Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 11: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:26, 18 March 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 March	12 March >

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 merge to University of Westminster. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke TV

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

Smoke TV is a student-run university TV station distributed on a website and via Youtube. the only references listed as well as those I could find do not indicate any notability beyond existence. There's just not that much to say about it. Merging this to the University of Westminster page is an alternative to deletion. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of Westminster. It should be noted that it exists, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable enough for it's own page It's a Fox! (What did I break) 00:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It isn't independently notable, but it is of interest as part of the University of Westminster page DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Westminster. Miniapolis 16:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. would have been a candidate for relisting but this is a clear G11 Secret ^account 05:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks + Scarpa

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

Notability is not established for this recently (2010) founded firm. While the principal architects have past credentials, this firm's notability is not yet established through major publications or awards. While there is any chance for the firm to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for now it should be deleted. Also much of the text has a promotional, non-encyclopaedic tone. ELEKHH^T 22:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I realise it was me that placed the 'notability' and 'advert' templates on the article. This followed a concerned message raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. It seems like Pugh and Scarpa of Pugh + Scarpa went their separate ways in 2010. Gwynne Pugh has a new Wikipedia article which admits he left the partnership. Both Pugh and Scarpa seem to be using Wikipedia to anounce their new business profiles! This office profile, for example, seems to confirm that Brooks + Scarpa are a continuation of the Pugh + Scarpa business. ~~It may be best to merge Brooks + Scarpa into Pugh + Scarpa and rename it, if necessary, reflecting the recent change of partners. Failing that,~~ I'd support the nominator's argument to delete the article as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently I've noticed someone has already butchered the Pugh + Scarpa article (in 2010?) to write Brooks into the story. The problem lies with that article, while this one is unnecessary. Sionk (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a quick internet search it appears that the Brooks + Scarpa firm is quite notable and many significant achievements are attributed to the firm and the principals of the firm. It also appears that Brooks + Scarpa is the successor firm of Pugh + Scarpa which has a 20+ year legacy including the National American Institute of Architects firm award. Public records show that the firm is not new, but simply changed its name from Pugh + Scarpa to Brooks + Scarpa when long time partners at Pugh + Scarpa, Angela Brooks and Lawrence Scarpa took over ownership and management of the firm. It seems a bit odd to suggest deleting this article or merging the Pugh + Scarpa and Brooks + Scarpa sites as that would create confusion about the firm's history or remove a firm that is one of the more significant architectural practices in North America. I would not support the nominator's argument to delete or merge the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.101.106 (talk • contribs) now presumably CalderOliver (talk · contribs · count) - Syrthiss (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also clear G11. Secret ^account 05:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio

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

Notability is not established for this recently (2010) founded firm. While the principal architect has past credentials,this firm seems to have only completed two small projects and notability is not yet established through major publications or awards. While there is any chance for the firm to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for now it should be deleted. Also note that much of the text has a promotional, non-encyclopedic tone. --ELEKHH^T 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:NCORP. It seems this article has arisen because Gwynne Pugh left Pugh + Scarpa to form his own practice. Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio is claiming notability based on the achievements of another company. Possibly Gwynne Pugh the man stands a better chance of having a Wikipedia entry - he's in the Design Magazine Hall of Fame and interviewed in a book, for example. The recent work of the business has had a few write ups in questionable online architecture magazines, but not enough to meet the more stringent notability requirements for companies. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. It seems as if it would make more sense to do an article for Gwynne Pugh the person instead of his new company because of the notability guidelines. Is the best approach for that moving this page and adjusting/re-writing, or starting from scratch to create that article? Also, could anyone direct me to a company wikipedia article that is ideal/written in an encyclopedic tone? and maybe a biography that's good with neutral language? just for reference. thanks. Greenpark171 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting from scratch would be easier. Portal:Architecture lists all featured and good quality articles about architects. One of the most recent GAs about a contemporary architect I believe is Bjarke Ingels. Unfortunately I do not know of any good example of article about an architecture firm. --ELEKHH^T 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (non-admin closure) - Mr X 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay G Merrithew

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

Poorly sourced promotional BLP article. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Sources found to establish notability. - Mr X 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero inline citations, and the only "citations" anywhere are a part saying "Source: IMDb" and a list of four external links. Fails WP:BIO. Poorly formatted. Promotional. The list goes on. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Author has been going through lots of trouble to improve his work, and so it looks like it will, in fact, become a keep-worth article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the author has done a lot of cleaning of the original submission. I've just removed some unnecessary duplication and added a reference to Joseph Pilates, given his relevance to the work of the subject of the article. Trevor Jacques (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Criticism of Google. Fairly even split of opinions, a merge will retain the information and search term without the stand alone page. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scroogle

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

Deleted via an Afd discussion, it was apparently restored without a DRV or further discussion that I can find. Still not at all noteworthy for an article. Sources about Scroogle are lacking, with online The Register (who I understand does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and isn't really the most reliable source) being the primary reference. Should be a speedy as a repost, but it was contested. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I believe the original justifications for deletion still stand, and the subject is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article. Ducknish (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, What I found in a google search does not inspire a lot of confidence. It's even worse if it indeed has been created after being deleted.^King Jakob _C2 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect/Merge to Criticism of Google. The citations presented in the article and in the previous AfDs suggest that Scroogle received a minor degree of press coverage (e.g. [1], [2],[3]). ~~Although much of the coverage is tangential, there is just enough notability for Scroogle to receive a mention, albeit not enough for it to be the subject of its own article.~~ Scroogle was developed as a reaction against Google, which Scroogle's creator believed was collecting too much information on its users. ~~Criticism of Google would be a logical destination to redirect and merge a summarized paragraph or two about Scroogle.~~ --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: After some consideration, I've changed my vote to "keep" on account of the additional news coverage I was able to uncover via Google News (see post below). At least a half dozen of these stories discuss Scroogle as their main theme, a fact which demonstrates that coverage in RS is more than incidental and the WP:GNG requirement is met. Moreover, I took a look at the previous AfD (2nd nomination) - and it was actually a close vote (four "keep" versus four "delete" votes). In the current AfD, at least twice as many RS have been presented compared to the last time around. It seems reasonable that the consensus would have swung towards "keep" in the last AfD had the same sources presented here been available for everyone's consideration back then. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do any of Daniel Brandt's projects still have articles, other than this one? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; even the page about Daniel Brandt was deleted years ago. I should also add that a search of the Google News archives (search query) produced several news stories featuring Scroogle, including [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]. The news stories in French, Dutch, German and Polish demonstrate that the site received a certain degree of international notability. It is my opinion that this coverage moves Scroogle a couple notches up the WP:GNG scale relative to my initial impression, but I admittedly don't have a good feel yet for the threshold of coverage needed for a website to be sufficiently notable to be featured in its own article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save/Retain This article was created back in 2005 and appears to be the only source of historical information on the (now defunct) search engine service which had been available for nine years (2003 - 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphisher (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Wikipedia is the only source of information on a topic, then it is probably not notable.^King Jakob _C2 18:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save/Retain I was glad to find this article today, providing exactly the short encyclopedic description I was hoping for. From other sources I was getting only parts of the picture, often with significant bias. This article seems to me quite relevant in the context of Google-related privacy issues, a topic of mainstream interest. It makes sense to me that it has its own page, as this was an entity in itself with its own history and role played. I was not searching for general information on criticism of Google, so it doesn't make sense to me to move this there. All good encyclopedias include shorter entries, and this is a nice one. The following seem relevant: WP:DEFUNCTS (just because it is history is no reason to delete it), WP:TRIVCOV (the news coverage listed above is not trivial coverage), WP:IDONTKNOWIT (although you may have never heard of it, it was apparently used by hundreds of thousands of people and considered important enough to be covered in PC magazine and many other news outlets around the world (the article itself has additional links to such coverage)). The reasons given above for deletion are vague, except for referring to the "original" AFD discussion (the first being in 2006 (result:keep), the second (a bit hard to find) in 2009 (result:delete), the third (this one) in 2013) -- anyway, the main reasons for deletion in the 2009 discussion seemed to be the WP:TRIVCOV argument, but the many mainstream news sources listed above seem to show that since 2012 this argument is no longer valid. Is there any remaining argument for deletion? Matt Cook (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save/RetainOn 27-dec-2011 Microsoft Registered scroogled.com with marketing set to turn the word scroogle into a verb. The history of this word is relevant.Tony Julian (talk) 4:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of any documented connection between scroogled.com and Daniel Brandt's search engine? As far as I am aware, Microsoft "scroogled" marketing campaign to promote Bing over Google and Brandt's Scroogle are entirely separate, except for the coincidence that both involve a variant of a "Scrooge" + "Google" pun. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marginal, but iI'm not sure we would be considering deletion if it wasn't for Brandt running it. The notability in any case has increased a little since 2009. This sort of weak notability can be interpreted either way,and when it's someone we do not like, we should go out of our way not to let it affect us, and the only way to be sure is to not delete the article. Those WPedians who have, unlike me, actually dealt with Brandt, may feel differently. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to look up Daniel Brandt after I saw someone post about him here, for what it's worth. Whoever he is and what his relationship to this site is, it had no bearing on my nomination. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than adequate sourcing showing for a GNG pass. Note that Daniel Brandt is a prominent hardline Wikipedia critic and that probably explains much of the fuss over this topic over the years. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A weak keep. It just scrapes by as notable and while the references remain valid I'm happy to err on the side of caution DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of Google; coverage in RS is only incidental. Miniapolis 13:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete outside the article creator, which is the founder of the company. Willing to WP:USERFY however, article creator should take WP:COI and WP:NOT#WEBHOST however. Secret ^account 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly Productions

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

An article about a British film production company that has become a bit of a battleground for an off-Wikipedia dispute. There are also concerns about WP:COI since the major contributor is the company's founder. Regardless of all that, the subject fails WP:CORP. There is very little in the way of significant third-party coverage, what there is is largely local in nature or self-generated, and the rest of the references fail to establish any notability whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the articles founder

The Dragonfly Productions Wikipedia page has been under attack recently. Mainly by a competitor production company who vandalised the page repeatedly. This has bought the page under the spotlight whereby some Wikipedia editors are concerned about its place on Wikipedia. I am the company founder and I published this page in the first instance. My name is Charlie Southall. The page has been online for many years. I do not think it is uncommon for someone who is connected to a subject matter to submit and edit a Wikipedia article. Surely the founder of the company is the person most motivated to publish an article and I believe many articles come about in this way. Those connected to the subject are also best placed to ensure articles are kept up to date. I do understand the concern that the page could be used simply for self promotion of the business, so at the point I was aware of this criticism, I set about ensuring the article contained only factual content that could be substantiated and independently verified. All content which could be seen as promotional has been stripped. I do not think that the fact that I am closely connected to the enterprise is reason enough to delete the article. There is no motivation for me to publish anything untrue.

I do invite others to contribute and edit the page, but there is little motivation for many. There is clear motivation for a competitor business to vandalise however. I do however maintain that the page is of interest to internet users, it does get looked at frequently.

Since attempting to bring the page in line with Wikipedias notoriety guidelines, their has been the comment that the references are self-generated. This is quite unfair as it is not the case. None of the references are editable by me or Dragonfly and are housed on third party sites (with the exception of the link to the dragonfly site and a video example).

The truth is that the company is extremely well known in the video industry. Its also very well known in England as a creative video agency to turn to. Dragonfly have recently worked with; London Fire Brigade, The Home Office, NHS, Virgin, Hewlett Packard, Universal Music, Sony and local government - to name just a few. The company has most recently been working with the City of London Mayors office and Cambridge University too. Dragonfly is consistently chosen by professional bodies to produce video content and is approached by freelance creatives seeking work on average 10 times daily. The company turned over close to half a million UKP in financial year 2012-2013. One single public sector video contract was worth £100,000 alone. What more can a creative agency be to achieve notoriety in the eyes of Wikipedia? What can one do to prove notoriety further?

I must defend this page and the notoriety of the company I founded. The enterprise is not 'cottage industry'. I do strongly believe it is a worthy subject of a Wikipedia page, especially considering the policy of the company to mainly focus on worthy causes and charity work. Dragonfly is effecting people and is involved in many worthwhile projects. Sure, I have a vested interest in the article continuing to exist, because I am very proud of the companies achievements.

I am going to approach all previous clients and ask for a reference and credit on their websites (I have previously not given this enough attention). I will take this action to establish more evidence as to the companies notoriety. So for now, the client list has been mostly stripped from the Wikipedia article - however, as and when clients agree to credit Dragonfly, references can be added to the article and evidence of the companies valuable work can be added to the article. I am also going to invite people in positions of authority and status to contribute impartially to the article.

