations indicate, though not prove notability as an author. I'll add the book reviews later today, which prove it. . He was pre-internet, os it takes careful checking. (I note he was a professor at Indiana, a first-rate research university--true, it was in special education, and some people might think that field insufficiently rigorous for even the most distinguished universities to matter, but I think that's prejudice, which has sometimes prevented our recognition of notability under WP:PROF. will also show notability as WP:PROF) I note the nom. had tagged this as a speedy, despite the listing of the publications--surely publishing a book from a regular publisher is some indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two books are ISBN 9780697205599, ISBN 9780940898196 and both fail WP:NBOOK. Claim that he predates the Internet is false as the first book listed above is 1997 and the Internet was mainstream at this point, particularly in academic circles. Even if his books were notable, that doesn't make him notable. He himself does not appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. This is borne-out in the lack of mentions by other scholars. Feel free to read the criteria. As for nomination for speedy, there were no verifiable publications at the time and a trivial mention and one newspaper article doesn't count. A google search returned nothing for the subject. A search on the book title, did return ISBN 978-0675084376 which still doesn't pass any threshold for notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you by any chance try the professional indexes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (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) 15:43, 30 October 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) 14:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This shouldn't be deleted until someone else with expertise on the notability of academics weighs in. In general, I'm inclined to want to keep material on retired full professors, as a general principle, but of course this is a personal opinion rather than a policy-based argument. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As his first publication at gscholar is 1965, he is basically a pre-intertubes guy. From articles like this it seems he was a pioneer in educating for "not a very glamorous area of teaching" - and thus writing early articles in a field without high citation rates. With the textbooks, important enough to be translated, adds up to a keep.John Z (talk) 09:57, 7 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This search fails to convince me that he stands out as an expert on community living for the retarded, even in his pre-internet times — other publications from the same time period or a little earlier have significantly higher citations. And even if he passes WP:PROF, we can't write an article without sources that say nontrivial things about the subject or his works, and I haven't been able to find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 17 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of My-HiME terminology

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

Is there really a need for a separate terminology article for My-HiME? Not only is it all in-universe, but the only reference is the anime itself. I would have considered not nominating this for deletion if there was any real-world discussion/analysis/references or even any reception, but there isn't any. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article terminology section just has a link to this list, so why did you come here instead of just merging it back? If this is important to describe to readers so that they'll understand the series, then it should exist in some form, shouldn't it? Asking for separate "reception" of these elements of the works of fiction is a bit off the mark if this is an attempt to separate and deconstruct parts of those works. Maybe it should be merged into the plot and character sections rather than a separate section. Or it may be that this is mostly trivia and not really important to the series? I don't know. But that discussion should happen, and as an editing discussion about how best to describe and cover the underlying topic, not as a "fails XYZ rules so delete it" AFD discussion. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's a terminology article. Terminology sections or articles are almost always entirely fancruft and merging them back to the parent article would just be a burden. At most the most important terms can be briefly discussed in the plot section (see Shakugan no Shana on how to do so), but detailed explanations like this have to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you're judging this based on a preconceived notion you have about a general class of content rather than on your familiarity with this particular topic. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:NOTPLOT. There has been previous precedent on merging or deleting articles that are entirely in-universe and filled with fancruft, but consolidating and merging it back into the main article seems like the way to go for the time being, at least until it could be reincorporated into the series' plot and the terminology section eventually phased out.--十八 02:45, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPLOT If you want to some of the things to merge there is nothing stopping you from doing so now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. There's nothing to WP:verify notability of this terminology as a whole. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (See: WP:NOT). Any terminology relevant to My-HiME can be explained in context at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTPLOT. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 28 November 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. Consensus was clear even prior to the relisting. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubus

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG - could not find significant coverage in reliable non-primary sources. Some coverage exists, but not beyond brief current events articles, and not beyond 2009, the year this brand was introduced. GregorB (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Of the 4 references, one is their own web site, one is an article on a store opening, one goes to a page them doesn't even mention them, and one is a dead link. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as in 2009, only more so.^{see also} pablo 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not sufficiently notable. The article is basically the same blob of advertizing as the previously speedily deleted version, so there's obviously no apparent potential. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:07, 7 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic, fails WP:GNG. TBr and ley 02:53, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCED Institute of IT and Management

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

Unknown organisation, does not meet notability criteria of wiki Shrikanthv (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources with Google. Might there be any offline sources that it is covered in? The article says "media reports on controversies with respect to its advertising and ranking", which rather strongly implies that. There is possibly a website for them at [sced-india.com], but that's got no content. I have no idea why it links to timi.edu, too: nothing apparent on that site about it. Copy/paste anomaly? Morwen - Talk 18:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search doesn't provide any evidence of even the existence of the institute. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:44, 5 November 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) 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little coverage by secondary sources. Fails to meet the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organisations.--xanchester (t) 15:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - India's Internet system is not advanced so their website probably has an error or is no longer existent. Regarding sources, I searched Google News and Books but found nothing so any sources may not be Internet-based or English. Whether or not this school actually exists, there are no sources to support this article. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 10 November 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 closed. - speedily deleted as A7 Wily D 08:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astron Charitable Trust

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

Delete not finding any sources to show how this passes WP:GNG considered speedy nut thought that might be appropriate if there is references that can be found in the indian language Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See [26] Previously deleted page titled Astron charitable trust, though I'm not sure if content is the same. This current article was created just one day after THAT page was speedily deleted. The creator of this page, User:Nranja is a WP:SPA as his contributions show. [27] Non-notable Indian organization which yields no reliable results on a cursory search. Preferably, I would opt for a Speedy Delete. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not visible news sources to establish notability yet. Arunram (talk) 02:41, 8 November 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 Unibroue. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Fin du Monde (beer)

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

I don't believe this article meets notability guidelines. There is already an article for the brewery of the product, and the information is duplicative. Hmich176 (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe delete or redirect would be appropriate for this article. --Hmich176 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tasty, well-known, and often-reviewed beer, and sourcing is possible, but I don't see a compelling need for a separate article at this point: I think the best editorial solution would be to merge this article (as well as Don de Dieu (ale)) into Unibroue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect along with Don de Dieu (ale) to Unibroue. The best use of the content and sourcing available for these particular beers is to expand the article on its brand. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maron

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

While there are some sources about this guy who creates song parody videos on youtube (as well as videos of himself playing video games), the coverage is not what I would describe as significant. Most of the coverage is news-like (see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E) along the lines of, "hey, go check out this weird video on youtube". He doesn't appear to pass any criteria at WP:CREATIVE. This is the fifth time this article has been created, the other four times it was speedy deleted A7. ‑Scottywong | express _ 05:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has nearly 2 million subscribers on YouTube which puts him in the top 35, just ahead of Fred Figglehorn. That should definitely qualify as a large fan base for WP:ENT. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT applies to "actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities". Which one of those is Maron? ‑Scottywong | express _ 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT can be vaguely construed. Its pretty unfair to throw Ray William Johnson into the same set of notability criteria as Ben Bernankee anyway. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,per above.ElectroPro (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. There's quite a good handful of coverage from various sources. Zappa O Mati 18:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Henderson (Singer)