Any further advise about what can be done to defend the article is most welcome. Please do not delete quickly. Give me and others a chance to amend the site to be better. User talk:charliesouthall —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem is that client testimonials cannot be seen as anything that would give notability. The first reason would be that since they are associated with your company, their testimonials would be seen as WP:PRIMARY sources at best. Primary sources are anything that is put out by you, your company, friends/family, or anyone that has used you to help make/produce something. The second reason is that even if the people involved were notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the company having been associated with notable persons or even really notable films. Now if your company was given a notable award for creating something, then that could help show notability. The problem with awards is that the vast majority of them aren't notable, not per Wikipedia's rules. Only about 2% of any award for anything ever given in any scope give some sort of notability to the subject. Of that 2%, I'd say that most of them aren't the type that would give notability on that basis alone. As far as keeping the article because you do nice things for good purposes, we can't and don't keep articles because it would be nice to do so or because it'd be useful. Your company would have to pass notability guidelines. Now as far as why it's not really a good idea to edit an article about a subject you're personally involved in is because it's so incredibly easy to not see things impartially. You'll see notability where there is none, write a sentence that you think is impartial but comes across as promotional in nature, as well as other things- all without ever really realizing that you're not being neutral. I'd somewhat recommend against telling someone to do direct editing to the article, because if they're not really familiar with how Wikipedia works then they might actually do more harm to the article than good. I'm not saying that they shouldn't contribute, just that it'd be a better idea for them to use the talk page to suggest additions and edits until they gain more familiarity with Wikipedia in general. Now as far as being well known goes, popularity and notoriety do not automatically mean notability here on Wikipedia. It's fairly common to have people, things, and companies that are well known and popular that do not pass notability guidelines. (WP:VALINFO) It's actually more common for someone to be well known but not notable than it is to have someone that is well known and notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Notability is shown through reliable sources. Now as far as that goes, just because you can't directly edit or influence a source does not mean that it is reliable. I'm giving a rundown of the sources and why they might be usable or unusable:

[12] This is a business listings. Business listings are never usable as reliable sources. Part of this is because so many of them can be directly edited or influenced by the business, but it's mostly because all this does is show that your company exists. Existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS)
[13] The problem with this site is that it's not exactly a proven or trusted source as far as Wikipedia goes. That the piece is also called a "reader story" is probably why some would be suspicious over how much of it was written by your company and how much was written by the website under the company's direct supervision. The bottom line here is that it's not something that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source, even if it was entirely written by the website.
[14] This is sort of like the business listing, although it's a list of people who work or have worked for the company. Even is some of these people are notable, notability is not inherited by them having an association with the company. At the most this might be considered a trivial source, but certainly not something that would show notability.
[15] This is an article written by someone who works for the company. At most this is a primary source, but it's not really anything that would show that the company has done anything Wikipedia would consider notable. Remember, popularity does not equal notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Being well known or popular only makes it more likely that you'll get coverage in RS, but it's not a guarantee.
[16] The magazine itself is possibly semi-usable as a reliable source, although in general we try to avoid using magazines as sources in general. The problem here is that this isn't actually about the company, but about a summer program. The company is briefly mentioned, which would make this trivial at best. As said above, doing charitable works is not enough to merit an article. We've had to delete multiple pages for charitable organizations, some of whom deal with some rather dangerous yet noble missions. Doing nice things does not count as notability, no matter what it is, and trust me- we've had some organizations that have dealt with some pretty nasty stuff.
[17], [18], [19], [20] These are just links to company websites or charitable organizations. Like with Brighton Magazine, association with charitable works or organizations will give notability based on the works themselves. Now it might lead to in-depth coverage from reliable sources, but the acts themselves do not count towards notability.
[21] This is just a link to the company website. Primary sources cannot show notability, no matter what they claim or show. The reason is that anyone can claim anything on their website. I'm not saying that you would necessarily lie or stretch the truth, but it's in your best interest to promote yourself on your own website. Unless we have other sources that not only back up the claims but also establish notability, any claims made in a primary source are taken with a grain of salt and are considered unproven until we find things to say otherwise. This isn't a slur against your company, just that we've had many, many people come on here and try to claim various things, only to discover that they either didn't happen or they were exaggerating the claims.

I'll see what I can find, but if I were to make a decision based upon the current sources in the article, I'd say that the company doesn't pass notability guidelines. I'm going to search, but I wanted to take the time to explain why none of the sources are usable and why some of the things you're suggesting aren't really anything that would completely benefit the article as far as keeping it would go.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some paring down of the page and one of the biggest issues is that it read like an advertisement for the company. I've streamlined it and to me, it looks better. The thing about making a lot of claims and linking to a lot of sites is that if the article comes across as promotional and none of the sources are usable as RS, it's more likely to cause incoming editors to automatically assume that the article is spam, that there is no notability, and that if they can't find sources beyond 2-3 minutes of trying, it's because the company isn't notable. I'm still looking for sources, but I'll be honest when I say that there isn't a lot out there that would be considered anything other than a primary or trivial source.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and other than some passing mentions in various articles (like this [22]) that predominantly focus on other topics, there really wasn't anything out there to show notability for this company. The best I could find were these two articles. The first one mentions that the company would be making a film, the other mentions it produced it. Even put together and counting the passing mention, these are not enough to show that the company passes WP:CORP. I have no true issue with the company owner userfying it, although I'd recommend very heavily that they get a non-COI person to help edit and ensure that the article doesn't become promotional in tone or use non-reliable sources. The company might be active, might do some nice charitable work, and might be more known than Vinny's House of Video Production, but none of that in and of itself shows that the company passes notability guidelines. The company just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you have not looked at the reference links properly.

http://www.succeedfoundation.org/work/collaborators_dvd], [23] are company websites which mention our company as a suppler. You have claimed above "These are just links to company websites or charitable organizations", well no actually... these references were added because each time a project was mentioned on this page, 'citation needed' was added. So we were being asked to prove the work had been done. So now that the proof has been added in the form of these references... there is a problem with that too.

You have just set about stripping all of the companies project history.

You have also made a terrible mistake with the articles which you have searched for yourself. You said "I did a search and other than some passing mentions in various articles (like this [24]) that predominantly focus on other topics, there really wasn't anything out there to show notability for this company. The best I could find were these two articles."

Neither of these articles have anything to do with Dragonfly Productions and our company has had no involvement in these productions. So you have stripped out real references to work which is notable and you are suggesting total irrelevancies. I'm starting to wonder whether a Wikipedia article about our company is actually a liability! What with the vandalism and constant attacks. The page does not benefit me or my business one bit. The last time it was edited, it was made totally non promotional in nature, but its still being criticised as promotional. I can only guess that the fact that the page is about a business which is still in business... it will always be attacked as a promotional platform.

Just take the page down then... I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesouthall (talk • contribs) 10:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You had no references there to begin with, at least not any that actually mattered. If you had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The thing about proving that something exists or had happened is that existing or creating something doesn't give something notability. There's also the issue that not every project by the company needs to be listed. Sometimes it's better to give an overview of what the company does than to list every project- especially if the project is somewhat limited as far as visibility and notability goes. I'm not disparaging the merit of the item, just saying that a video on wilderness trails isn't really the same as if you were creating a video on anthropology that received an especially large amount of merit. As far as the other article not being about your specific company, that actually makes things worse because those were the only mentions I could find of any Dragonfly Productions and the only things that showed any hints of notability. As far as promotional tones go, please remember that what might sound neutral to you might not come across as neutral to others here on Wikipedia. Phrases such as "The striking result of the project has been widely distributed and shown at national conferences on the subject of child mental health" come across as promotional because while it does try to impart information, it does so by trying to put the subject (the video and company) in the best light possible. I don't necessarily think that anyone did this on purpose, but when you're not used to writing in a neutral style and more used to using buzzwords to promote your company or a product, it's easy to slip them in without realizing how they come across to other readers.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There appears to be some confusion between notability, and verifiability. Sources such as http://www.succeedfoundation.org/work/collaborators_dvd can be used as sources for the purposes of verification for statements of fact. That is perfectly acceptable and necessary to confirm infromation in an article. However, such sources are not usable for the purposes of establish that an article should be included on Wikipedia. For that, we would be looking for significant coverage in such sources as newspapers and magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find the same material that Tokyogirl79 found whih apparently is a different company named "Dragonfly Productions". As such, there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish that inclusion guidelines are met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the company exists~~[25]~~and produces films which themselves receive coverage,~~[26]~~ simple mentions as a production company and no in-depth coverage of themselves fails inclusion criteria set by WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is apparently a different Dragonfly Productiions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay, I struck through the links I offered, but my assertion remains sound, and I agree with your own conclusions. The company has not received independent secondary coverage, and in-depth information is found only on their own website. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let Dunstable Die (Long Live Dunstable)

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

Article about a musical group that does not ascertain notability (two women who sing about their hometown). A Google search yields mostly results for their Facebook and website. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - The topic may meet ~~meets~~ WP:N, although it is not strongly passing by a large margin. It has received ~~national~~ coverage from BBC (Reviving Dunstable's high street) and significant newspaper coverage: [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about women who sing, nor is it about a band or musician. This is a community group which works towards the benefit of a town and has a great following both on social media and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Channel99 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- At best this is a local campaign group. Possibly merge something to Dunstable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is local including the BBC link which is part of their localised coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified my !vote above to a comment, since the BBC coverage is generally regional in scale (apparently 3 counties). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage to prove notability. It might be useful to include some of this article's content in Dunstable, perhaps in the Culture section. - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heat within kingdoms of milky way

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

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:GNG, entirely speculative about an unreleased game with no notability. Ducknish (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And userify if the author requests it. If the game is indeed a sequel to an existing notable release then it's fairly reasonable that this will also merit inclusion. However, this is way too much WP:CRYSTAL even for future releases. And they can't make up their mind as to whether it will be November 2103 (!) or 2014 (!!). I couldn't even recommend a redirect to the supposed other game since the title is badly spelled anyway. Which also makes me believe that this might be a prank... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and don't userfy. This is either a total hoax or someone's fan material (which would probably be a copyvio if it were ever actually released). There is a real Dreamfall game in development, Dreamfall Chapters, which is actually licensed and has no relation to this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, or speedy as non-notable web-related content. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice as to userfying. The article has zero references to support WP:GNG, and further, reads a bit like promo copy. Lacking further evidence, I don't know whether or not the game/material constitutes copyvio. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not userfy. This is WP:MADEUP -- a game by "indie developers" that entered production four weeks ago, purportedly based on an actual license (Dreamfall) that is actually still very much live, with a real game on the horizon that isn't this one. Oh, and of course, this project has a staggering zero non-Wikipedia Google hits; there are nothing like sources here, reliable or otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uberaccount (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeper | 76 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Maloney

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. There are no independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. I don't consider the .edu sites useful for establishing notability as they aren't truly indepedent. Searches for other sources turned up this in Forbes but even that is only one paragraph about the person, whereas the subject of the article is Lincolnshire Management. Other than that, the only I can only the briefest of mentions. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that the .edu sites are not useful because "they are not truly independent". That there is a T.J. Maloney Chair of Business Law at Fordham Law School and a Maloney Hall at Boston College or that he is on the Board of Trustees at Boston College and a former Trustee at Fordham, should not be dismissed because the references go back to the schools. These are not fly-by-night operations. Additionally I must point out that the world of private equity is notoriously insular and, if you will, private. Mainstream coverage is extremely limited, focusing only on the largest firms and their top executives. The PrivCap ( a publication that deals exclusively with private equity investments) links attest to Mr. Maloney's reputation within the private equity world, a realm that is taking on increasing importance as it continues to grow: Financial News, February 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttsco (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People who manage to slap their names onto public buildings probably ought to be presumed to be notable, even if they don't seek publicity in other ways. Regardless, I've managed to find some additional coverage that I think helps to establish notability: Business Week, Forbes article about lawsuit against Maloney, Forbes profile. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd already found those sources, but do you really think they are sufficient? Shouldn't we expect some actual articles about him? And since when do we presume people to be notable? Anyone with enough cash can get a building named after themselves at a university, but that doesn't make them automatically notable. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, this guy hasn't yet been the subject of a book-length biography and I've not yet seen a major biographical piece in a periodical, but I contend that there are multiple independent sources that establish general notability, and making a lot of money and giving it to institutions in order to get one's name on a building could be considered a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". But rather than parse the notability guideline, let's look beyond the notability guideline and consider the policies on which it is based. WP:NOT asks us to consider whether the topic is one that belongs in an encyclopedia. People whose names are emblazoned on university buildings are people that a person might reasonably expect to look up in an encyclopedia, although not all such people will have entries. Now consider WP:V and ask whether there is sufficient reliable published content on which to base an article. Start with BusinessWeek and Forbes; both are well-respected business publications (i.e., reliable sources -- and independent of the subject); both have seen fit to publish biographical profiles of Maloney (in fact, there are different versions of the profile in different areas of their websites). That's a good start toward an article. Next, look at news items in the business press: this article includes a short interview focused on his business specialty (not human interest fluff) and this article tells about a lawsuit naming him as a defendant for a major impropriety; it includes some biographical details. (BTW, the lawsuit apparently is still in court.) Those pieces also are independent and provide additional material. Those kinds of sources often are sparse on biographical details, but the profiles written by the colleges and universities that are beholden to him (not really independent, but not self-published, either) are acceptable sources for most of that kind of information (particularly [29] and [30]). Add it all up, and throw in his profile on his company website for good measure[31], and you have a reasonably well verified article. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Being slapped on a building does not infer notability to a Wikipedia standard. Delete now, edit later per WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited don't provide significant in-depth coverage, so notability is not demonstrated. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:N does not require that each individual source (or even any individual source) provides significant in-depth coverage. Rather, it requires that "Sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." That test is met in this article. Note that the guideline says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Furthermore, this article in the Boston College student paper probably qualifies as "significant in-depth coverage". --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant in depth coverage is not required, just significant coverage, which is best understood as something more than a mere mention in a list. "in detail" was probably a bad choice of words for the guideline, but I understand that as meaning "in sufficient detail to provide information showing notability and providing information in an article." I think the necessary coverage is shown. OIIn any case, though it is not a formal criterion, being the namesake of a major public building or university chair is an indication of being considered notable by the university. (or at least, being rich enough to make the donation, which normally requires significant activity that would make someone notable ). DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since only the nominator commented, and it's already run for 2 weeks, I'll treat this as a WP:SOFTDELETE (meaning it's like a WP:PROD, so if anyone objects after the fact they can request undeletion) Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bohlin Cywinski Jackson

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (as posted on the article's talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. I do note, however, that the most recent edits from User:Bcjmarketing were very recent and didn't change much - large parts of the article have been in place since 2011 and before. They may be a marketing account for BCJ (and I have cautioned them not to edit this article on that basis), but they did not introduce the problems cited by the IP - else, we'd just revert and be done. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement. Shouldn't it be deleted? --74.0.166.140 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be participating in this forum within the next few days after I establish my formal Wikipedia account. I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bjcmarketing". I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company. I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I don't know if I have the right to vote on this nomination prior to establishing my Wikipedia account. If I am allowed to vote, I would vote to DELETE the article. When I do formally establish my Wikipedia account, I will identify myself on this page and merge this comment into the comment that I leave with my new name. Thank you for your time. --74.0.166.140 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly comment and !vote, if you wish. IP votes are usually discounted if they're obviously sockpuppets or tied to the subject, such as an IP that resolves to ABC Publishing voting Keep on the AFD for ABC Publishing. Reasonable comments, such as yours, are taken into account by the closing admin. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, please let me say that I was the person who brought this issue up in the first place. I just started my account today; I am now a registered user here! Anyway, let me repeat what I first said: I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bcjmarketing". I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company. I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I do enjoy using Wikipedia as a source; I feel that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising piece. Thank you for letting me have a say.

--TheGuyFromPhilly (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida Taser incident

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

Thoroughly trivial and created in blatant violation of our not-a-newspaper standards. The previous nomination was dominated by people who attempted to argue that it was a huge thing that would always stick around in our collected memory (e.g. "This story will not go away or be forgotten"), but no evidence was presented that such would happen. Everything presently on the article is trivial (e.g. YouTube information on how many hits the video gets) or several-years-old news sources, and the sole piece of coverage I can find in JSTOR is this article, which gives it a single paragraph as part of a discussion about the lack of civility in American culture. To quote the article, the subject of the incident became "an instant, if likely fleeting, celebrity" — this prediction has become true, because no solid sources time-independent of the incident are giving it consistent coverage. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 6 years later, we can look upon this with benefit of hindsight. It made the news at the time, but the charges are extremely trivial (he got a short probation, less than common everyday crimes like vandalism or DUI). As far as I can tell it had no impact at all on politics, law enforcement, or the university. It had so little effect on anything that I don't even think it can be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and it's not a noteworthy event. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no lasting notable impact to this event and it shouldn't be kept here. Ducknish (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our policy on what Wikipedia is not says that we should consider the "enduring notability" of events. Coverage of this event was, of course, heaviest in the days and weeks following the incident, but there is nothing unusual about this. This article in the New York Times published in February of 2012, well over four years later, says that video of the incident was responsible for "keeping concerns high" about the safety of tasers. A 2010 article in Wired about a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restricting taser use called the incident "famous". A 2009 NBC News report called the comment by the man tasered an "immortal phrase". Another 2009 NBC News report called this incident the "most famous" video of police use of a taser. Fifteen months after the incident, Time magazine described it in the opening paragraph of their story titled Are Tasers Deadly? That same month, Newsweek/The Daily Beast ran a followup article on the incident. Ten months after the incident, Deseret News ran a story called Are Tasers good tools for police — or deadly force? that said the student had "forever immortalized" the phrase he uttered. John Kerry discussed the incident himself at a public appearance nine months later. Three months after the incident, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations said that the phrase, "Don't tase me, bro" was the most memorable quotation of 2007, and that it was "a symbol of pop culture success", and in its coverage, Reuters UK said it was "a phrase that swept the nation". A book published in 2010 called U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contemporary Reader says that the incident (the only one specifically described in this section of the book) was among several that led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to issue a 9-step strategy for "effective deployment" of tasers and similar devices. A 2009 book called Introduction to Criminal Justice devoted two pages to the incident, plus a mention in the introduction. In Charles Ogletree's 2012 book The Presumption of Guilt: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Race, Class and Crime in America, he says that many African-Americans related to this incident because of memories that tasers were used on Rodney King. It has been five and a half years, and this incident is still being discussed in a wide range of reliable sources. It is also interesting that two editors recommending deletion are using the deprecated "WP:NOTNEWS" shortcut. Of course, Wikipedia has articles on newsworthy events of enduring significance, but the point is that Wikipedia does not function like a newspaper. When an event has been discussed in reliable sources for years, including in serious books, concerns about newspaper type coverage should evaporate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case I would say the problem isn't lack of sources but a fundamental lack of notability, which was uncertain then but obvious now. Yes, it was an example where a taser was used and it made the news. Had it been a catalyst for banning police use of tasers, or had the perpetrator parlayed the situation into lasting fame of some sort, then it would be notable or we'd at least have a merge target, but that simply isn't the case. 18 months probation, not even a trial, no lasting effects of any note. Thousands more notable crimes than this happen every day all over the world. We could cover them, sure, but that's better left to newspapers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here on Wikipedia, Andrew, we say that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that it meets the general notability guideline. You have acknowledged, Andrew, that there is no problem with a lack of sources, which I've shown have continued their coverage for five years. Then why doesn't this topic meet the GNG? You seem to be treating the topic as a criminal act that resulted in 18 months probation. The reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this event over the past five years do not discuss that aspect of the incident. It is the use of the taser in this type of circumstance that the reliable sources discuss, not the plea bargain or the probation. As I pointed out, one book says that this incident, and other less notable incidents, motivated the International Association of Chiefs of Police to issue a strategy document on tasers and similar technologies. The recognizable phrase "Don't tase me, bro" has been used in hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources over the years. That's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most murders, armed robberies, and so on are covered by news outlets and thus technically meet the letter of the GNG, but generally only the ones with lasting historic notability or landmark cases are covered in Wikipedia because routine crimes are considered out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia. (see WP:PERP, WP:CRIME, WP:BLP1E) If your average murder is out of scope, I'd say something like this, with no jail time, trial, or lasting effects for anyone, is a good deal less notable than any more serious crime. You are free to your opinion though and it's okay if we agree to disagree on this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with Starblind's comparison here to other "non-historic" moments reported by the media. This is, in my opinion, an event that is already faded from memory for the most point. It doesn't seem to have any sort of real lasting impact that I would consider to make an event like this notable. Ducknish (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS, yes the event was reported in the news, but as WP:EVENT points out an event should have some lasting significance and I am not seeing that. LGA _talk^edits 08:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been notable for a very long time.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comprehensive reasons stated by Cullen, especially those highlighting the enduring notability of the subject. News events often become historical events when viewed retrospectively. It's not that hard to find a policy or guideline to support any desired outcome, but I think we would do well to avoid slavish adherence to rules like WP:NOT#NEWS, when their application likely impedes the greater goal of building an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. - Mr X 02:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the incident is missing impact and its notability is questionable, I think that the overall topic, accounting for the video and "Don't tase me, bro!", is notable.
- WP:Notability (events) (WP:EVENT, guideline):
  - Lasting effects, Geographical scope: I concede that there is a lack of real-world impact. The article's editors considered the problem at Talk:University of Florida Taser incident/Archive 2#Notability revisited, back in December 2007.
  - Depth of coverage, Duration of coverage: The incident received solid newspaper-level coverage. The coverage was most intense immediately after the event. Most of the ongoing coverage was in the local The Gainesville Sun or the University of Florida student newspaper, The Independent Florida Alligator, but there was a follow-up by the Associated Press.^[32] Today interviewed Meyer a month after the incident.^[33] The Washington Post ran a "where are they now?" on Meyer in April 2011.^[34]
  - Diversity of sources: The incident received national coverage in the U.S., and there are refs from The Times and The Sydney Morning Herald.
- WP:NOTNEWS is a soft redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (policy). I think that the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:EVENT's may or may not be notable and escape WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.
- There are three pieces to the topic: the confrontation itself; the video, which went viral; and "Don't tase me, bro!" The current article is somewhat of a WP:Coatrack that focuses on the incident, which may have had the least impact.
- Disclosure: I used to edit the article, although less frequently through early 2010.

Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's all newspapers that are connected in time to the incident. No solid coverage throughout history since then. Not a historic incident and thus not encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, did you bother to review the sources I brought forth? Newspaper sources over a period of years? Magazine follow-ups long after the event? Three book sources, years later, including one that credited this incident with influencing a major police organization to issue a recommendation on tasers? I am curious about what you thought of those? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That there was any direct coverage after the probation agreement is somewhat noteworthy. You missed my point about the incident alone versus the overall topic, and Cullen328 provided substantial sources around "Don't tase me, bro!" Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. I think the fact that a Presidential candidate was involved should be brought to bear here. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't Delete Me Bro. Its a cultural touchstone.[35][36].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I use Wikipedia as source of first resort. I know that Wiki will have something on whatever I am looking for. I still remember this plea-comment for all those years ago. I did not recall who said it so I looked it up. Be what you purport to be - The information provider of first resort for inquiring minds. Do not force us inquiring minds to Examiner.Patnclaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, why is this being put up for deletion now . . . in March 2013? The fact that so many people remember the "Don't tase me bro" incident from 2007 shows that this is a notable moment in American politics and culture. Besides the fact that it spawned the catchphrase "Don't tase me bro." OGBranniff (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am disturbed by the number of single purpose accounts here. I see two fundamental positions, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:LASTING. Because Wikipedia is not offering a first-hand account nor is the event a WP:ROUTINE event, technically WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. NOTNEWS does state that if it was a news story it can still be included on Wikipedia as long as it was not routine and had lasting effects. The incident is part of the taser controversy, regularly cited, and "don't tase me bro" became an internet meme. I largely feel the keep camp has shown LASTING and thus avoids NOTNEWS. Mkdw ^talk 23:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appearing in books is the very antithesis of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. The nomination implies that this needs to be "a huge thing that would always stick around in our collected memory", but WP:NTEMP states that once a topic is notable, it will always be notable. Since this topic massively passes WP:GNG, the only reason not to cover it is because it fails WP:NOT. As to whether or not this topic fails WP:Routine, I don't consider as routine an event involving a presidential candidate's apology, 6.7 million YouTube views, and an Internet meme described in a book the next year as "the wildly popular phrase of 2007".

Jim Marrs (15 December 2008). Above Top Secret: Uncover the Mysteries of the Digital Age. The Disinformation Company. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-934708-18-7. Retrieved 17 March 2013. In fact, the wildly popular phrase of 2007, 'Don't taze me bro,' was a plea from a conspiracy theorist that exploded into the pop-culture lexicon because of the Internet.
Joseph B. Kuhns (9 April 2010). Police use of force: a global perspective. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-36326-9. Retrieved 18 March 2013. The public nature of the TASER controversy is perhaps best illustrated by the now-famous YouTube video of a Senator John Kerry speaking engagement in which a University of Florida student says 'don't taze me, bro' to police officers right ...

Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect There is important, cited detail in the article but it needs editing and reducing as much of it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Should become part of a small section of another article such as University of Florida? DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, who joins wikipedia merely to vote in a slew of AfDs? And then leave such ambiguous comments? When books have duly recorded this event as highly notable, what are we to do with your gobbledygook?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Policy based arguements for the keep side is basically non-existent, potential GNG source rebutted. Secret ^account 05:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PARSIFAL

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

No independent sources to determine notability for this study, other than a few papers which were published as a result. (Note: this page refers to a medical study, not the opera.) a13ean (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, i.e. keep or redirect. Can't hurt to redirect it to the operate if we judge it unworthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Google scholar search for "PARSIFAL study -Wagner" gives 3,000 results. hgilbert (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "PARSIFAL study -Wagner -Steiner -Anthroposophical" returns 2720 results; 90% of the citations are related to the farming component of the study which is not reflected in the current article. This is a moot point though, any large scale scientific study hopefully results in multiple papers, which hopefully result in multiple citations. What I don't see is any sources which establish the notability of this particular study. Looking at a few other studies there's some which are clearly notable, for example Framingham Heart Study (106k google scholar results) although its article could use some work. Others are more borderline cases, for example LEAP has 15k google scholar results, and some independent coverage. What I don't see for this study is independent reliable sources that establish notability. a13ean (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the 3 or so primary research papers there are probably 300+ citations in total. In addition there was this news article which could also be referenced to more clearly establish notability. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a press release; it says "Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd." at the bottom. I also don't think that raw citation counts establish notability for studies -- my research group has more than a dozen studies with more than 300 cites, but none of them are independently notable. a13ean (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We aren't in the business of creating articles solely on individual studies (and many have a lot more citations) unless they have some actual claim to notability like WP:GNG. I'll also highlight that what we have here is a Waldorf School teacher creating an article based on a primary study, which makes Waldorf schools look favourable. Arbcom has already established Waldorf teachers have a conflict of interest with respect to Waldorf schools; Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Conflict_of_interest, so I think this is an open and shut case. Nyttend's statement isn't an argument and is a classic WP:NOHARM. Hgilbert's argument is a standard WP:GOOGLEHITS argument.

Keeping articles based on 300 cites is a strange. I will demonstrate my point:

Smith, Donald B. "Single-step purification of polypeptides expressed in Escherichia coli as fusions with glutathione S-transferase". Gene. 67 (1): 31–40. doi:10.1016/0378-1119(88)90005-4. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) This article has 5646 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
Barabási, A. (15 October 1999). "Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks". Science. 286 (5439): 509–512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This has 16002 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
Van den Berghe, Greet (8 November 2001). "Intensive Insulin Therapy in Critically Ill Patients". New England Journal of Medicine. 345 (19): 1359–1367. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa011300. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 7522 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my entire statement? It's not a comment on the contents of the article; it's simply a statement that we should redirect it if we decide that we shouldn't have an article about the study. I didn't read the article, and as such I'm not expressing an opinion about whether it should be kept as an article about this study. It's purely based on the title, because the title shouldn't be left as a redlink, and when we're talking about redirects, NOHARM isn't applicable. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get the point, the article is only linked from here: Parsifal_(disambiguation) and here: Waldorf education. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Atopy. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the history of this article is linked to that of the Waldorf education article; originally the latter discussed the PARSIFAL study findings, which were indeed positive toward Waldorf, quite extensively. I felt that the coverage was excessive, and created this article as a place for the fuller discussion of the study's results, thus allowing the primary article to summarize these briefly. I don't want to pile this material back into the original article, as the study results are only peripherally related to education. I don't really care whether the PARSIFAL article remains, however. People can always look at the original study. hgilbert (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WikiPedia is not an academic or medical journal. If the study is notable as part of wider research then it should be included there, but it is not notable in isolation DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI'd let this article stay. I am NOT an expert, but from an editing standpoint, the creator's have met a MINIMUM burden for the creation of an article. If they can not add anything, they may have to cut back and go for a stub class.johncheverly 01:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Fight

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

This a local MMA organization whose only coverage is from it's own website or the Chiiliwack Times. This organization's claim to notability comes from trying to hold fights in a town where the city council banned MMA events at city owned venues. This seems like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or perhaps WP:1E.Mdtemp (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP/WP:ORG. 7 events total, nothing new since 2009, link to their "most notable fighter" leads to a 70-year-old musician. Yeah, this isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Luchuslu (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Skujiņš

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

He's an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MMA notability guidelines. Ducknish (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. CaSJer (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No top-tier fights, not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk)
Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:NMMA in that the fighter has participated in a top tier organization. Mkdw ^talk 23:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mahler

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

I don't see what notability criteria this person meets. The article lacks reliable sources--the only 2 links are to his own web page and a link to a student testimonial. I don't think his writing qualifies him as notable under WP:AUTHOR, but I could be missing something.Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mahler is a prominent for his achievements, his vegan diet, his YouTube videos and his advice to others. In my view an independent source of information about him on Wikipedia would be of value - the same could be said for other people with a similar profile, even though, in a couple of decades they may well be forgotten. Mahler's approach is low-key. He is not associated with any extreme or antisocial views or behaviours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.214.168.45 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a vegan, having youtube videos, and not being extreme or antisocial are not enough to show notability. Exactly what are his achievements and where are the independent sources showing he's notable?Mdtemp (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google turns up very little about the subject. Ducknish (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author and lacks WP:SIGCOV. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amaobi Uzowuru