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

WP:CRYSTAL only notability is as a contestant on a talent show. WP:TOOSOON maybe if and when she wins and gets a record deal. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ella Henderson already redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9); that seems good enough for the time being. Gongshow ^Talk 06:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also worth noting is that the editor has redirected her personal talk page to the article talk page. Discovered when I went to drop a notice about the creator's username. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional article about a subject who comes nowhere near notable enough to be the subject of a stand-alone article. She is a school girl who has taken part in "The X Factor", and she has enough notability to justify the one-paragraph mention of her at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9)#Ella Henderson, but there is no justification for any more than that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or delete). It's long-standing practice that talent show contestants aren't notable unless they either win or do something else notable like have hit records or star in really bad films. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a redirect from Ella Henderson, and there doesn't seem to be any need for one at Ella Henderson (Singer). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Redirect the article titled Ella Henderson that redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) to redirect back to Ella Henderson (Singer). She is one of the most noted performers on The X Factor UK aside from Rebecca Ferguson, One Direction, Leona Lewis and Little Mix. She is worthy of an article seeing that she is a favourite and is tipped off as the winner of the ninth season of the x factor. Ella Henderson (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9)#Ella Henderson is sufficient. Should she win and do something notable is a whole other issue. WP:CRYSTAL is quite clear on 'She is worthy of an article seeing that she is a favourite and is tipped off as the winner of the ninth season of the x factor' not being a valid argument. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a contestant in a TV talent show is insufficient assertion of notability. her name redirects to the show article, which is enough unless she wins and gets a recording contact, which might then be seen as notable. References are not from uninvolved third-party sources.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~. Redirect the article titled Ella Henderson that redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) to redirect back to Ella Henderson (Singer). Why can't it just be redirected? Why is it so hard to have a page for her? What have you all got against her? The only one being nice here is JamesBWatson who said to redirect. We are fans of Ella by the millions and we want to see a page here dedicated to Ella.Ella Henderson (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have Ella Henderson, and that is sufficient. As Cabe6403 said, unless she gets a recording contract, per WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and this person is not notable at this time. Vacation9 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~. Redirect the article titled Ella Henderson that redirects to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9) to redirect back to Ella Henderson (Singer). Why can't it just be redirected? Why is it so hard to have a page for her? What have you all got against her? The only one being nice here is JamesBWatson who said to redirect. We are fans of Ella by the millions and we want to see a page here dedicated to Ella. This person is notable. Tell that to the millions of people voting for he on The X Factor UK now. And tell that to the judges. The thousands of fan pages dedicated to Ella is outstanding. We as Ella's fans want this to happen. WE TRULY DO THROUGH AND THROUGH. Ella Henderson (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EllaHendersonSG (who signs as "Ella Henderson") has three times posted "redirect" comments. I have unboldened and struck through two of the "redirect"s. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being on a talent show is far from enough. Anyone can appear on xFactor, that doesn't make them notable. She has no record deal, she has no charted albums or singles, therefore she is not notable. Fan pages do not make a person notable. Also, the way you started your comment out is somewhat confusing anyway. I vote Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's not notable outside of the series she's currently appearing in, and we already have a list entry for her. We also already have a redirect (Ella Henderson), so if this was redirected, it would just be deleted anyway as an implausible redirect (having "Singer" capitalised, and unnecessary disambiguation). –anemoneprojectors– 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: the page has now been moved to fix the capitalisation error, but should still be deleted. I would also be happy if Ella Henderson (singer) was merged with Ella Henderson, with the redirect to the list entry kept at Ella Henderson and the redirects Ella Henderson (singer) and Ella Henderson (Singer) deleted. –anemone projectors– 09:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have Ella Henderson, which redirects to the correct place and can be created as a proper article should the subject become independently notable outside of the X Factor. — sparklism ^hey! 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. The Wikipedia guidelines for notability say that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."^[1].

Presumably therefore, any artist who has been reviewed extensively in intellectually independent published media (such as newspapers, internet etc.) is notable enough to justify a wikipedia list page of their own? Certainly, there are plenty of wikis out there of persons significantly less 'notable' by these standards than Ella Henderson?

Commentators on the side of deletion might need to consider whether or not they have the same definition of notability as Wikipedia which says that an entertainer qualifies if the person concerned "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"^[2] which clearly this girl does (see the earlier anti-deletion posts in this discussion).

The article should not be deleted due to the author's biased approach and lack of referencing although editing must occur.

Missbad92 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above editor must be unaware that musicians have their own guideline (WP:NMUSIC) and that her assumptions on what are reliable sources are just that, assumptions. WP:RS applies to all references, and at least 80% of internet content does not pass. Further she failed to note that all of the keep votes were from the same user, the author of the article, who has since been blocked indefinitely .Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, Henderson is included on Wikipedia, just not outside of The X Factor, which is why we have List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 9). Technically, she's notable for one event. –anemone projectors– 18:13, 12 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giora Ram

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

No evidence for notability, either by the GNG or WP:PROF. His company is not notable, his books are self-published, his papers are almost uncited--the two highest GScholar counts are 13 & 7. Highly promotional, so much so that it might even be a G11 candidate. I see my colleague Guillaume2303 has tried valiantly to fix it up, but after 2 months of work, ended up by tagging it for dubious notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no references for the majority of the claims, most books are self published, not enough citations from peers on any notable works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmlessCoin (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DGG says it all. I didn't find any sign of notability in this article that originally was even more promotional than it is now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional and non-notable. Vacation9 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the above based on Wikipedia's own rules and definitions about "notability"

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Criteria

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

Instead of one condition required, here are five:

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

Please see "Selected publications and research works" In addition see Microsoft Academic Search: http://65.54.113.26/Author/18014943 Cited by 14 authors

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. In 1975 Ram won the ILA/IPA price for the best scientific publication honoring the late David Levine, "Image processing by computers". 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

This list of scientific memberships appeared in the original submission on 19 June 2010, which was deleted on 29 March 2012 by Guillaume2303:

Scientific Memberships • Information Processing Association of Israel – IPA, since 1975 • Association for Computing Machinery – ACM, Voting member since 1981 • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – IEEE, Member since 1981 • The Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers – SPIE, member since 1982 • The American Association of Physicists in Medicine – AAPM, member since 1982

4. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Development of a new brain monitor, which was recognized and approved by the American Food and Drug Administration – the FDA.

5. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Ram published five books 2 in English and 3 in Hebrew in diverse areas. His first book about ADHD was published by "Gvanim" and it is recommended by the Ministry of Education in Israel. The other books were published with a collaboration of Beit Alim for the distribution in shops, such as Steimatzky and Tzomet. The books in English appear also in AMAZON and B&N.

GNG - "Giora Ram" –wikipedia in Google gives about 17,500 results most are relevant. More than 2 years this article appeared in Wikipedia, it was edited by many Wikipedians, who did a good job in revising it. Accordingly, it is obvious that this article falls within the scope of Wikipedia and should not be deleted.