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: According to his profile on transfermarkt he has played 1 minute in the Portugese 1st tier for Rio Ave. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's only a single appearance, less than a minute long, which appears not to have generated significant coverage, I think it's a sufficiently week claim to WP:NSPORT that it's not unreasonable to delete the article anyways, especially since WP:GNG is clearly not met. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see the sense here. So Delete is what I say. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GracieMag

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

This seems like a magazine that should be notable, but it's been tagged as unsourced for 3 years. The problem is that I couldn't find independent sources that discuss this magazine. If someone can show it's covered in reliable sources I'll withdraw this nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The topic (a monthly magazine) seems notable. It would be better to expand the article inserting new sources rather than delete.--Goldenaster (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the problem is that I couldn't find independent sources. That's probably why it's been tagged for 3 years.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenaster, you're a new editor so I would suggest you read WP:N and WP:RS. Not all magazines are inherently notable, especially when there seems to be a lack of independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I expected to do a quick Google search, copy a link to a reliable source and vote keep, but I'm really struggling to find any independent coverage that would let this pass any criteria of WP:NME. ~~I'll hold off on voting to see if someone can find a source, but if not, I'm leaning toward delete.~~ Vote changed to delete, although I'm open to changing it again if someone can find sources covering the magazine. CaSJer (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will admit to being surprised at the lack of independent sources, but I didn't see any that would support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Brown

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

Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX. Coverage of him is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 11. Snotbot t • c » 18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD currently points to Philip Brown, a disambiguation page, not Phillip Brown, the boxer. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed that careless mistake.Mdtemp (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't turn up anything that shows he meets WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got curious of this article, as fighting against Bowe, and hell being familiar with the old "Mahi Shrine Temple" at the old Seville Hotel in Miami Beach where he apparently fought, thus Miami Herald access but after my search no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Opponents he beat were non-notable. Secret ^account 04:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Egan (fighter)

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

This is an unsourced BLP, except for a link to his fight record, about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has only 1 top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, only one top-tier fight. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighter remains 2 top tier fights shy required to meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 23:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crice Boussoukou

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

He's a kickboxer who doesn't meet WP:KICK and he lacks the signficant coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find sources that show he meets WP:KICK nor did I find significant non-routine coverage of him in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet even WP:GNG. If more sources can be established then try agsin DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: The creator of the page was not notified of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable kickboxer. Fails to meet WP:KICK and WP:GNG. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crayon Shin-Chan (Gameboy)

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

No reliable sources, no real non-game guide content, nothing to indicate much notability Jac16888 ^Talk 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 4 Crayon Shin-Chan games for the Game Boy, anyway. --HighFunctioningAutismIsVeryCreepy (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Crayon Shin-Chan#Video games. I hate it when people make a video game article and the only source they use is something like Gamefaqs. We may also need to AFD Crayon Shin-Chan: Ora to Poi Poi, Crayon Shin-Chan: Arashi wo Yobu Enji, and Crayon Shin-chan: Saikyou Kazoku Kasukabe King Wii which appear similarly non-notable.--Atlantima (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Jones

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

Not estabilshed that he meets WP:NACTORS. Prod removed by creator, who also appears to be the subject of the article. Self-promotion? Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding various false positives (Oliver Kieran-Jones, Gareth Kieran Jones) but nothing on Google, Highbeam or Questia (not even IMDB) to indicate that the subject meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be of only minor importance if any. Ducknish (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find coverage for him in reliable sources (WP:GNG). Gong show 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per TOO SOON. Nice that the fellow is beginning to gain better roles, and its possible he might one day meet inclusion criteria. But not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cairns (Novelist)

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

Unsourced BLP article about an author who apparently wrote one novel, which may have been self-published. Unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. - Mr X 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources for Cairns, nor any reviews for Howash and Hooey or Silver. I also see no coverage about being shortlisted for the 2013 Historical Novel Society Award. The award itself is apparently for unpublished works, so it's not surprising the award has not receoved much attention. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Tolley

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

I brought this to AfD because this article is fairly old and I doubt that the author will come back from their half-decade retirement to address the PROD. Letting a PROD expire on an old article with no discussion didn't seem like it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia.

Subject does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ARTIST.

Searching for coverage is difficult as there was a David Tolley that was an amateur golfer and a rather notable David Tolley who is a musician (although I'm not sure he's notable by WP standards as his fame came mostly from one event where he received a great deal of coverage after being pulled out of the audience to perform on Carson).

A Google News search provides no hits for the subject of this article and in a Google News Archive search, I could only find one mention of Tolley (the one in this article) that I wouldn't consider significant coverage in the first 6 pages of results. The article provides one article that's an interview with Tolley and the source seems to be reliable, although it's not a particularly notable source (ABC.net.au is not affiliated with American Broadcasting Company).

The subject may be notable but I'm not finding any proof that he has received significant and independent coverage from reliable sources (more than one). I can't find any proof of having released music on a notable label, winning any major award, or having made any major contributions to any of his listed fields. The subject may be notable in the future but doesn't seem to be now. Perhaps someone else will have more luck searching for coverage. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I decided to look into Australia Adlib, the source that published the interview with Tolley. I couldn't find much other than that Jon Rose created the website for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I'm not sure if that implies anything but I didn't want to downplay the notability or reliability of Australia Adlib because of my lack of knowledge regarding Australian news agencies. Still, my reasoning for nominating the article for AfD hasn't changed at all. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good coverage in Jackson, Adrian (28 September 1993), "David Tolley Returns At Centre Of Fascinating Trio", The Age and CAWTHORNE, ZELDA (29 June 1999), "NUDES WITH A SECRET.", Herald Sun. There is also multiple others which don't go into as much depth. (One of his groups, THAT, may also be notable). If the musician you are talking about above is the improv jazz musician then it appears it is the same Tolley, check out his website and see who he works with, it matches up with what you'll find in sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start off with addressing that they may be the same person. Here is the painist Tolley's website where you can see his picture and the video of him performing on Carson where you see that he obviously wasn't born in 1936 as that would have made him 49 years old. Here's the website of the synth playing, sculptor David Tolley. I also found this CV for the sculptor that shows much but specifically that he's not a pianist from the US.

Between your new source and the curriculum vitae I just found, I'll have to reassess my nomination but at any rate, I think it's clear that there is a musician/sculptor named David Tolley who is the subject of this article and pianist David Tolley who is a different person.

To help the search, do you have a link for that "David Tolley Returns At Centre Of Fascinating Trio" article? As it was published in a Melbourne paper, I'm guessing it's about the sculptor/musician and the title would imply that it's significant coverage of the subject of this article. Not sure I need to even verify. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a different musician. My guess was wrong. No I can't give you a link to that article. If you have Factiva access you can see it there. It's about the same guy, details in the article match up to his website. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather torn. You only provided one that's behind a paywall. Assuming it constitutes significant coverage from an independent and reliable source, the source given in the article is not independent as the writer has worked with the subject of the article. Even if it was independent, we're really scraping the barrel here. I'd probably change my !vote to neutral and could see arguments going either way. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
duffbeerforme, do you have anymore references? If you do, I think we can conclude this discussion rather easily. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for many of the reasons detailed by the nominator. Judging by Tolley's CV and his website, he doesn't claim to have done anything of great note ...in fact he has his fingers in so many pies he may have spread himself too thinly! The article is a one-line stub so can be easily recreated if someone discovers anything compelling offline. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple case for such a short stub. Per nom it doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking into account the two sources I provided that provide indepth coverage of Tolley could you please explain why you think he does not meet WP:GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sionk. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been added to the article, and discussion above is not making it clear whether many exist. Ping me on talk if more sources are presented and I may reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Get Happy Tour

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

Non notable tour. The article is cited to a single BBC News source, which is a straightforward local news piece about a band, which isn't really the sort of major, sustained, national news coverage require for an article to be notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. By the way, the article is also overly promotional in tone, and has remained tagged for improper tone for about five years now. Unforgettableid (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to support the event's notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to State Committee for Cinematography. I have as a temporary measure boldly added TWilkerson's information to the article on State Committee for Cinematography, and redirected this to there. I urge TW or whoever is interested to expand this. I notice the weakness of the ruWP articles for these bodies, so this will require more than translation. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovkino

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

Neither of the two target pages mentions Sovkino at all. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link to Lenfilm is correct, according to the Russian wp article. Presumably it's not mentioned in the English article because there were many different names but I'd rather they were all included, being likely search terms. Perhaps they could be hidden by default. Can't see anything on the Russian dab page ru:Совкино (значения) about the alleged Ukrainian studio, but there do appear to be some villages by this name. Siuenti (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there should almost certainly be an article at this title, neither of the current disambiguation links is entirely satisfactory. The GBooks links make it clear that Sovkino was the main film production and distribution organisation in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1924 to 1930, succeeding Goskino (not to be confused with the far later State Committee for Cinematography) in that role and replaced by Stalin in 1930 with the all-USSR Soyuzkino. While what later became Lenfilm was one of its main film production facilities, it was not the only one - what later became Mosfilm was another. So far as the Ukrainian animation studio link is concerned, I can find no trace of that studio outside mirrors of this article, and suspect that it results from misinterpretation of sources - Sovkino seems to have made animated films (among many others) but it never seems to have had studios in the Ukraine and had been abolished by the claimed 1930s date. PWilkinson (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Siuenti (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Secret ^account 04:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Restoration Act

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

Non-noteworthy legislation introduced a few times but never even referred out of committee. Small local coverage and one partisan piece, but not enough to establish an article or its notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Roy Moore-inspired attack on federal court jurisdiction over church-and-state issues got a lot of buzz in the press for several years,[37][38], was endorsed by the Idaho legislature[39] (and, I believe, by Louisiana's as well, although the independent sources I found on GNews for that are all paywalled [40]), and has been the subject of multiple scholarly articles[41] including this one by Mark Tushnet.[42] I don't think it benefits the encyclopedia (or civic intelligence, for that matter) to bury information like this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although it has never gotten out of committee, it has generated a lot of notability. And once notable, always notable. I would like to see the article updated to reflect ongoing efforts to pass it, but that is a different issue. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say its come up often enough in Congress and been covered to a significant enough degree to be considered notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources where it was the primary subject of the content of the source. From its initial introduction in the 108th Congress it has received continued coverage since it was first written about. Therefore it passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and thus satisfies the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Noteworthy as it is a reflection on the effectiveness of the Constitution, and has taken up some time in Congress in both Houses. However there is the issue of it being old in political terms (last mention 2006) and failed. I lean towards keeping, but I understand why this AfD was started. It's certainly borderline. BerleT (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Well this AFD is piled with all types of poor policy based arguments from single purpose keep accounts, to the last two delete commentators, one of which made an strange comment that he would delete the obviously notable, and core parent articles as WP:OR. So it comes down to the decision of the article meeting WP:NOR, and Psychonaut kinda rebutted it stating that the content, while it does need cleanup, could be mergeable. That said AFD is not cleanup, and try to discuss some sort of merge in the talk page, and if the WP:NOR problems persists renominate this article for deletion. Secret ^account 05:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal versus vertical

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

A huge pile of WP:OR with trivial references and it isn't even self consistent, e.g. " A horizontal line is any line normal to a vertical line. Through any point P, there is one and only one vertical line and one and only one horizontal line. " Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly sourced original research. - Mr X 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am creator of the article. Also,consider the possibility of merging it with the old wiki article Horizontal plane which has NO sources, unlike the present article proposed for deletion which at least has readily checkable references. The two articles are useful for physics education and complement each other with overlap. Both the articles contain statements which are readily attributable, like the statement "Paris is the capital of France". As for the charge by Andy Dingley that the article is not even self consistent, I do not agree. In the two dimensional case, once the vertical direction has been designated, there is exactly one vertical and exactly one horizontal through any point P in the plane. Shanker Pur (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is WP:OR to a certain extent but also a topic that isn't really worthy of inclusion. There's no real justification for having an article comparing horizontal and vertical when they each have their own article to be seen. Ducknish (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep~~. The author here again. Thank you Ducknish for toning down the WP:OR issue. The article is fresh but there is nothing original in it except the use of diagrams which I mostly drew myself. But to take your main point, I disagree. The concepts of horizontal and vertical are inter-related. One is defined in terms of the other with some degree of freedom as to which is the primary concept. By discussing them in one place, by contrasting horizontal with vertical, the symmetries and the asymmetries can be displayed, as the article illustrates. Misconceptions that arise from not appreciating the inter-relationship between the two concepts can be dispelled by discussing the two together. It should be a useful article for the physics teacher and student. But this is not an argument against improving my article or merging with other wiki articles. I have already mentioned the long standing wiki article Horizontal plane which my article complements. Shanker Pur (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article adds useful material for those interested in physics education.Scotpina (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)— Scotpina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep this article. Andy Dingley's charge of inconsistency is incorrect. This article is of interest to a variety of disciplines. All the facts mentioned in the article are known. Johny the jump (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)— Johny the jump (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Two freshly created user accounts, and you're both joining us already here at AfD. How nice. Will User:Seal Boxer be along later?

As to "inconsistencies", then read the quote within the nomination above and ask how many horizontal lines are there through point P ? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~. It is good to see new contributors to wikipedia. As for the charge of inconsistency, I hope the following helps. The charge is based on a misreading of the article and a confusion between two dimensions and three dimensions. In two dimensions, once one has designated the vertical, there is through any point P in the plane, only one vertical and only one horizontal. This is quite clearly laid out in the article. In three dimensions, the situation is quite different: once the vertical has been designated, then through a point P, there is only one horizontal plane but a multiplicity of vertical planes.Shanker Pur (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a confusion between two dimensions and three dimensions. " Exactly. That's the problem with this whole article. It's badly written crackpot science that over-emphasises the exceptional at the cost of the mundane. Is the intersection of two planet-sized horizontal planes really the primary issue for a general public level encyclopedia article? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~. (I am a contributor). It appears that the charge of inconsistency against the article has been dropped. So that is useful because it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of a self-inconsistent article in an encyclopedia. Actually, the article should help to sort out the type of confusion which led Andy Dingley to make his accusation of inconsistency. Concepts of horizontality and verticality are very slippery and change their meaning as one goes from two dimensions to three, as one goes from a flat earth scenario to a spherical earth, as one goes from a uniform sphere to a non-homogenous spinning earth. Perhaps the article should be expanded but not deleted. Let it grow. Shanker Pur (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Shanker Pur (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree that it is nice to be allowed to join you all on AfD using a freshly created user account. The text is clearly written and very relevant. What is the definition of "general public ?". I believe I am a member of the "general public" and I understood the article in question when I first read it. The issues/facts included in this kind of article are what motivates people in their pursuit of knowledge. I look forward to many more articles of this calibre.Johny the jump (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Johny the jump (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny the jump (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Process check - Traditionally, each editor gets one !vote in an AfD discussion. If you wish to add comments, you should write comment instead of keep in front of your comment, and indent the comment if it is a reply to another editor's comment. - Mr X 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you Mr X for helping a relative newcomer. Should I go back and delete the superfluous 'keeps'? I assumed that it was one vote for one person but that I had to keep on indicating that I had not changed my mind!! Shanker Pur (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You may want to change all but one "keep" to "comment", which will make it easier for the admin who closes this discussion. - Mr X 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the superfluous 'keeps' and entered 'comment' on your behalf, Shanker Pur. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malcolmx15. I appreciate your deletions and entries. So much to learn.Shanker Pur (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article usefully distinguishes the senses of horizontal and vertical in various contexts, such as 2 dimensions, 3 dimensions, a spherical earth, etc. Its points are correct, and there is no inconsistency.DonaldAGillies (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)— DonaldAGillies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This question is addressed to Andy Dingley and other editors who have voted to delete. The article has evolved significantly in the last few days, hopefully for the better. If you have a look at it and change your mind, are you allowed to change your vote to keep? Shanker Pur (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge from horizontal plane and keep. The article has a number of issues that need to be addressed. However, these can all be handled through means other than deleting the entire article:
- Many of the references aren't reliable. The claims are sound, but better sources are required.
- There are some statements in the "Observations" section which look like they might be original research. Either sources must be added showing these observations to have been previously published, or else the observations should be removed from the article.
- Some of the material presented here is redundant with that of horizontal plane. I'd like to see the purely geometric aspects of "horizontal" and "vertical" migrated from horizontal plane to this article, leaving in the former the material specific to radio science (as is currently the case with vertical plane).
- The text isn't really written like an encyclopedia article. It needs editing for tone, style, and structure.

—Psychonaut (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have contributed to both the articles mentioned by Psychonaut and I very much agree with him about merging the two. There is nothing original in either of the two articles (except the diagrams but that does not matter). All the facts are well known and long known even if they may strike some readers as slightly surprising and that should not be a reason to exclude an article from an encyclopedia. I will look into improving the sources. Shanker Pur (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just spotted another article - Vertical direction - which is relevant to this discussion. It is an old wiki article, is unsourced and in content overlaps with the article Horizontal versus vertical. Further to Pyschonaut's suggestion, this article could also be merged into Horizontal versus vertical which I created. Shanker Pur (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, horizontal versus vertical, vertical direction, and the non-radio science parts of horizontal plane are all redundant with each other and should be merged into a single article covering both horizontal and vertical directions (each of which can't be fully discussed without reference to the other). Call it horizontal versus vertical or horizontal and vertical or whatever. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Horizontal and vertical" is probably a more elegant choice although "Horizontal versus vertical" does raise the question as to which of the two is primary. It seems that the two concepts are on par in the 2-D context but in 3-D "vertical" has priority. The situation is fluid and the modern laser level technology may reverse the situation. Shanker Pur (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, but Wikipedia:NOR DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR. PianoDan (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does WP:NOR apply to Horizontal plane and Vertical direction? Shanker Pur (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - 1. The existence of another similar article may not be used as a justification for an article - they must stand or fall on their own. 2. That said, I would support deleting each of those articles as OR as well. PianoDan (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discuss a merge in the talk page. Secret ^account 04:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq

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

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, or WP:NPOV take your pick. Anything salvageable should be merged to the main articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First a procedural note: The article was inappropriately cut down before this deletion notification. In its present state it makes little sense.
This is a previous version in which it becomes clear why this topic is so important, and that it is composed of a number of highly notable incidents. The PR stunts were highly successful. As the article said before today's manipulation: "The U.S. government's public relations campaign was largely successful in getting the American public to accept false beliefs to support the war. Approximately 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this. [5] As late as 2006, 85% of U.S. troops in Iraq said the U.S. mission was mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks.'"
Maybe the scope should be widened, as the manipulations of international public opinion continued during the war, e.g. with the infamous invention of embedded journalism. Hans Adler 15:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources of the highest quality for the topic of this article:
- "This paper examines the influence of American public opinion towards Iraq on the administration of George W. Bush from September 11, 2001 to the start of the war on March 19, 2003. [...] [The administration] attempted to persuade public opinion to support the use of force in Iraq, principally by using references to weapons of mass destruction to prime public opinion. Second, it suggests that the administration accurately perceived the dimensions of domestic public opinion. And third, it shows that its leadership efforts did not dramatically change public attitudes on the desirability of war although it did appear to affect public perceptions of whether the administration had ‘explained’ its position. It concludes that if the administration successfully ‘led’; the public to war, it did so in large part because, after September 11, the public favored such a war. Public opinion also caused the Congress to support the Bush administration's position." - Douglas C. Foyle, Leading the Public To War? The Influence of American Public Opinion on the Bush Administration's Decision to go to War in Iraq, International Journal of Public Opinion Research. [43]
- Jon Western, Selling Intervention and War: The Presidency, the Media, and the American Public, Johns Hopkins University Press, has an entire chapter (45 pages) on the PR for the Iraq War.
- "Techniques of public relations and propaganda were an essential part of the 2003 war in Iraq. The government framed the issues, story line, and slogans to serve its purposes. Embedding journalists, staging showy briefings, emphasizing visual and electronic media, and making good television out of it were all important to fighting the war.
  Propaganda of all shades was evident, and the trend toward deception in the future is likely to continue, since the current administration succeeded to such a large extent with its own electorate. But while it seemed to win the public relations war at home, it probably lost it abroad. All strategies at the White House and Pentagon seem designed for more public relations and propaganda in future wars. The government will have to keep wars short, at least somewhat clean, and to give the impression at least of some transparency, lest the public will to fight withers, as it did in Vietnam." - Ray Eldon Hiebert, Public relations and propaganda in framing the Iraq war: a preliminary review, Public Relations Review. [44]
It may not be apparent to Americans, who get their information filtered through American media, but objective information about the US government's propaganda is neither fringe nor in any other way biased or surprising. These sources are all of the highest quality imaginable for such a topic. They are scholarly articles. Hans Adler 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very strange nomination. It's far more than Mr Adler says, that there are scholarly sources available. It is that the war was launched on an untrue basis, founded on some extremely shaky intelligence, and seemingly thought of well before the casus belli (WMD) was chosen. Whether one decides to personally believe it or not, there are credible arguments to suggest that thinktanks such as the Project for a New American Century, as well as senior individuals such as Cheney and Wolfowitz were promoting this idea well before the ostensible rationale (WMD) was chosen. The truth has yet to finally emerge, and Wikipedia would be acting against its mission if it suppressed this article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to Iraq War. Reads like an essay. There maybe sufficient reliable sources that discuss this subject, however it is directly related to the article Iraq War and falls under its scope. If that article is too large this article can always be recreated and spun out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge The subject matter is already covered in relevant articles. Anything worthwhile in this article should be folded in with the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.190.113.66 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly merge any salvageable material into Iraq War. POV fork and essay apply. --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Buckshot that this is a significant and notable topic which deserves an article (many very serious books provide coverage of the efforts to 'sell' the case for war, especially outside the US). While there isn't much here to save in the article's current form, I also agree that the earlier versions of the article appear to provide a potentially useful basis for further development (though all the editorializing would need to be stripped out). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I fail to see how this can stand on it's own in an encyclopedic state. It's far better and makes more sense to merge it into the article on the invasion itself as it represents a part of it in effect. BerleT (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rationale for the Iraq War. No practical need for separate article here.--Staberinde (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After substantial editing of the page there is still some concern about the page being too much of an advertisement specificaly the inclusion of results on the various examinations. This concern can be dealt with through normal editing. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Aakash Educational Services Limited

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

Highly promotional article for tutoring service, including a non-encyclopediclist of branches and of every exam they prepare for. I deleted as G11, but they asked for another opinion,. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its better to delete this article and merge non-advertising content from this with the article on Aakash institute.Skullbaron (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like advertising and nothing more, especially when one looks at the other Aakash article, also an AfD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Institute) which has the same infobox material as this one, and was created by the same person. The infobox here claims: "Premier Coaching Institute of India." Typical advertising jargon ! This bit from the company's website about its charges says something similar: http://www.aakash.ac.in/aakash-fee-structure-details. It does appear that Wiki space is being used as an outlet for free promotional advertising.--Zananiri (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Aakash Institute article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Institute) has nominated for deletion by IP address 112.79.41.174 through which same content tried to insert/delete several times. Aakash Educational Services Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Educational_Services_Limited) article is nominated for deletion by user Skullbaron and the same user tried to delete Aakash Institute content lots of times. I think all efforts to delete these articles are made by same group of users (including all IP addresses and several users). Soonyam.arya (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - illogical argument by Soonyam.arya. what does it matter who nominates for deletion? The content is advertising and against wikipedia's policy. So it has to go even if one million users say it should be allowed and only one says it should go. Advertisements have no place in wikipedia. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Educational_Services_Limited&diff=539208689&oldid=538940185 Above link is a fine example to show how the same user Soonyam.arya insisted on keeping content which later the article creator him/herself admitted is advertising and removed it. 112.79.41.169 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing the same silly things here. Satya563 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After removing & correcting raised issues by DGG, I don't think that any promotional material exists now. Article can be improved more if some one advices about unwanted things. Wikipedia have lots of articles with many issues where we need to find the way of improvement. I never prefer to delete such article which is firstly submitted for review by one user (while the user could create that article directly) and moved to article space by another user while there is no connection can be found between the two. Rajaniphysio (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADVERT it also doesn't establish notability per WP:CORP DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

// I never prefer to delete such article which is firstly submitted for review by one user (while the user could create that article directly) and moved to article space by another user while there is no connection can be found between the two.// this sentence does not make sense at all. If someone can translate it into english it'd be highly appreciated. 112.79.42.176 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Author has already deleted the raised issues and things also corrected. So, it looks like a keep-worth article. TrueBisector (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - it does not meet notability requirements as per wikipedia guidelines. Skullbaron (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability concern was never with this article. The main concern was promotional things which is already removed. Satya563 (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - funny to see page author voting. Does it even count? Skullbaron (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - You proposed for Deletion. Voted above as "Its better to delete this article and merge non-advertising content from this with the article on Aakash institute.Skullbaron" for merging this article with other. Now twice times you voted for deletion. Does it even count? Satya563 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Admins are not fools and they don't take more than one vote per ID. Article author's vote won't count. I suggest you go thru the links posted by davidTTTaylor to understand why this article must be purged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbaron (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Don't try to take emotional advantages. Admins are not fools, every body knows. You expressed your vote very first, and started voting again and again. Also voted as a non-registered user. Admins should keep it in mind while taking decision. Satya563 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - never realized that Satya563 has proofs that I posted as a non-registered user. Either he posts those proofs here or apologizes to me for baseless accusations. Skullbaron (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - every body can check that these IP addresses belong to same locations or not as I mentioned earlier .i.e. Gurgaon region or Chennai region.

Suspected IP addresses: 112.79.41.169 (Used to Delete Aakash Institute, can be checked in history) 112.79.42.176 112.79.41.174 112.79.42.107 112.79.41.163 112.79.41.92 112.79.40.118 112.79.41.221 112.79.42.131

122.164.154.143 122.164.160.233 117.198.125.69 117.198.126.153 117.198.140.33 Admins should probe these IP addresses used for same purpose. Simply, it shows that the additions or deletions are fully intentional. Satya563 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - your suspicions are immaterial if you have no solid proof. If you want to promote your brand, feel free to do so in the company's website. Each and every program the company offers need not be given in detail. Words like 'toughest competitive exam in India' are not part of an encyclopedian article. Provide facts. Let the reader decide what he wants to. Make it short and sweet. External links for further reading can elaborate what you want to say. Aesl does not meet the conditions laid down by wiki for being notable. Aakash institute may, but aesl does not. A section called aesl can be created in Aakash institute but then again, don't write elaborate paragraphs. Let me repeat, wikipedia is NOT a place for advertising. Skullbaron (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Would like to hear opinions if the edits made since this nomination have addressed the concerns of the nominator (and PLEASE only one !vote per participant). J04n(talk page) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

still delete it has been improved substantially. My most serious problem with it is the listing of results on the various examinations. I know we include university rankings as a matter of course, and a few articles on high schools have them also; some high school article mention the success at university entrance, but not in this sort of detail. If it's removed, a better case could be made. It can still be in the references. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I already asked to you that please mention what changes you need so that it can be improved or please make required changes yourself so that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines. For improvement, there is not a single question made by any Wikipedia user. Satya563 (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if listing results is your main problem, please go through this article Resonance Kota. It is also in tutoring service and at this article, year-wise results listed and there is no promotional or nomination for deletion tag posted. In comparison, at Aakash Educational Services Limited nothing posted. Only mentioned exams for which AESL coaches for. Satya563 (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the following are only few examples of lines from article which show why the article is ambiguous or advertising.