Yesikan (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)(Note: User:Yesikan has made few or no edits outside of this and closely related topics. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding WP:PROF and WP:GNG. 1/ The link you give lists 5 articles citing Ram's works (with indeed a total of 14 different authors, not that this matters). This is way below what normally is considered notable here. At a minimum, several hundred citations would be needed. No disrespect intended, but I know undergrad students that have as many (or more) citations. 2/ That is not a highly prestigious award. 3/ Being a member of a society is not a distinction, usually all it takes is to pay the membership fee. What WP:PROF talks about is elected memberships that are a rare distinction. Ram has none, as far as I can see. 4/ Laudable as the development of a brain monitor may be, it only contributes to notability under this guideline if there are independent reliable sources that show that this has made an important impact. 5/ Publishing is what academics do. Writing 5 books is indeed an enormous amount of work, but, again, it only contributes to notability if others have remarked upon it. Being listed in Amazon is nothing out of the ordinary (they try to list every book published), the publishers were not highly reputable ones, and apparently nobody published a book review of any of them (again, reviews in blogs or on sites like Amazon don't count here). Finally, the number of GHits is irrelevant. But if a few of them indeed provide in-depth coverage of Ram, those could be used to establish notability. I haven't been able to find such, but perhaps you can. Hope this clarifies. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment –
Thank you for your prompt and detailed response. I hope you understand that as the contributor of this article I have to defend it…

Obviously, it is clear from your response that you realize the existence of contribution and notability elements, but not to the extent that you would expect from a top level of world famous scientist.
I claim that we can still find at least one element out of the five mentioned, or the combination of his total contributions, which will comply with Wikipedia rules. Before submitting this article, I have researched many similar articles in Wikipedia. I must say that there are many articles/individuals in this category whose contributions and notability are far less than Ram's.

Accordingly, deletion is a too radical step. I would recommend making the necessary revisions by other Wikipedians as they would find it needed and respect those (you included) who invested time in revising this article for the last two years.

Yesikan (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, per the thorough research by nominator and the complete lack of any independent reliable sources in the article; in particularly the extensive family history material all appears to be original research. Also a strong suggestion of conflict of interest by the article's creator, whose entire output at Wikipedia has been articles about this subject, his business, and his relatives. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other excellent arguments for deletion made above. Not only fails WP:PROF, but fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK as well. Qworty (talk) 22:56, 8 November 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 List of Bomberman video games. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberman Collection Vol.2

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

No assertion of Notability, contains no independent links or sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News archives found one result here (Japanese) so additional results may be Japanese, considering Hudson Soft is based in Tokyo. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if Japanese sources are found. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That source is for Vol.1, not Vol.2. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well technically it mentions Vol.2, so it could potentially be used, but the coverage isn't substantial so it doesn't help to show notability. -Thibbs (talk) 15:06, 12 November 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) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless more Japanese sources are found. Buggie111 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The big thing about this is that the article isn't really a game, but a specific packaging of several of the games into one set. Sometimes, very rarely a compilation set of some kind or another (music, literary, games, etc) will achieve notability standards and merit an article of their own. This particular set does not seem to meet those guidelines and I notice that even the fan wikis specifically for Bomberman seem to lack any real coverage or material for this download only pack. If some Japanese sources can be found then I'm willing to change my vote, but I'm kind of doubting that any would exist that would be specifically about this particular pack rather than any of the individual games or series as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party sources or coverage to indicate notability. The article is a borderline "Speedy Delete" as it stands. --DAJF (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried CSD first, and it got denied because there was content... ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is done with this article should also apply to Bomberman Collection Vol.1 which has the exact same amount of content. Another suggestion could be to Redirect both articles to List of Bomberman video games.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Bomberman Collection Vol.1 shows RS coverage in PC Gamer (Issue 112, Vol.10 No.7, July 2003), ) as well (in the PC Gamer Reference Library). A single source doesn't argue for keep, but it's at least an argument for merge/redirect. I'd suggest merge/redirect for both of them to List of Bomberman video games. -Thibbs (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also coverage in Computer Games Magazine #152 (here). There may be enough to warrant a stand-alone article here, although the current state of the article is a joke. I'm still !voting merge/redirect but no prejudice against a later split. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Compilations of notable video games are not notable unless they themselves have received significant coverage. A mention in the List of Bomberman video games should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to List of Bomberman video games. ~~Delete both and remove links from Template:Bomberman series.~~ I could not find WP:RS for the game compilations. I don't think the name makes a great redirect. Unless someone disagrees then I believe they should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't done a thorough search for coverage of Vol. 2, but there is certainly RS coverage of Vol. 1. See my post above. That said, I'm agreeable to a merge rather than a keep for now since there's so little content. -Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mentioned it was really only a single source, but if you feel there could be a case made for keeping the other one, and this nominator has only nominated the one, then I would hold off on deleting the other until a proper discussion of it can be had. Regarding a merger, none of the information in the Vol.2 article is sourced. I added the game to the List of Bomberman video games. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I found another after that. The two sources I found for Bomberman Collection Vol.1 were PC Gamer #112 and Computer Games Magazine #152. There may be more - I haven't looked except just briefly. If there's nothing to merge except the title of the article because none of the content is sourced (and it's clear that there's very little content anyway) then a redirect may as well be set up until someone has the gumption to expand the article with RSes (if indeed any exist). -Thibbs (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And to add to this, the sources I've found for Vol.1 tend to be reviews and I haven't seem much development info which is a requirement for remakes per Wikipedia:VG/MOS#Dealing with remakes. So if the titles are already included in "List of Bomberman video games" then redirect sounds best to me for now. -Thibbs (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Upon reconsidering, I think a redirect would be most appropriate in this case. If anyone wanted to link to the compilations, perhaps in the Super Bomberman article, then it would be useful to have the redirect. This would also allow {{Bomberman series}} to remain unchanged. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Wouldn't this be useful as a disambiguation page? - 149.241.168.65 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bomberman Collection" might be a good disambiguation page if there were articles for "Bomberman Collection Vol.1", "Bomberman Collection Vol.2", and maybe "Hudson Best Collection Vol. 1 - Bomberman Collection". But just the term "Bomberman Collection Vol.2" (which is the topic of this AfD) is so specific that as far as I know it can only mean one thing. So I don't think a disambiguation page would help. A redirect, on the other hand, would be useful I think. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 12 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolgow

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

completely composed of original research; I'm not finding any information on this spelling of the name, I do see a few people with this last name, but nothing on the history. To summarize, my concerns lie within verifiability, original researach and for that matter notability. Go Phightins! 02:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Wustrow, Lower Saxony per Yngvadottir. Pyotr Dolgov has a Der Spiegel reference titled "Pjotr Iwanowitsch Dolgow", but Wikipedia is not a German dictionary. There appears to be at least one place in Germany called Dolgow,[28][29] but nobody's written an article about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolgov? I don't have strong opinions but it's a possibility that is used with variant spellings of some names. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redirect to Wustrow, Lower Saxony, where the village referred to is a component of the town. It is possible that one or more articles will be added in future on people with this surname, or that the village will be found worthy of a freestanding article, so this should be preserved for context then, but currently I see insufficient reason for creating the village article so the town is the next logical redirect target. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crude mixup of facts. Local historian. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:02, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:20, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only bit of information in the article actually pertaining to this article is that Dolgow is the German spelling of Dolgov. Firstly, this is self-evident in German orthography (can you think of any other way to spell Dolgov in German?). Secondly, this piece of information belongs in two places only: in an article about any place called Dolgov, if it was historically or otherwise significantly referred to in German; and in a general article about the German spelling of Slavic toponyms. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Body by Vi Challenge