//Today brand Aakash has become known for professional coaching in Medical and Engineering entrance exams across India. //Aakash Institute has a record of endowing rankers across India in some of the toughest medical entrance exams //To cater to a diverse blend of aspirants across India, Aakash Educational Services Limited has devised customized programs. From Regular Classroom Programs (RCP),[3] Distance Learning Programs (DLP) to E-learning Programs, Aakash has it all. Also there are varied duration based courses designed as per the requirement of a candidate viz. long-term courses, short-term courses, test-series courses, crash courses etc. to suit the careerists. - highly advertising content //] Aakash Educational Services pioneered the sponsorship; the company Director Aakash Chaudhry felt that their services were well matched to both the show, and its Season 6 theme of The Power of Knowledge - the director's name has been tagged and the link leads to 'Aakash institute'. Intent to advertise by creating web presence seems to be the only motive of this article. Hence, delete. Skullbaron (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- dear Skullbaron, the points which you are raising, make it more encyclopedic rather referring to delete article again and again. Satya563 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - note to DGG - since author of article is not willing to accept lines I've mentioned as advertising, leave alone remove them article should be deleted. Skullbaron (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ note to J04n - you strictly requested that "PLEASE only one vote per participant" when relisted but user Skullbaron started to vote again and again. And in reply, I have to defend my article. Please do needful to restrict this kind of voting. Satya563 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Raised issues almost resolved. As per my opinion, article should be kept as it is a parent company under which all three wings are running. TrueBisector (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too much advertising. This has to stop. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again started voting from IP addresses. Admin will take care of it while taking decision. Satya563 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the infobox doesn't seem to be anything different from that found in "aakash institute". This article does not seem to add any useful information to the database except blatant advertising for the company. Melcro.minion (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created account for just voting and misusing Wikipedia rights. Admin should take care of it. Satya563 (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need not scrutinize my id or tell Admins what to do, thank you very much. And your justification for keeping your article is, (sorry if in sound rude) lame at the very face of it.Melcro.minion (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the points mentioned by skullbaron indeed show nothing but blatant advertising.signing post for 112.79.40.243--J04n(talk page) 11:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either 112.79.40.243 or 122.164.134.211, same series of IP addresses are used to Vote as I mentioned above in first discussion. It shouldn't be considered as voting. Rather it should be considered for ignorance. Even these series of IP addresses started adding/deleting content from both articles and now using these IP addresses for voting. If this is the way of voting, none of the article can be saved at Wikipedia. It shows the intention and my articles should be kept as it is. Satya563 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- by seeing discussion from top to bottom, it seems something wrong and intentional. And it shows that Wikipedia can also be used for negativity. Very surprising. Rajaniphysio (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only few users viz. Sathya, Rajaniphysio, truebisector and soonyam.arya seem to be interested in promoting the brand. All others who discuss agree that article is promotional. Avantador.driver (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again newly created account on 20 March 2013 at 11:17 (Today). Misusing Wikipedia for voting. Satya563 (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I analyze it from past 15 days activities in both articles history, it just looks like controversy between the two tutoring sector providers. 115.249.111.106 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I'll do a full detailed analysis of the article once again and give total justification for its deletion. 1. There is a section called 'Aakash institute' in the article on which article creator has created separate page. What is the justification? Any citations to show both Aakash institute and aesl meet the notability condition laid down by wiki separately and independently?

2. Words like 'toughest exam in India' are used. Who decides what's 'toughest'? The words are simply ambiguous if not advertising

3. 'Aakash has it all' - only an advertisement will contain these words not a neutral encyclopedia

4. //Aakash Educational Services pioneered the sponsorship; the company Director Aakash Chaudhry felt that their services were well matched to both the show, and its Season 6 theme of The Power of Knowledge// - why advertise about what the company director feels? What does the word 'feels' have to do in a fact-based encyclopedia?

In reference to wiki guidelines of notability, this 'institute' fails to meet the standards set. This is not preventing the author from intently advertising about it though. Hence, requesting article deletion by admin. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is very surprising the way you are commenting here. Citing one existing article to another existing article on Wikipedia is called "Mark up" or "Wikify". So, you can't say it is promotional. Please read related sections at Wikipedia. Satya563 (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You two need to stop !voting, use comment to start your posts please. J04n(talk page) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable, or bear any strong relationship to anything notable through which it might acquire some notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is written article's subject appears to fail WP:CORP. Other than a few scant sources, a few press releases and non-significant coverage is all the subject has, and that's not enough to justify an article. It is odd seeing this many Aakash-related single-purpose accounts with fewer than 100 edits giving keep rationales, as it is seeing this many IP addresses and new accounts giving delete rationales. However, the article's edit history, when the article was created, and who nominated it for deletion are immaterial to whether it should be kept or not. - Sudo Ghost 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sudo, you had nominated ANTHE related article for deletion and in AFD discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTHE) the consensus was to MERGE it with Aakash Institute. The same merged section has been deleted from a similar series of IP addresses again and again which I mentioned above. How one can justify that deletion is OK and to protect that deletion is NOT OK? Satya563 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Well referenced, notable and keep worth article as well as pointed issues by nominator already improved. Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already did a "keep" above, you don't need to and shouldn't repeat a bolded recommendation multiple times. - Sudo Ghost 05:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I voted here as it is relisted for discussion and consensus. anything wrong? Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you specifically strike your previous "keep" and change it to something else, the closing admin will assume that you are still of that opinion, so there's no need to repeat it. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't discuss the article, but you shouldn't put "keep" or "delete" or anything in bold more than once. - Sudo Ghost 05:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fruitful information. I was not aware with that. You will not find the same mistake at Wikipedia in future. Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - dear Satya563 - please justify the issues raised by the 122.164 IP. 112.79.41.128 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please mention full IP address: i.e. 122.164.134.211 (a series of suspected one).

1. Already replied as "Mark up" / "Wikify".

2. 'toughest exam in India' - Go and search top 10 exams in India and you will find IIT-JEE, AIIMS or AIEEE in that. Any way for your reference (http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/02/top-10-entrance-exams-in-india-what-and-how/).

3. 'Aakash has it all' - You should improve it rather propose or nominate for deletion. Improving Wikipedia content is not restricted for anyone.

4. I already checked it. Please check carefully that this section is recently improved by AnthonyW90. And if you find any relation with that user on Wikipedia as everything on Wikipedia is verifiable, I will withdraw my all opinions. By just raising question here and there, you guys can't divert the discussion. Satya563 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as concerned issues either removed from article or improved by Wikipedia users. Sssbk.in (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Much referenced and notable article. No reason found to delete it especially after improvements done. Malla.nepal (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking Thoughts

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

Spammy article about non-notable book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book is actually has huge value in philosophy and literature fields. Please do not judge based on awards or popularity. And it can be improved a lot. — Preceding Killerlxt comment added by Killerlxt (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough source material independent of Bruce Lee's book to provide content to the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article itself mostly is made up of a Wikipedian's selection of passages from the book. I found a few sources, such as The Business Insider, but there's just is not enough from which to write a Wikipedia article. The closer can redirect to Bruce Lee.-- Jreferee (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, there needs to be significant improvement and removal of promotional material. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to improve the article on those grounds. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What remains of the article is largely direct quotes from the book. Is it a copyright violation to have a mass of brief quotes like that? If not, how about moving the quotations to Wikiquote as WP:NOT recommends? ("If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.") I didn't find any reviews in the Google news archive. [45] —rybec 11:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content has stricter requirements that copyright and WP:QUOTEFARM goes into some detail as well. Either way, the article cannot overuse non free quotes any more than it can overuse non free images. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted the Quotes section. —rybec 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 150 holdings in worldCat. This is trivial for a popular culture topic like this by an author as famous in their field as Lee. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kanik

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

1. BLP lack of sources fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO 2. unrelated to AfD: ongoing COI / disruptive editing on this problem article Widefox; talk 13:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - My first two searches at Google News provided two news links here (for a comedy documentary he co-created) and here (event listing for Bamboozle appearance). His LinkedIn page lists him as an "entrepreneur" and listing him as a partner with New Hollywood Entertainment, a Google News search for this provided nothing but I did find this brief mention in another search and a page at the company's website. His LinkedIn page also lists him as a co-CEO and President of Affirm XL but searches for this provided nothing but social media. If the IMDb page listed is really his, there isn't much information there either (one minor role in a 2010 short and information about his parents). His LinkedIn page also lists him as receiving an "American Chemical Society" Scholarship which I found this confirming he was a research assistant. His LinkedIn page doesn't mention studying at Boston University but I also found this which lists a Chris Kanik as an ACS scholar at Boston Univ. I'm not an academic but this doesn't seem to be notable for a Wikipedia article to me, or notable as a comedian either. He has kept himself busy but he's not notable for Wikipedia at this time. As always, I have no prejudice towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - being the president of a company leans to notability, but nothing else he's done (stand up comedy, commercials, etc.) has been talked about in reliable sources, just things like Facebook and Twitter. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New media factory

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

Article is about a company that does not satisfy general notability or specific notability for companies. The company operated for less than 4 years, and the coverage recieved was routine business news as shown by the referencing and external links in the article. I tried to find other sourcing but turned up nothing. Whpq (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing this article says suggests the sort of lasting significance needed to make this business an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Liquidated in 1997 with no apparent cultural significance or lasting notoriety.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As proper sourcing was found to meet our guidelines. Secret ^account 06:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos (band)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and no indication of coverage in reliable independent sources here or at the equivalent article at cs.wiki. C 679 12:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. C 679 13:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. C 679 13:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. C 679 13:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, lets take a look at the WP:BAND criteria:

1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself: No 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: No 3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country: No 4) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country: No 5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable): No 6) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles: No 7) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability: No 8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award: No 9) Has won or placed in a major music competition: No 10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.: No 11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: No 12) Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network: No Also, supporting links are the bands own .com website, Facebook, YouTube & are not reliable sources. Barada wha? 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band Hypnos was formed by former members of notable Czech metal bands: Krabathor and Root. Their official website lists independent reviews in Spanish, German, French, Dutch, Italian, Greek and English language. Their music was reviewed by a well known Czech metal magazine Whiplash (the author is the guru of the Czech metal scene, Big Boss). The magazine Muzikus (a reliable mainstream music magazine published in the Czech Rep.) claims that their last album was produced by Harris Johns and mastered in Morrisound Studio in the US. I found independent and non-trivial Czech reviews published by AbbysZine, Muzikus, [46], FobiaZine etc etc. I think that Hypnos is a notable metal band. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't give them credit on the own .com site for reliables, runs into WP:COI and other issues. Can't give them credit for the YouTube or Facebook material as they are not considered reliable. However, since I am not Czech, nor am I able to attest to the significance of publications thereof, I will defer further eval of the news blips to folks more able to state their notability. Barada wha? 21:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources found by Vejvančický, foreign language sources are permissible. J04n(talk page) 23:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not cite any sources. Delete now, edit later per WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence about this one since I'm not sure how reliable the sources are. I did find it interesting that the company Vodaphone wrote about them in the Czech edition of their magazine. Unfortunately, I don't speak Czech. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Seismicity of the Chilean coast. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Puchuncaví earthquake

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

Non notable earthquake; it had no lasting consequences. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Delete - Having an easier time finding at least one source for this one. It's quite good and could be used to expand this article a bit, maybe even up to start class. But even then, I haven't seen anything that shows there was any significant damage or that there have been any lasting effects. This probably means there weren't any real issues with this except for the minor landslides that's mentioned in the article (no source there though). This earthquake wasn't exactly shallow, at 45 km, and is part of the reason why its effects were apparently minimal. [47] The coast of Chile is literally littered with dozens of M6 and above earthquakes and this one doesn't seem to stand out at all (and probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines), with the exception of this study (where it's referred to as the Michilla earthquake). [48] Dawnseeker2000 19:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Seismicity of the Chilean coast, preferable to deletion. J04n(talk page) 21:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this were a notable earthquake it would already be listed there. Probably not anything to say about this event, even on that article (the noteworthy events already seem to be listed). We're not going to lose anything with this one gone. Dawnseeker2000 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Seismicity of the Chilean coast: the quake itself is not notable since it had no WP:LASTING consequences. The information and sources contained in the article would be useful to support the assertion in the "Seismicity of the Chilean coast" article that the top quakes recorded in Chile occurred in two distinct periods. This quake falls exactly within one of those distinct periods: 2004—2011. - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable WP:NOTLAST. If any editor thinks it relevant to the article above they should go ahead an add it DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Vorperian

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All sources now are dependent on Rita Vorperian for content. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nominator, do not see any notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to being Glendale woman of the year. Rita Vorperian has appeared as a writer and publisher to numerous peer-reviewed journals articles, newspapers, and books. She is an often cited authority in his field, and passes the requirements for articles on WP:ACADEMIC. Her writings are respected by the Armenian diasporan community at large (it has appeared in Beirut, Cyprus, Canada, etc etc. newspapers). I would also like to add that searching her name with Armenian characters on google reveals more results than with English characters. Her community activism is notable too as she is a high ranking member of organizations that are notable in amd of themselves. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please reconsider your votes to the additional information I have added to the new "Awards" subsection of the article. On March 25 2011, she was awarded the prestigious Mesrob Mashtots Medal, the highest award of Armenia, from the Archbishop of the Western Prelate of the Armenian church on behalf of Aram I, Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia for her literary accomplishments and dedication to the Armenian community. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Meshrop Mashtots Medal is NOT the highest award of Armenia. National Hero of Armenia is.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its the highest award for Arts and Culture. National Hero of Armenia is the highest for Military accomplishments. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Pls check the list of recipients.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Many sources claim it is the highest medal, especially for those in dedication to Armenian culture (See:"Armenia’s highest medal", the country's highest award - the Order of St. Mashtots.the highest state award of Armenia "St. Mesrop Mashtots"). Even if you don't agree with me, Mashtots award is still one of the highest ranking medals of the Republic of Armenia. It is handed to recipients by the Catholicos of All Armenians and the President of Armenia. I repeat PLEASE REVISE YOUR VOTES IN ACCORDANCE TO THE NEW INFORMATION I ADDED. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just do not find the info you added makes her notable. And please DO NOT YELL. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ACADEMIC criteria #2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. P.S. I wasn't yelling at you...I just wanted to raise attention to the fact to all voters of the new additions I added to the article that display her notability. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an academic, so that WP:ACADEMIC does not apply. This is not an academic award. Nobel Prize would make her notable, for instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely argue that she is academic but I won't have to due to #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she is academic please tell us in which university she is a professor. I do not think that the Mesrop Mashtots medal qualifies for #1 WP:ANYBIO. WP:GNG could be the best chance for your article, but then we need not only Armenian press or local newspapers, but smth more solid.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced that the "Mesrob Mashdots medal" she was given by some church official has anything to do with the "Order St. Mesrop Mashtots" given by the country's president. They have different names and they don't look the same. So what is the evidence that this medal has any significance? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein. The person handing the medal to Rita Vorperian is not just another "church official". Per [49] the Order was bestowed by "Western Prelate Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian on behalf of His Holiness Aram I, Catholicossate of the Great House of Cilicia." The Catholicos of the Holy See of Cilicia is the "Pope" of the Armenian church. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David. Don't know if this would answer your question, but this is from the LA news article I refer to below. "Retired California Supreme Court Justice Armand Arabian, the first Armenian American to serve on the state's highest court, has been honored by the head of the Armenian church for his contributions to public service and scholarship. His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the See of Cilicia, bestowed the Mesrob Mashdots medal upon Arabian last Monday at a ceremony in Bikfaya, Lebanon... The award is usually presented in the honoree's home country by a local Armenian organization." I do not have a source, but reading the couple of stories about it leads me to believe that it is the same award and that the source of the award is always the Catholics of Cilicia, but it is presented by different people (i.e. the president when it is diplomatic recognition, local groups when that is appropriate, etc.) But this is just being pieced together and not at all clear. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. Seems needlessly deletionist. It's certainly not the case that "all sources now are dependent on Rita Vorperian for content", given the Congressional discussion. I feel in a case where notability is marginal but the article is not a PR puff, it's best to err on the side of caution. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~, in looking for references, I did not find any significant coverage of the subject of this AfD from multiple reliable sources; what coverage I did find appeared to be passing mentions, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. However, Proudbolsahye has provided a source which claims that the subject was awarded the Mesrob Mashtots Medal, which might be considered a significant award that would make the subject notable per WP:ANYBIO. That being said, I do not know if allvoices.com is a reliable source, and I don't know how significant the Mesrob Mashtots Medal is. So I am neutral regarding the subject's notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RightCowLeftCoast...Here are some additional sources that say the Mesrob Mashtots medal is considered a very high ranking or prestigious medal in the least:[50],[51][52][53][54][55]).Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this article Awards and decorations of Armenia, the medal appears to be a a 6th level civilian award, equal to say the National Medal of Science. Therefore, not being a high level medal I am changing my opinion to Delete.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RightCowLeftCoast Those medals aren't in any specific order. The official website doesn't even specify any certain rank of order as well ([56]) which is alphabetically ranked. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources as explained by MelanieN below. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Though the sources cited don't do much, the subject of the article seems to have been recognized to a degree significant enough to merit an article. Ducknish (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the official website of the Armenian military, the highest title of Armenia is given to Armenian citizens only. Rita Vorperian does not qualify for obvious reasons. Therefore, the Mesrob Mashtots Medal is the highest medal of the Armenian Republic that can be bestowed to her and if she were an Armenian citizen, it would be in the least. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I probably have a less rigorous opinion of what it means to be reported on and discussed in a reliable source independent of the subject - this does not mean, to me, that the source is not allowed to use information from the subject, merely that the source has editorial independence and makes some effort at checking the facts of the situation. In this context, the Armenian government, the local Congressperson and his staff, and the Glendale News-Press will suffice. It's a barely passing thing, though. Ray^Talk 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Change to Keep~~Edit: Not clear to me. I was finding nothing to justify the Mesrob Mashtots Medal as even a notable page or award itself. Then Google thankfully suggested trying Mashdots instead and I found enough to justify it and change my opinion to keep. Lexis search revealed: Metropolitan Express News of LA "It is among the highest honors the church gives" and (this really weird one) Deseret News (Salt Lake City) "Kocharyan presented Huntsman with the St. Mesrob Mashdots Medal of Honor, the nation's highest civilian award, and made him an Armenian citizen." With those two sources, I think a very tepid keep is my decision. @Proud: Help out and include alternative spellings of Armenian people and awards if it will help non-Armenian folk find out more about the people and awards (is her name Rita or Rima like the Mesrob page calls her? or both, possibly). Rita herself is still iffy on sources in my opinion, ~~but the award does seem to pass WP:Anybio.~~ _{Addition: just read David Epstein's comment: for sources above the first was given by the Church (high ranking member) and the second was given by the President, but both are given same name--But yes, if they are different awards, my opinion changes.}AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Abstractillusionist...The Armenian Apostolic Church has two Catholicos ...one in Cilicia and one in Echmiadzin. Both have the same amount of executive power. The same medal is given by the Catholicos of Echmiadzin too. Like here Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, I just don't find her notable. Google News search finds a grand total of two mentions of her, both in the Los Angeles Daily News,[57] plus one mention under an alternate spelling at Asbarez.com.[58] She has a PhD, and she taught at UCLA for 17 years - without ever rising above the post of "senior lecturer". She writes for newspapers. She was given a couple of awards - woman of the year in her congressional district, and a medal which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article but IMO does not rise to the level of "a well-known and significant award or honor" as specified at WP:ANYBIO. Others may disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a Mashots Medal recipient. Mashots Medal is one of the highest awards of Armenia. That alone automatically makes her notable. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could a merge be warranted? Specifically a merge of basic content with the Mashtots medal page. It seems there is some feeling that sources for Rita herself are not great (reflected in comments by ymblanter, RightCowLeftCoast, Xxanthippe, Ducknish, MelanieN, and me). The division is whether the Mashtots makes her notable or not. It seems if the award is the only thing that would make her notable, a merge to that page of content could be a wise path. Some info would need to be cut, but a brief bio of her on the Mashtots page seems to me a reasonable solution. (I'm still not sure the Mashtots medal is "well-known and significant" (to pass WP:ANYBIO), it may be significant but shouldn't the medal at least have been mentioned once by any of The Times of London, New York Times, AP, AFP (non-obit) to be considered "well known"?) AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AbstractIllusions. I do not agree with the merge. She didn't win an award for doing nothing. The Mesrob Mashdots award wasn't something that fell from the sky. She won an award for her philanthropy, community activism, feminist advocacy and literary works. These are all merits that make a stand alone article. Especially when she has been accredited by House of Representative's in Congress and the Catholicos of the Armenian Church for the above mentioned reasons. Although the award is well known (a mere search of "Mesrop Mashtots Medal" reveals dozens if not hundreds of results), I feel compelled to show some of the notable news sources that have mentioned the medal. Here are some widely recognized newspapers and agencies: (Deseret News "Kocharyan presented Huntsman with the St. Mesrob Mashdots Medal of Honor, the nation's highest civilian award, and made him an Armenian citizen.", BBC: "Miller was awarded the Mesrop Mashtots medal for his remarkable contribution to the development of economic ties between Armenia and Russia." (I found many from BBC), Voice of Russian: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been awarded with Armenia’s St.Mesrop Mashtots Order for his “considerable contribution to the development of the Russian-Armenian cooperation.” Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question wasn't whether she deserved the Mashtots or not, the question was whether she is notable or not? I found most of those same sources (as I noted above and quoted from) and they still don't show that the Mashtots is a "well-known" medal. The few news sources, and they are few sources (particularly if we exclude wire translations like your BBC report which isn't actually from BBC), actually seem to show the exact opposite because every source immediately has to explain what the medal is. That tends to mean that the award is not well-known. Regardless, this isn't a debate about the Mashtots, it is about Rita/Rima. Regardless of how great she is or how much she has done, she still seems unnotable to me except possibly for the Mashtots medal. That makes me wary. In the end, I've moved my vote to neutral and will keep it there. It just isn't clear to me based on the sources that she is notable. And I'm not going to make a firm decision based upon the Mashtots to claim she is notable. If that wikipedia page were better or if it showed up to any substantive extent in international news coverage, I'd think twice. But my closing vote on the issue = Not clear either direction AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Notability not established yet WP:BIO or WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to No Motiv. (non-admin closure) TB randley 07:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hershey

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

Musician. Only evidence of notability seems to be links to a local newspaper. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This article is promotional and may not meet WP:V. We should get rid of it. Redirect to No Motiv, since the subject is a vocalist in No Motiv. Unforgettableid (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Unforgettableid said. No sense in keeping it, may as well have it lead to the group article. Ducknish (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Bent Heaven Bound II: Money the £inal £rontier

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

Non-notable album, referenced only to the website of one of the musicians. A google search throws up no independent sources to expand the article, so if it is kept it will re main remain as a permastub sourced only to its creators.

The title is too convoluted to be a plausible search term, so no need to redirect anywhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A bit of a bizarre (non-)article this one. Digging around on the internet, it appears to be an album based on a show that the four musicians toured (which should be added as a lede in the unlikely event that this is kept). I found an article in the Waterloo Record that appears to mention the album/show, but I can only see a preview. I certainly don't think a standalone article is justified here, and the title as it is seems unlikely to be useful as a redirect - the title as it appears on the album cover is Hell Bent...Heaven Bound II MONEY, The Final Frontier. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like WP:A9, but regular deletion will work since there is not enough reliable source material to provide content to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an A9 because we have articles on three of the four artists concerned. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of article on Michael Parker would mean it A9 "has no corresponding article about its recording artist", even though there are articles on Barb Jungr, Christine Collister, and Helen Watson. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what A9 is for - it's for albums where the artist has no article at all, not where only one of four artists doesn't have an article. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only a track listing, doesn't meet WP:GNG Secret ^account 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history.

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 23:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Made Huckabee?

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

Article about one skit during the writer's strike that went through three shows. One article about the three shows coping with the strike that mentions the "feud" is not enough for notability or verifiability, most of this relies on primary sources or blog sources. Somehow slipped through the GA process. Prior AfD atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart_feud

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in literally numerous secondary sources. Currently a Good Article level of quality rated article. This nomination is ridiculous. — Cirt (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviosly notable per multiple reliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the arguments made at the first AfD: good selection/variety of sources (not all blogs), GA status, well written, etc. DP76764 (Talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in the New York Times and other news media so happy it satisfies the WP:GNG. However, being rated a good article has very little bearing on notability. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Cavarrone. BerleT (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Window Software

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

Non-noteworthy organization. Per WP:PRODUCTS, a company's products do not necessarily confer notability onto the creator. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the company is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article. Ducknish (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. --Boson (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 01:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bigband (band) Filmography

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

Filmography for a primarily music group. Most of the films/tv shows listed don't have the entire band in them. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 09:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 11. Snotbot t • c » 11:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if this is kept, it needs moving to another name - the (band) appendage is in the wrong place, and is probably invalid anyway. I'm inclined to say Merge to Bigband (band), if there's anything not present there. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if longer and sourced, this could perhaps better be moved to List of Bigband flms. But If Bigband (band) were itself shown as notable this short list would be best merged to an article about Bigband as suggested above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - band name appears to be BigBang, so even if by some odd chance this was kept (or renamed), the name needs to reflect this. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an incorrectly named article (thus a poor search term), and Merge whatever proves sourcable to Big Bang (South Korean band). With the clue provided above by User:Lukeno94 (thank you), it appears this an incorrectly named and poorly sourced spinout list article that can best be covered at the primary notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments earlier, and Schmidt's summing up of them. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially poorly named, but regardless a poor article that does not meet many WikiPedia standards. Start again rather than try and salvage DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history.

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. Retaliatory nomination that's going nowhere good. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warm glass

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - I suggest that this instruction manual on glass-blowing be deleted or merged to the main article on Glass. Anthony Seldon (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep Sheer bad faith retaliatory nom. See nominator's history. Anthony Seldon (talk · contribs) also User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Your_call_for_my_blocking

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Note As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal Transportation, ""Bad faith creation" or a user's contribution history are not in and of themselves valid rationales for deletion". The article should be considered for deletion on its own merits. Anthony Seldon (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article merits inclusion based on its encyclopedic content relative to the art of glassblowing and it sufficient citations to reliable sources. I agree with Mr Dingley that this is likely a bad faith nomination made in retaliation for the deletion nominations of several of Mr Seldon's articles. And while Mr Seldon correctly points out that an article author's history should not be the reason for an article deletion, a nominator's history may well be the the reason to ignore a nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history.

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Friedman

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see the DRV where additional sources/citations were provided. The consensus is that these need to be discussed. I am relisting this as an adminstration action in connection to the DRV and am therefore neutral Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of GNG or PROF. Couldn't find any scholarly reviews of his books. (Searches by other Editors in first nomination suggested same.)— James Cantor (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF C1, Gscholar h-index of 7, with cites going 87,20,15,12,12,8,7.... This is not enough for psychology (particularly the clinical/medical variant), which is a high citation field. As previous editor didn't find anything to pass WP:AUTHOR and previous AfD (as well as a Google news search) didn't find any secondary sources to pass WP:BIO, I see no reason to keep the article. Ray^Talk 15:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing the DRV, I can understand why the decision was undertaken as it was (basically the previous discussion went dead for lack of participation), but it might be better for the closing admin to take the remarks from the previous discussion into consideration, as those remarks were recent enough to be on point and relevant. Ray^Talk 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DRV isn't an extension of the AFD. Its a review of the decision and if there is evidence presented that needs consideration it has to come back to AFD as DRV doesn't so much consider content as the deletion process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete original AFD nominator. Complete fail of WP:GNG. Article claims he is a founder of Integrative psychotherapy. That article does not mention him at all. All of the lninks point to self help websites where you can buy the subjects books and CDs. No 3rd party articles or reviews by reliable soureces. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is still no evidence that this author has had any impact on his field. The "references" listed at the article, and the "additional sources" offered at the DRV, are merely a bibliography of his self-authored material. The only secondary source is one review of one of his books in a non-notable ~~journal~~ website called "Spirituality and Practice". I was the sole commenter at the original AfD (full disclosure: this second AfD was called to my attention by Gaijin42), where I said I found no citations at Google Scholar; I apparently didn't allow for the fact that he has such a common name. On re-searching now I find some listings, but most are self-published rather than in peer reviewed journals, and most of them are citations rather than actual publications. Eliminating citations, I find half-a-dozen publications in peer-reviewed journals, with fewer than 10 citations each. I stand by my original assessment that this subject is not notable under WP:SCHOLAR, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lots of books, but none with important presses nor have any reviews been found. No independent RS of any particular merit. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the following, additional information:

Technical Eclecticism is referred to in the Wiki article on Integrative Psychotherapy as one of the 4 routes to integration. Dr. Friedman came to Philadelphia in 1968 on a NIMH postdoctoral fellowship to study with Arnold Lazarus, when he was developing multi-modal therapy and technical eclecticism. In the years after that Dr. Friedman stayed in touch with Arnold Lazarus who moved to Rutgers in Princeton, N.J. in 1969. Dr. Friedman was a multi-modal therapist but eventually expanded multi-modal therapy and technical eclecticism into Integrative Psychotherapy. Dr. Friedman was invited in 1979 by Richie Herink, editor, to write the chapter on Integrative Psychotherapy in the The Psychotherapy Handbook first published in 1980 by New American Library. Three more related articles in peer reviewed journals on integration and Integrative Psychotherapy followed in the next 2 years.

An integrative approach to the creation and alleviation of dis-ease within the family.