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

A transparent attempt to get two articles when there's barely enough for one. Unaccountably accepted from AfC, despite being a wholly promotional article with no notability separate from that of the company. It's already mentioned in the ViSalus article, I think sufficiently, but an alternative might possibly be a merge, since so many of the references for the two are identical. Of the references listed in the article: (:1) The Forbes article is about the founder of the company and merely mentions the Challenge (2) The Men';s Fitness article is primarily about Humphries, and incidentally mentions the challenge among other information concerning his chosen diet & his own promotional stunts (3) from the Washington Times is first of all primarily about the company and second is not a news item but a blog: "this is the Communities at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times." (4) CNN Money is about the founder (5) is PR, (6}, (7) & (8) are the company's own website. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ViSalus. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize if the page appeared promotional. The reason I submitted it through the AFC was because I was trying to protect against exactly that. During the creation stage, I sought advise from several wiki editors via the IRC channel and they assured me the Sandbox article was okay. I really do apologize. In line with DGG's suggestion, I've transferred some of the content of the Challenge program to the VISalus page. Given DGG's concern, this addition is mostly made up of the program's early history with nothing about it nutrition. I hope this was okay. I added that section because I thought it was considered normal as evident on other brand loss pages such as Slim fast and Special K. Still, I defer to your obvious experience and familiarity with Wiki rules. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes and how I can better serve.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just blocked Carlang as an advertising-only account. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this appears to have been created as an advertisement for the company. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- To call this spam would be an insult to spam. I agree with the charge that this is blatantly promotional and I also agree with the user block. The Body by Vi Challenege is already covered in the Vislaus article in one sentence and that's all it merits, at most. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:52, 11 November 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 Wonthaggi. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonthaggi Human Powered Grand Prix

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

fails WP:GNG, a small community event, with no coverage outside its locality. nothing in gnews. and very limited coverage in trove. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search yielded no notable news coverage and it is a small community event. Vacation9 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The event was covered in detail by ABC News [30], but that's not enough to qualify as significant coverage. The subject does not seem to meet the notability guideline for sports events.--xanchester (t) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wonthaggi#Tourism. Plausible search term but probably not enough significant coverage to meet the GNG. The-Pope (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Wonthaggi per the Pope - dont delete - Satu Suro 09:52, 12 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely "non-notable", despite the ABC News source which doesn't qualify as significant reliable coverage for WP:GNG. Possible redirect. TBr and ley 03:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The Wonthaggi article has a mention and a picture of the event. St Anselm (talk) 07:31, 16 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misho

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

I'm nominating this page on behalf of an IP that has consistently been trying to get the page deleted under the justification of "non-significant person". They had incorrectly attempted to AfD this twice and re-added the speedy template twice as well. The first time the template was challenged by another user and re-added by the IP, which I removed. I personally don't have any opinions one way or another about whether Misho passes WP:BAND and am just nominating this for the IP so the debate over the singer's notability can be put to rest. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There not much in general on Misho artists: "In addition to Johnny Botts, the artist known as Misho contributed to the piece."New York Times October 22, 2012. "The conference logo was developed by Misho Bills of Huntington, a 16-year-old artist with autism."[31] As for rappers, the only one I'm finding is Misho the Slap (Mihail Mihailov), a Bulgarian mentioned in Big Sha. Armenian Misho isn't covered in English language sources. From the content of the English Wikipedia article, it doesn't see like foreign news/magazine/book sources would write much about Armenian Misho. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misho is an Armenian rapper and how do you expect the English-language (especially American) media to write about him? The only article talking about him in English is this one by ArmeniaNow.com, which is a reliable source. And another one that mentions him [32] by PanARMENIAN.Net, which is also a notable Armenian online source. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:43, 3 November 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) 01:29, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - WP:NOENG means sources do not have to be in English, but that doesn't mean they don't have to be reliable. In these sorts of cases it's often good to have an editor in good standing who is able to translate and summarise what each of the sources say. Simply saying, I'm Armenia and they look okay to me, is probably going to be met with some scepticism, but a quick analysis would be good. I certainly don't read/write Armenia or Russian, but I could GoogleTranslate enough to work out that the AV Show profile is part of a larger "Armenian entertainers encyclopaedia" launched recently. There doesn't seem to be much to specify how that "encyclopaedia" has been written but if it's anything like WP then, per WP:WINARS, we might have to question its reliability. I'm not hugely convinced by the Armenia Now article which is more about an event (a conflict). I would say it does contribute to notability, but we wouldn't ordinarily consider someone notable for getting into an argument with someone else, even if they did it in song/rap. The rutracker one is rubbish IMO - it's a "profile" in a web forum. The profile from Pioneer (the "entertainment section" of the Armenian Herald from what I can tell) is, in my opinion, far more convincing. My quick look (again, my GoogleTranslate) suggests it's a proper profile of him and his music. That would certainly be okay. So I suppose my reading of it would be that we have 1 good source and two "half" sources (if that makes sense). That probably (just) falls short of WP:GNG for me. But if anyone can speak to the reliability of either of the "halves" then that would certainly help. An additional source or two from somewhere else would put it beyond doubt as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 00:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Երևանցի, I should have also said that the potential source you suggested above isn't really helpful, in my opinion. It's a story about a different artist (albeit one with whom the subject has worked) and the subject has commented on her prospects in a competition. That doesn't add to the notability of the subject as far as I'm concerned. That's more coverage by the subject, rather than of the subject. Stalwart111 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that PanARMENIAN.Net's article Armenian rapper Misho says Emmy has good chances at Eurovision 2011 doesn't prove his notability? I do understand that those two sources aren't 100% reliable, but what sources should I use if there aren't many about him? Most of his bio is translated from thepioneer.am, which as you said is a reliable source. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it isn't really because we need "significant coverage" of the subject. Coverage of someone else (even by the subject) is still not significant coverage of the subject himself. The source itself is, I think, reliable as a source and would be okay if the article was about the subject. I'm not sure where you'd find other sources. If there aren't enough reliable sources about a subject then that subject would not usually be considered notable enough to pass WP:GNG and might struggle against any of the music-specific criteria. It might be a matter of WP:TOOSOON - he may very well be the next big thing in Armenian hip-hop (maybe hip-hop generally; I'm no expert!) but until others have written about him, having an article about him here would be inappropriate. But I'll be the first to say this is a line-ball call. Others might look at the sources and be entirely satisfied. That's perfectly fine. Stalwart111 03:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's not the next big thing of Armenian hip-hop. He have been around since 2001. And I still don't understand what you talking about. The following article http://thepioneer.am/arm/733/weekly/culture/391.html at thepioneer.am, which you said is a reliable source includes a brief biography of Misho at the end.

Միշո (Միքայել Աբրահամյան)
Ծնվել է 1984թ. դեկտեմբերի 24-ին Երևանում, բժշկի և մանկավարժի ընտանիքում: Սովորելով մի քանի դպրոցներում՝ ի վերջո ավարտել է Երևանի թիվ 164 դպրոցը: Դպրոցական և ուսանողական տարիներին զբաղվել է բասկետբոլով: 2009թ. ավարտել է Երևանի պետական բժշկական համալսարանը:
1999 թվականից սկսել է հետաքրքրվել ռեփով: Ապրելով Նորքի 7-րդ զանգվածում՝ 2000թ. իր մանկության ընկերների՝ Յոժի ու Համոյի և մորաքրոջ որդու (Սաշի) հետ միասին ստեղծում է “Selected from…” խումբը: Առաջինը Հայաստանում, որ սկսեց պրոպագանդել ռեփը: Նրանց կատարումները հնչում էին հայերեն և ռուսերեն տեքստերով:
Մեկ տարի անց, առանց որևէ լուրջ պատճառի, խումբը լուծարվում է: 2001-ին Միշոն ծանոթանում է ՀՏ Հայկոյի հետ, որի հետ միասին ձեռնամուխ է լինում նոր խմբի ստեղծմանը: 2003-ի դեկտեմբերին լույս է տեսնում արդեն «Հայ Տղեք» խմբի «Հայ տղեն տղայա» առաջին կատարումը: Այս խումբը պաշտոնապես լուծարվում է 2008-ին, բայց մինչ այդ արդեն ձևավորվել էր ևս մեկ նորություն հայկական շոու բիզնեսում՝ «Հայ Թիմը»:

You can use Google to translate it. So what's the problem here? --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's a reliable source. I think it's fine to use in the article as a source. I think it helps to establish notability. I'm just suggesting we need multiple reliable sources as per WP:GNG. So more like that one. Is that what you're asking? Stalwart111 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I have nothing else to add. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 00:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Like I said, it's a line ball call and my take on it probably doesn't add much to a strong consensus given it's "very weak". But I hope we get some more input. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:18, 16 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems to be a noteable artist with a well-known Armenian media image. I don't see why the article should be deleted. He seems to meet the criteria for WP:BAND. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was pretty much started because an IP had been constantly trying to nominate it for deletion of various sorts. I figure that going through a formal AfD process would help settle things and more importantly, if it ends with "keep" then any further attempts by the IP to delete it can be seen as vandalism instead of good faith.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 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) 14:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NotePub

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

After a cursory search, NotePub seems to have had a couple of reviews in 2009, but nothing bigger than GigaOM. I couldn't find any other mainstream source.

I feel the article lacks in notability (and has few chances to gain traction in the future: development seems to have stopped). It's been tagged as such since last November and has not been improved since. -- Luk ^talk 09:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 31 October 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) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. passing small mentions in gnews but nothing else. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 6 November 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) 10:08, 6 November 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy .

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevocable fee protection agreement

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

No attempt made to show that this term is used by anybody. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Also, zero sources and zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scholarly source (International Finance Law Review) demonstrates this is a term of art in finance. A Google Scholar search also pulls up usages of the term in patent documents in the United States; all this proves it's something that is both utilized and commented upon by independent secondary sources. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:48, 5 November 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) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per good research by Lord Roem (talk · contribs), above, thanks, — Cirt (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a poorly written piece on an encyclopedic fiduciary concept. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Jennifer VanBaren's contribution to eHow: "An irrevocable fee protection agreement...is an agreement used with buyers and sellers regarding broker's commissions. It is a legal agreement that acknowledges that broker fees will apply as part of a transaction between a buyer or seller." Doesn't count towards notability, obviously, but it does explain the concept and illustrate that it is a term actually used in the real world, contrary to the intimation of the nominator. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an encyclopedic topic. The term has been used in scholarly sources, as demonstrated by Lord Roem. Article needs a clean up and a few citations.--xanchester (t) 08:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Lord Roem ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lord Roem's research. While perhaps poorly written, it is most definitely an encyclopedic topic. —Theo polisme 02:07, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Hall (Miami University)

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

The article gives no indication of why the subject is notable, and none of the sources are independent of the subject. A Google search has found no independent sources other than advertisements. (At most small portions of the information from the article could be included in Miami University and Edgar Ewing Brandon, if desired.) --Stfg (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 1 November 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) 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless policy is to have an article on every public building. There does not seem to anything notable about this one, except of course to people who have lived in it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest thing I found to a source was this 2009 story about how they had won the Hall Cup. Which may be a great achievement, but doesn't give us reason to think it notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - it is one of thousands of common, ordinary frat halls. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, I actually thought it was a person before I read it, but being a building gives it even less of a chance of meeting WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Go Phightins! 02:37, 14 November 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 Zombie. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Felix-Mentor

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

WP:BLP1E All the "zombie" was known for was... Well, being a zombie! This fails notability guidelines and we should not have a biographical article on the zombie. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree she's not notable apart from the book/event. We should have an article on Tell My Horse, the Zora Neale Hurston book in which she appears, and if we did, we might merge/redirect some of this there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an interesting case, frequently mentioned in books and newspaper articles. It is definitely possible to compile a decent article about the subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests it should be merged into Zombie rather than kept. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. The section Zombie#Haiti already mentions her name, this article could be redirected and merged. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 November 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) 01:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As non-notable zombie, per WP:BUDP-1E. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(d) to Zombie. It's a small twist in the Zombie tale, and given that one of the 2 refs just shows someone else wasn't Felix-Mentor, we're down to one ref. I've added the refs and the medical story to Zombie; perhaps one or two other fragments can also be saved to that article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has been merged. Title should now redirect to Zombie. It's a plausible search term.--xanchester (t) 09:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zouzous

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

No indication that this one... thing is at all notable. I cannot even really figure out what it is. A "French dressing antenna"??? What the heck is that? The whole thing has something to do with foreign cartoons broadcast in France, but beyond that, I'm having trouble sorting the whole thing out.

References are all Primary, and in French. A Google search also turns up French pages.

Maintenance tags are repeatedly removed without being addressed. So given the lack of any real indication of notability, the lack of context of what it *is*, and the lack of good secondary sourcing to show notability, it's time for AFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"dressing antenna" is a literal translation of the French term "habillage antenne", which has established usage in French, presumably referring to a branded block of shows. If that's right, and it's a regular programme block on a major French television station, then it'll surely have lots of independent coverage, in French newspapers and trade journalism. That none of it is in English is besides the point. Morwen - Talk 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been blanked by its creator and moved to L'article "Zouzous" en "English" n'existe plus! (the article "zouzous" does not exist in English anymore), which I suppose solves our problem. Morwen - Talk 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that new article titles a request for deletion? I don't know French, but that looks plausible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin interpreted that author's actions to not show him/her wanting it deleted, which is fine. But that brings it all back to this AFD. I wonder if we have a language barrier issue going on here. The article is in English, nominally, but is incomprehensible in places. I have to wonder if it's an automated translation or a basic translation of something from someone with minimal English skills. The author has not edited any talk pages, so I also wonder if the various notices and edit notes are going right past them, if their English is limited. Maybe we should contact WP:France to try to get a French speaking regular to try to talk to the author. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request for assistance at WP:FRANCE. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a language issue resulting from poor translation. France 5 is one of the channel's of the public service franceTV and Les Zouzous is its morning strand for young children, equivalent to Ceebeebies on the BBC (though this is a wholly separate channel). The 5 website has a large area at the top which rotates with programme details and Les Zouzous appears there every few seconds. If you check the programme schedule (click GUIDE TV), Les Zouzous is not listed as such but the programmes in it are. France5.fr (bottom of page) gives a link to a dedicated Les Zouzous website, as this article indicates. Viewers of France5 will regularly see trailers and other info on Les Zouzous.

It seems to me that this a suitable topic for inclusion, but as it stands it requires someone to go over the translation (it for he, for example) which I would be happy to do if the article is kept. Emeraude (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As people here have mentioned, this article is about a TV channel, but is unclear. The article looks like raw machine translation, and as such can probably be rescued by some good copyediting or perhaps merging it into the article about france5. Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a channel, but about a programming block on the channel. France 5 is the channel, Zouzous is... something else. At least as far as I can tell. That might make it the equivalent of Adult Swim or others at Category:Television programming blocks. That still does not guarantee notability, but it's looking more likely. If someone could just come up with a couple of independant Reliable Sources, this could be settled once and for all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Adult Swim personally, but having read the article I'd suppose that it's very similar to Les Zouzous, though the latter is probably bigger, at least within France. A google.fr search for "Les Zouzous" gives 821,000 results (though not alll will be relevant, and not, I know, conclusive evidence of notability). Programme-tv.com is one of many French listings mags with listings. Momesnet gives coverage. From news reports, Le Parisien reports that « Brico Club » will be transmited within "Les Zouzous" and Les Echos mentions Les Zouzous as a partner service in a report on the launch of Sony's Google TV. Emeraude (talk) 17:00, 1 November 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) 01:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to poor translation. This deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation once someone is willing to write an English-language article about this topic. In addition, many of the Google hits for "Zouzous" may be irrelevant to this article; both this article and its French original include a tagline differentiating this program block from Les Zouzous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in recognition of the improvement to the article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's lots of hits for the term Zouzous, but they are in French and it's not clear if they relate to the French dressing antenna. English sources mention "Les Petits Zouzous are enrolling babies and toddlers for their ten-week, spring-term sessions."[33], "In addition, Poppy Cat started her French adventures in June, broadcast in the key Zouzous slot on France5."[34], "La Zouzous WebTV "[35]. In the end, with few English languge sources, this topic requires someone willing to write a sufficiently coherent English-language article about this topic before it can remain in article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of French readers in English Wikipedia - the fact that an editor cannot read French is not grounds for deleting an article. Previous comment distinguished Google hits for Les Zouzous and Zouzous; indeed, they are not necessarily synonymous. However, I oppose deletion on grounds of poor translation - since when have grounds for deleting a Wikipedia article included the quality of the writing. Half of WIkipedia articles are very badly written, but this is grounds for requesting an improvement, not deletion. I have already ofered to do a rewrite if the article is kept. Emeraude (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just done a rewrite of the article, in English English. Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the rewrite by Emeraude. I think all the previous objections are now met, and the underlying notability seems to be accepted. A good piece of article rescue. --AJHingston (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't !vote delete before, but this is clearly a keep now given the translation having been done and it made clear what this actually is. Morwen (Talk) 19:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Deronda (film)

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

No assertion of notability, only source is a database entry for the film. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If all else fails, I've merged some of the data from the movie and the serial into the main article for the book (should've been a subsection for them anyway) and the article can redirect to Daniel_Deronda#1921_film. I'll see what I can find, though. Schmidt is usually a whiz at finding sources for these older movies, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 1 November 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) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are now 4 sources, should be enough. This was a short film from the earliest period in British cinema at Teddington Studios. It was one of the earliest that W. Courtney Rowden directed, too. Should do as a claim to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and Milowent's rationale. Appears historically notable. Cavarrone (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements and Milowent's rationale. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Sahota

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

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

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

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

Non-notable model with a few minor roles in music videos and supporting roles in a few films. No evidence of non-trivial 3rd party coverage (references mostly only mention him in passing or credits, or are video clips). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's a genuine personality who is notable as a UK based model cum Indian actor who is in his initial stage of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.211.153.3 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — 106.211.153.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of self-published stuff to be found, but nothing to support a claim to notability according to WP:PERFORMER. Favonian (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have read this page and the refrences very carefully and it doesnt looks self published or unknow person. If its mention that he's the member of CINTTA then after visiting to the website of CINTAA i can say no non-notable person can join CINTAA coz its the Cine and TV artists Assosiation and the CINTAA is one of the most known Assosiation in Bollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.2.28.232 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — 101.2.28.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not easily find any sources, so I'm fairly sure he fails to be notable. Two of the people saying "keep" are IP-address people who haven't made many edits, one of whom defeats his own keep point (being a actor in the early stages of his/her career is not a valid reason for an article), and the other one makes a confusing point - people do not inherit notability from the company they are either working for or affiliated with. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No decent sources. No news hits for either Garry Sahota or Gurwinder Sahota. Maybe one day, but right now, no real evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 13:29, 13 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Gun Works

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

Non-notable company. Tagged with {{notability}} since December 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears the most news coverage they received was for the Canadian government contract, a reprint of the news release here. Google News found results here (forum thread but provides a (now dead) news link) and one minor mention here (interviewing the owner). Google Books provided mostly magazine directory listings but found mentions here (listing two of PGW's products, M-15 and M-18) and here (minor mention for one of their rifles). Google Books provided one result that wouldn't appear properly here (first result from the top). In 2009, the company also received small news coverage as a result of Manitoba shipping weapons to Saudi Arabia here and a reprint here (third result from the top). This link suggests they received coverage in a Guns magazine edition for 2010 but I haven't found any free evidence to support this. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 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) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What SisterTwister said: not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company isn't notable. Most of the coverage qualifies as trivial. Lacks the significant coverage that the general notability guideline requires.--xanchester (t) 05:23, 14 November 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. Spinning Spark 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djs from Mars

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

Unsourced BLP/music group. Reads as an advertisement. Would PROD or request speedy but looks like it has been requested once before. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found discussion of the group's work here (partial google books view from Elie, Paul (2012), Reinventing Bach, Macmillan) and coverage of a show (albeit local) here (SF Weekly). There are also numerous hits in Google News Archive search, but they all appear to be in Italian (as one could predict for an Italian duo), so I am unable to evaluate them. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 October 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) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability comments on the talk page may be of interest. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited their entry in the french single charts as I'd like the article to stay. Dekarl (talk) 21:39, 3 November 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) 01:13, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 14 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Precision Screws Limited

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

No shown notability. Basically a company advertisement. :- ) Don 02:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 31 October 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) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a couple of mentions on Bloomberg[36][37], some research reports you can buy[38][39][40], and brief profiles on business sites[41][42][43][44]. It's all very routine and not enough for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per various links over here. Notable enough! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These again all appear to be press releases from the company or financial reports. -- :- ) Don 13:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - Only press releases and passing mentions in industry and financial articles, nothing substantial. -- :- ) Don 13:15, 6 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TBr and ley 03:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Busby

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

One significant role, minimal coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the first ref is restored to http://www.hushmagazine.ca/the+rising+career+of+canadian+actress+cindy+busby/blog/113/9/ I don't think the depth of coverage is there. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 5 November 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, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I fixed both references in the article - the first one now points to the right place. I also managed to find this and this. I think, on balance, there's probably enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG, though, and the article could probably be expanded. Stalwart111 01:17, 14 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 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. One of the delete recommendations occured before additional sources were provided and the editor never returned to confirm their delete afterwards. The nominator appears to have accepted the notability of the subject (although not the content of the article) by creating a fork article. This leaves only one other recommendation for delete. The creation of a fork article is entirely against guidelines and cannot be allowed to stand. I note that ANI has already censured Olowe2011 for doing this. As part of this close I intend to undo the fork by merging Music Boulevard into MusicBlvd. This will be a simple paste of the material with no attempt at copyediting. I leave it to editors of the article to do whatever is needed with the material. I am only here addressing the issue of an unwanted fork and this action is not to be taken as endoresment of material in either article; that is a matter for content editing. Nor is the action to be taken as endorsement of the current article title: editors are free to move it to a different title. Evidence has been presented at this AfC that the current website musicblvd.com is not the same as the subject of this article. Consequently, the external link will be removed from the article as part of this AfD pending further evidence. Spinning Spark 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBlvd

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

This page is clearly falsely advertising this organisation / company and could be seen to be purly advertising. This company is not notable and the sources / references used in this article provide little information to prove this article notable. As said the sources quoted are either dead-linked or self published. Olowe2011 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is a fast company link self published? The other editor already cleared this page. TrystanBurke —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment&Strong Delete - The article claimed and I quote MusicBlvd is partnered with Billboard.com, Musixmatch, and YouTube which you have quoted no sources for whatsoever. Just because you have accounts on Twitter, Youtube and billboard.com does not mean you are partnered. The accounts on Twitter (Has 2 followers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012 GMT) and Youtube (Has 2 Subscribers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012) which both indicate lack of notability. MusicBlvd has little indication of why it is culturally significant. I view this article to be in violation of WP:SOAP . Section 6. of that clearly states that All topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources. This article also violates the section External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. This organisation I don't really consider, myself as a major organisation. WP:COMPANY is a guideline that highlights the various different ways an article can be notable. The article also only appears to list Pro's for this organisation therefore does not seem to demonstrate a WP:NPOV. I'd also like to point out that the article Gracenote makes no references to MusicBlvd and that the following Source appears to indicate a company by the name of Music Boulevard and not as the article indicates MusicBlvd. Overall I have quoted the problems with this article and if there is anyway in which you could improve it to a point in which could be seen to compliment the WP:POLICIES it would satisfy me personally however, this AfD debate is to gain overall consensus and I cannot speak on behalf of other people so I will look forward to what other editors have to say. --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - No, Olowe2011. This article absolutely doesn't violate the section "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article". Read that line carefully. The website used in the company infobox is the company's website. This is the second time I notice you making this claim. From briefly looking at this article it looks fine. Adweek, Business Wire, and NY Daily News are all RSes. The refs aren't very impressive, but they're not AfD worthy. WP:SOAP is about keeping unrelated material off of wikipedia. We don't want the article on law review journals to become a linkfarm for all ABA accredited schools to promote themselves, but if it's an article on the Harvard Law Review then it's perfectly acceptable to contain a link to the Harvard Law Review's webpage. That's not SOAP, that's common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment - From the cited sources on the page the company doesn't seem to be a Major organisation as sited in my comment the facts behind this judgement I cannot see why this is a problem. The page name doesn't even relate to the sited sourcing on the page. Clearly this is a remake of a the previous company or of some sort. All references are from 1995 or similar dating and as I said relate to a different named company. There is no sourcing to indicate why this company / organisation is credible. Under current Wikipedia guidelines (in which I am very familiar) an article should prove its significance in a number of ways and reliable sourcing is one of them. If you have a personal issue with me that causes bias towards my posting I'd prefer for you to discuss this on my talk page rather than objecting to everything I post however I appreciate your feedback. As I stated above the only sourcing to this article is the social networking links and sources quoting a different named organisation as Music Boulevard and not MusicBlvd. There is no evidence to prove this company has any relation to that one. I also quoted WP:NPOV because the article does not give a balanced view on the topic. Due to the numerous issues in this article it does fall under the right category for an AfD nomination. I would also like to make clear that other than yourself this topic seems to have no significance at this time to other members of the community. The article MUST prove it's notability in which it doesn't. Therefore I have made this AfD as a matter of numerous problems with the article which I cannot see being fixed due to the lack of reliable information on the topic. In response to your comment about the Harvard Law school this has clearly proven itself to be a credible organisation via good sourcing and proof clear evidence of notability. Regards --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no bias toward you, Olowe2011. I have a bias against misinterpretation of WP:SOAP. The only reason I posted here was because I'd seen a similar misinterpretation applied to the target of your last AfD and I thought it would be good to address. The problem with your suggestion that MusicBlvd is not a "major" organization is that this is just your subjective opinion. There is too much ambiguity in the term "major" for a single editor to make unilateral decisions to strip official urls like you have done in at least two cases now. Generally if the topic of an article is a notable website then the website's homepage may be linked as an external link within that article. That's not a violation of SOAP. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Suggestion - Due to your clearly demonstrating skills in making a quality and well sourced article it would be amazing to see you re-create an appropriate and correctly named article Music Boulevard. I am sure you will do a great job and I look forward to seeing this article. As for this one it looks like a advertising pitch if you don't take a brief look and look into it in more detail you might find you agree with my comments. But as I said if you created that article as a history to this it would be great. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you've gone ahead and created Music Boulevard??? I've never seen a stunt like this at AfD before. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Qworty (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI--This matter of creating a new article just to make a WP:POINT has been referred to AN/I [45]. Qworty (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have stated in the referenced incident it was not to make a point it was to create a relevant non-related to this article content in which as stated this article provides not evidence of its connection to Music Boulevard created in 1995 therefore I have created one about the one founded in 1995. This article is about a new site which has been recently introduced. If I had made that article as a direct result of this AfD and it was the same content and same topic I would understand your notice to WP:POINT otherwise the article I have made has no connection to MusicBlvd. Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olowe2011's Comment Located [the Administrator Notice Board]

- - Comment - Telling a user how good they are at making an article is not mocking them I genuinely believe he can make great contributions therefore have asked him to contribute in an article with a relevant name sited in sources. In the new article I have used the correct name referenced in the sources and am developing it for the good not for bad. The AfD only bought my attention to this organisation and I honestly with good intentions have made comments. The guy Thibbs is really good at making amazing contributions and has restructured articles I have commented about before with great effect. I have done this as I said out of good intentions and that to create a quality article. Secondly the new article Music Boulevard is not relevant to MusicBlvd as that article does not highlight any evidence of connection to the Music Boulevard created in 1995. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing much evidence of notability here, very little coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK I actually bothered searching for further sources now. There is plenty of RS coverage in addition to the sufficient RS coverage the article already had. I just added refs from Boston Globe, Washington Times, Star Tribune, Information Today, and Broadcasting & Cable. More sourcing is readily available. Recommend WP:BEFORE next time. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 5 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the news sources have the name MusicBlvd only with little else. Some provide a little more context: Star Tribune March 15, 1998 mentions "N2K's musicblvd.com features a Frequent Buyers Club, access to MTV news and Billboard charts, while CDNow is strong on music-related merchandise, such as album art posters and band T-shirts." Boston Globe December 25, 1998 mentions some musicblvd.com details. Music Boulevard and MusicBlvd are one and the same. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize you're talking about degree of coverage which is a somewhat subjective determination, but it's hard for me to accept that the AdWeek and Information Today articles don't provide thorough coverage. Did you look at them? As you pointed out the Boston Globe's article also covers the topic pretty well and taken together with the Star Tribune article you linked it really looks like the GNG has been met. There are also articles like this from Kiplingers, this from Target Marketing, and another comparative article from the Washington Post here that all cover the topic in some depth (each of those articles has at least 5 paragraphs devoted to the topic).
  The question isn't whether comparatively more of the total coverage is significant or trivial. If this were the baseline then all articles would fail. Instead the question is whether there are multiple reliable sources significantly covering the topic period. I'd say that the RSes listed (Adweek, Information Today, Boston Globe, Star Tribune, Kiplingers, Target Marketing, etc.) demonstrate significant coverage and thus meet the basic threshold. The scads of other RSes where MusicBlvd receives only a few lines to a paragraph are perfectly acceptable for filling in details. -Thibbs (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Where is the evidence the links used to connect this Music Blvd with the one founded in 1995 are even related ? Also why is this article keeping getting written as if its in the present tense when there is no evidence to validate the company still existing other than social media pages with similar or the same names which could just be coincidence. There is actually no present referencing to prove this company still exists so why doesn't Advertising content stop being added? The sourcing point towards a company that EXISTED however, no longer. So I think some care over tense needs to be considered before even attempting to re create this article. Going on basics to what you have added so far the article should still be deleted in respect it no longer is notable (might have been in 1995 however clearly lacks it now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The proof that the 1995 company is the same as the current company is presented in the article itself, and the website is still active. Assuming the URL hasn't been usurped by another company (a matter which would need evidence of some sort) I don't think your swapping the tense is appropriate and it's not in line with Wikipedia's standard practices. Look at Napster for an example of an ex-organization that is discussed in the present tense. It's a convention to cover topics in the abstract present tense. I'm not sure where this is codified, but you can see examples all over Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (striking end because I can't find anything about this in the MoS. Maybe it's just up to editorial discretion... -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      - Anyone can re create a social networking site or buy a domain name which is the same or similar as an old company which had credibility. However this in itself doesn't make the reestablished company automatically notable just on the basis it uses the same names as a company in which was. It is like if a major food chain from 1995 (lets use the name FOODSTORES as an example) went bankrupt or was dispersed and then later a new business person decided to re create FOODSTORES with a website and created social networking sites however, apart from the name and purpose that's where similarities end. It would be like in that case, an article being made on Wikipedia for this new company (which describes this new company) with references from 1995 and only siting social networking mediums and its official website as any form of evidence it still exists. I am sure it is very simple to find a popular company from the 1950's that doesn't exist anymore and then take on its name then write an article on Wikipedia for it then to justify it existing using references from the old company. This is basically misinformation and could be seen as a blatant act of advertising using other peoples company information to justify your own companies on Wikipedia (on the sole basis you named it the same as the one you reference), which I must add is defiantly not what Wikipedia is for. In response to your request for evidence in regards to the website it is not for me to prove the website has a connection to this article. It is for the editor who wishes to contribute such content to prove in such circumstances notability is questioned, using references to prove the material is factual (See WP:VERIFY.) In this case, there are absolutely no sources that prove this company is still existing under which terms made it notable in the first place. As stated before anyone could have created a website using the domain of an old company / organisation and post it to a Wikipedia article. --Olowe2011 (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The reliable sources all say that the website for Music Boulevard/MusicBlvd is www.musicblvd.com. That is the proof that www.musicblvd.com is the website for Msuic Boulevanrd/MusicBlvd. The RS states it in plain English. If you suspect that the website has been usurped by a modern day competitor or another company hoping to capitalize on the goodfaith of the former company then it's on you to prove that. The burden of WP:VERIFY regarding the website has been met by the Broadcasting & Cable source's statement that "N2K['s] first effort online was Music Boulevard (www.musicblvd.com)" and by Information Today's claim that "Located on the World Wide Web at www.musicblvd.com, Music Boulevard is a...". The burden now shifts to the editor making the claim that despite this evidence the website is actually controlled by another entity. Making vague claims about brand names from the 1950s isn't good enough. -Thibbs (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - Once again, Them sources point to that being the site in 1995 there is no evidence to prove that website still exists with the same ownership as it did at the time it gained notability. There are no resources you can provide in this century and you are still fighting on the side of this article. And to do something you possibly should have done yourself I would like to point your attention to the following [[46]] look up which clearly indicates www.musicblvd.com was re registered on the 11-July-2003. Please explain to me why a site made in 1995 with 30 + Million views (in which by that standard this article topic is notable) was re registered by another person / entity other than which the article states was in control of the name. It is beginning to look like whatever you are faced with you will argue regardless which I hope doesn't represent an attack against my judgement as you have challenged me on the basis of me being new before I am wondering if that fact gives you bias onto my judgement. However, in this case I am right to point out the facts in which remain. There is no sources that can account for the company still existing now other than a website with the same name as the one created in 1995 (which as Whois states was registered by another entity in 2003.) You cannot prove that this company is still relevant or still has a major cultural impact. --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not "attacking" anything, and I newer "challenged" your newness. I do think that it's inappropriate to delete urls from company websites willy nilly based on the underlying theory that urls = spam in all cases. And in this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that the burden of proof lies with the party making the charge that the website listed in all of the reliable sources as the company website has been usurped by ne'er-do-wells. I do see your recent efforts to blank official company urls like this to be a misjudgment, but I recognize that you are doing this with good intentions. Fighting spam and promotional garbage is a valuable activity, and I applaud your intentions, but I think your efforts could be made with a greater degree of care. -Thibbs (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quoting the article: "MusicBlvd was the first music related and lyrics website in the world, with 80 million+ unique page views per quarter since 1998.[6] By 1998 it was described by The Boston Globe as one of the "big three" online music sellers alongside CDNow and Amazon.com, and MusicBlvd was lauded for its informative extras (links to artist biographies, reviews, features from a wide variety of national music publications, and a then-novel list of links to artists who have influenced the artist).[7] By 1999, the company was ranked 9th among all electronic commerce sites, with around 2.7 million visitors in the month of December alone.[8]". It sounds notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- Firstly: subject is notable per coverage in reliable sources. (Oddly, the nominator even refutes their own claim that it isn't notable by creating a duplicate article at Music Boulevard.) The issues about relevant content within the article are for talk page discussions, RFC, etc. -- not an AFD.

Secondly: MusicBlvd or Music Boulevard (owned by N2K) was a major source of internet music in the 1990s (as described by the newspaper sources cited such as USA Today, New York Times and the book The Cdnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet. pp. 185–186..) MusicBlvd was bought by CDnow on March 17, 1999 [47] [48], because, according to the book The Cdnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet, it was their "chief competitor." CDnow was eventually absorbed by Amazon.com in 2002. [49] The current musicblvd.com domain appears to be owned/operated by a company unassociated with this subject, just like the current cdnow.com. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - If you review the article history you will noticed on which grounds it was nominated. Since it has undergone significant changes / improvements by myself and another editor. If you read what the article originally said and made reference to then you might agree at the time it would fall in line for AfD. --Olowe2011 (talk) 01:27, 13 November 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. Although there were a number of keep recommendations "article is useful" is not a policy based argument. The only "keep" policy based argument came from Batard0 asserting GNG had been met but with no links to sources (and claiming a blog as a source) Spinning Spark 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proxmox Virtual Environment

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Only provided refs are to developer's sites. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This being increasingly used to manage Virtual environments in linux. There are several articles on it: [50] [51]. So, please don't delete it. This is a very useful article. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of recommended ways to manage virtual machines under Linux. Useful, please don't delete. DeeJanus (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)— DeeJanus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Being listed and described on distrowatch.com, this system really needs a WP article for helping the Linux users to choose Linux distro. OlavN (talk) 17:26, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's been significant coverage on a ZDnet blog, which I find to be a reliable source in the context of the subject, and the same for Linuxuser. I'm not entirely impressed by these sources, but I think they are sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT guidelines. It needs a rewrite for encyclopedic style, but that's outside the scope of a notability discussion. --Batard0 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 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) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same concerns as Dialectric above. No independent secondary sources. Those linked above are entirely promotional. Also, there's no guarantee these blogs weren't written by advocates for this product. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:21, 5 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to establish notability of this software. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 13 November 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Castronovo

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

Fearing the notability about this one. Perhaps I just don't have the right notes down about television people or dancers. I fear he fails GNG just by doing some online research. Doesn't appear to be a lot of reliable third party coverage about him, but, maybe just appearing on TV is all he needs. SarahStierch (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real resources; does not seem to be notable whatsoever. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 October 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:25, 29 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If appearing on the telly is enough, then an article is needed about me. He fails the notability guidelines and this article needs to be deleted. Op47 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Weight of an Empty Room

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic [52], Exclaim![53], and Punknews.org [54] are three reliable review sites according to WikiProject Albums, which is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 October 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 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow. Vacation9 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG as per [55]. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:33, 6 November 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.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Hall (Miami University)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia Felix-Mentor}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhane (Power Rangers)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhane (Power Rangers)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zouzous}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Deronda (film)}}<!--Relisted-->