PH Friedman - Family Therapy, 1980 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Discusses psychotherapy in the context of healing and focuses on the intrapersonal, interpersonal (mainly family), and transpersonal or spiritual factors that create distress, disharmony and" dis-ease" within individuals and families and that in turn trigger ...

Integrative family therapy. PH Friedman - Family Therapy; Family Therapy, 1981 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Presents a 3-dimensional model to aid in the integration of different approaches to family theory and therapy. Metaphors from different family therapy approaches are classified within the structure of the model. Various characteristics of integrative family ...

The multiple roles of the integrative marital psychotherapist.

PH Friedman - Family Therapy, 1982 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Discusses 3 roles that an integrative marital psychotherapist may play with an individual or couple: director, catalyst, and spiritual healer. The case of a 32-yr-old female who had been separated from her husband for 2 mo illustrates a number of other roles

Dr. Friedman became very active at conferences and workshops in the early 1980's with a few other colleagues in developing Integrative Marital Therapy and Integrative Family Therapy, especially at the AFTA conferences, with Pinsof, Lebow and Moultrup among others in the early 1980's.

Then in 1983 the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration was launched.

None of this information is shared in the Wiki article. In fact there are very few references in the Wiki Integrative Psychotherapy article before 2000 and only one before 1992, by Jerome Frank on his book "Persuasion and Healing" which also influenced Dr. Friedman's thinking, though it was not a book on integrative psychotherapy per se.) In other words the history of Integrative Psychotherapy reviewed in the Wiki article is very incomplete and doesn't reflect a complete, accurate history of the field.

The Friedman Well-Being Scale published in 1992 is used all over the world. Dr. Friedman frequently get requests, moreover, from graduate students working on their M.A. or Ph.D degrees to use The Friedman Well-Being Scale in their dissertations from far away as Australia. Below are some web sites referring to the The Friedman Well-Being Scale and one study described using it. The scale was developed 3 years after the publication of his book Creating Well-Being (1989) which mapped out 12 core principles of well-being. This was 10 years before the field of Positive Psychology was organized focusing heavily on well-being. Even today 24 years later the ideas in Dr. Friedman's Creating Well-Being book still carry a lot of weight and are aligned with current thinking about well-being.

http://www.mindgarden.com/products/fwbss.htm http://psycentre.apps01.yorku.ca/drpl/?q=node/15848 http://www.prasadpsycho.com/friedman-well-being-scale http://www.neurosoup.com/MSFinalPaper_KrystleCole.pdf http://managementconsultingbusiness.net/tag/friedman-well-being-scale/

Corporate Report Suggests Staff Become Happier at Home and at Work Following 3 Principles Training

More Happiness at Work? Corporate Report Suggests Staff Become Happier at Home and at Work Following 3 Principles Training

SANJOSE (April 19, 2012) – Is more happiness at work possible through “state of mind education?’ And does more happiness link with more productivity? Yes, as results show. Read the summary of the training results of a program designed and led by our Co-Founder and Senior Partner, Gabriela Maldonado-Montano. It bolsters recent research showing a causal link between happiness and productivity. A win-win for the client, The Center for Employment Training.

A research team at Warwick Business School in the UK found that subjective feelings of happiness had measurable effects on how hard and well people worked. The Warwick team concluded, “If happiness in the workplace brings increased returns to productivity, then human resource departments, business managers and the architects of promotion policies will want to consider the implications.”

Results of the“State of Mind Leadership Training” showed 80% of those attending saw in positive shift in the way they work. Fifty managers and employees attended a Three Principles-based educational program to raise the level of understanding about how state of mind creates a person’s experience, and how that experience effects productivity and performance.

Results found that improvement in subjective well-being was statistically significant and was sustained up to four months after the training: 〉84% indicated that the training had a positive impact on their world view 〉80% reported positive change in how they are doing things at home and work 〉50% responded that they felt better physically after the training 〉90% responded “yes” when asked if the training had improved communications and had a positive impact with others including family members and co-workers

Thinking outside the human resource development box, Center for Employment Training executives decided to focus on staff well-being rather than organizational functioning per se. “The capacity of an organization’s leadership to bring out the best in an employee depends on the mental state of both,” the report states. “Their ability to handle change as well as the everyday crisis is dependent on their mental states…. In general people with high levels of well-being are more in harmony with themselves and others, engage in more positive, optimistic, hopeful thoughts and attitudes. Therefore, one of the most fundamental issues determining the organization’s operation is the state of mind of its employees.”

Comments from staff point to a link between higher levels of well-being and work performance. According to one, “I notice that I pay more attention to detail with less mistakes.” Another said, “I’m more aware of how I’m feeling at work and how my co-workers are feeling.” “You have control over what is happening on the inside and that (awareness) makes a difference in how you take care of business,” said another.

One person commented that staff members are accustomed to seeing value only in action-oriented training with a specific outcome. Another participant said, “What struck me was that this was not a tool, but was introduced as transformative knowledge. And the more we reflected or were thoughtful or just let it sink in, then it would be transformative. So I think the three days were very rich.”

A few participants noted dramatic personal changes. One quit smoking right after the retreat and commented, “I thought I would struggle, but using my awareness of my own thoughts made it a lot easier.” She also noted that her relationship with her spouse improved “drastically.”

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that workplace wellness programs were of benefit to business by reducing absence due to illness, reducing staff turnover, increasing employee satisfaction, and boosting company profile and productivity.

The Three Principles approach teaches that when people develop an understanding of state of mind within themselves, they enjoy greater freedom from their own personal thought systems and gain clarity, peace of mind, wisdom and creativity.

A Full Report on the Evaluation of State of Mind Leadership Training by the Center for Employment Training is available upon request. This training consisted of three parts: pre-training intake; 2.5-day retreat at Asilomar Conference Grounds on the Monterey Peninsula; and five subsequent “brown bag lunch” sessions at the workplace (26 hours total). Quantitative data was derived using the Friedman Well-Being Scale (FWBS), and qualitative results were obtained through analysis of staff journals and through focus groups.

Center for Employment Training has conducted follow-up evaluations to determine the success of the training over a lengthier period of time, please ask us to view these results showing sustained improvements over time. The report was prepared by Linda Ramus, Director of 3 Principles Services Division, Department of Alcohol and Drug Services in San Jose, in collaboration with Gabriela Maldonado-Montano. Trainers and evaluators included Betty Nelson of Santa Clara County Department of Alcohol and Drug Services, Christine Baucus of Transformation Research and Consulting, Liz Alameda of Connecting Principles and Elese Coit of the Center for Sustainable Change.

"Dr. Phil Friedman's The Forgiveness Solution draws upon extensive knowledge of contemporary forgiveness research, and then charts new territory by fusing that research with a deeply spiritual orientation. It offers a veritable goldmine of practical exercises drawn from years of guiding therapeutic clients into the experience of forgiveness. Friedman's profound commitment to helping his clients and his readers along the road to true forgiveness shines through on every page. If you are serious about walking on that road yourself, read this book -- and use it." --Robert Perry, Founder of the Circle of Atonement and author of Path of Light and Signs: A New Approach to Coincidence, Synchronicity, Guidance, Life Purpose, and God's Plan

"A comprehensive and powerful book that teaches hurt people to recover their center and let go of painful wounds and grievances." --Fred Luskin, PhD, Director, Stanford Forgiveness Projects, and author of Forgive for Good

"The Forgiveness Solution is a wonderful, passionate, healing book that is easy to read, practical, integrative, and powerful. Readers will not only learn how to forgive themselves and others but will also be on the way to developing a forgiving personality and reconnecting with the inner goodness and light within themselves and each other." --Gerald G. Jampolsky, M.D., author of Love Is Letting Go of Fear and co-author of A Mini Course for Life

"There is no doubt that the #1 solution to so many of our personal, political, and social problems today is forgiveness. In this book Dr. Friedman offers a wealth of forgiveness techniques and processes that skillfully blends science, spirituality, and clinical practice into a seamless garment of love, peace, strength, and resilience." --Colin Tipping, author of Radical Forgiveness

"The most practical book I've ever read on forgiveness. From beginning to end, it focuses on giving you a direct experience of forgiveness and helps you to incorporate this way of being into every facet of your life. If you do the exercises in this book, I know your life will be changed forever." --David Paul Doyle, co-author of The Voice for Love: Accessing Your Inner Voice to Fulfill Your Life's Purpose

"Forgiveness is quite possibly one of the most misunderstood words in the dictionary. We've all been told we 'should' forgive, but why is it so important and so difficult to do? Dr. Friedman's book answers these questions. Not only does he point to the benefits of forgiveness for your own health and inner peace, he gives you numerous ways to actually forgive and release the pain, hurt, guilt, and anger. World peace begins with inner peace; you owe it to yourself and the planet to read this book." --Mary T. Sise, LCSW, former president of the Association of Comprehensive Energy Psychology and co-author of The Energy of Belief: Psychology's Power Tools to Focus Intention & Release Blocking Beliefs

"The Forgiveness Solution is a comprehensive, in-depth look into every aspect of the power of forgiveness. Drawn from a wide variety of perspectives, it has more exercises, techniques, and energetic processes than any book about forgiveness on the shelves today. Dr. Philip Friedman shows us how one simple act can transform our personal lives and the world around us. If you're experiencing challenges of any sort and don't know what to do, forgiveness is your next step and this book will guide you true. The Forgiveness Solution is a winner!" --Tony Burroughs, author of The Code: 10 Intentions for a Better World

"The Forgiveness Solution is a wonderfully healing book, an inspiring and practical guide that assists individuals on working through the rigorous task of releasing even the darkest of emotions." --Caroline Myss, author of Defy Gravity and Anatomy of the Spirit

"If you want more peace, satisfaction, and joy in your life, then The Forgiveness Solution can be your solution. This book will not only change your life, it will change the world you live in. You can't afford the luxury of being unforgiving." --Stevan Thayer, Director of the Center of Being and author of Interview with an Angel

"I opened this book and could not stop reading it! If you want to give up guilt, suffering, or painful distance from loved ones who have disappointed or hurt you, definitely get yourself a copy of The Forgiveness Solution. This is the most practical book you can buy on forgiveness. It can help you restore your own peace and happiness and make a rapid 180 degree turn in healing the most important relationships in your life!" --Diana Kirschner, Ph.D., author of Love in 90 Days: The Essential Guide to Finding Your Own True Love

"Dr. Friedman's years of study and practical application of his deep knowledge, along with his obvious grace in dealing with this most sensitive and significant psychological problem, will inform and inspire you to new freedom from unforgiveness. Unforgiveness runs deep in all of us; it is ingrained in our childhood and highly reinforced in our society. The Forgiveness Solution will help you enormously, both personally and with your clients who suffer silently with this debilitating problem of how to become free through forgiveness. This book is a treasure and is well suited for laypersons as well as for professional practitioners." --Larry P. Nims, PhD, author of the BE SET FREE FASTâ„¢ book and DVD

"Wow, what a rich and comprehensive resource The Forgiveness Solution is. Though the theme is 'forgiveness', Dr. Friedman offers us a rich resource to guide us to a positive, fulfilling, and satisfying life. Not only does he present us with a compendium of ways to perceive, assess, and take action to heal ourselves, but he even provides the questions and answers we might ask him to have the confidence to apply these methods. This is a book we could all use." --Barry G. Ginsberg, PhD, Director of The Center of Relationship Enhancement and author of Relationship Enhancement Family Therapy and 50 Wonderful Ways to Be a Single-Parent Family

"The Forgiveness Solution makes two bold claims -- that unforgiveness underlies virtually all psychological problems, and the solution to that underlying problem (and also other problems) is to forgive. Philip H. Friedman, equipped by years of practical psychotherapy experience, offers you a practical, powerful, and personal book that will help you forgive. Doable exercises are engaging, useful, and therapy-tested. While many psychologists integrate scientific findings into their practice, I know of no therapist who does as often as Friedman. His integration of research and practice has resulted in a book that will help you, teach you, and heal you. It is the best blend of science and clinical practice." --Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of Forgiving and Reconciling: Bridges to Wholeness and Hope

"An amazing contribution to the field that draws upon scientific research, clinical experience, spiritual wisdom, and cutting-edge methods. Keeping this resource handy will help anyone navigate the toughest of times." Â --Fred P. Gallo, PhD, author of Energy Psychology and Energy Tapping for Trauma

"The Forgiveness Solution is a treasure-trove of inspiring quotations, powerful examples from Friedman's clinical practice, and numerous effective and healing exercises that bring the material alive. Whatever your orientation, you will find doors to walk through and abundant resources to continue your journey toward greater peace, happiness, love, and joy." --Martha Crampton, Ph.D., founder and former director of the Canadian Institute of Psychosynthesis in Montreal

"There are many solutions to personal, social, and interpersonal problems, but The Forgiveness Solution is one of the best. With empathy, care, wisdom, and intuition, Dr Friedman gives you a detailed, step-by-step, and focused approach to healing, wholeness, peace, and happiness. Drawing on scientific research, spiritual teachings, and years of clinical experience, he teaches you how to forgive yourself and others." --Dr. Loren Toussaint, associate professor at Luther College

"If you were to have one book on the all-important subject of forgiveness, this is the one. In an easy-to-read style, The Forgiveness Solution deftly compiles research with exercises, case studies with concise insights. It's a clear handbook on how to forgive, written for the lay person and professional alike. It also uses some of Dr. Friedman's own powerful techniques for dealing with forgiveness. To have a great life, you need to know how to forgive. This book really maps out what you need in a fascinating and comprehensive way." --Dr. Phillip Mountrose, co-author of The Heart & Soul of EFT and Beyond and co-director the Awakenings Institute 24.0.187.139 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 24.0.187.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interesting slip-up in the above TLDR post: "...the ideas in my Creating Well-Being book..." ...in my book? I think we now understand who wrote this post. This is the same account that requested the DRV. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All information above has been obtained by and provided by Rich Ferrucci (me) the original requester of the DRV. I did obtain the above information and some of the material came from sources in which Dr. Friedman was listed as a reference, hence the reason one of the lines was in the first person during an interview. The particular line in question should have been removed but in the vast information I collected, it was simply an oversight. 24.0.187.139 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional google scholar articles can be found searching for "friedman well-being scale" to show the importance of this work:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22friedman+well-being+scale%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1 will provide the following list, which will provide 31 results. On the first page 8 out of 10 responses have more than 10 citations.

Some of the scholarly articles referencing Dr. Friedman's work include: Journal of Neurotherapy, Journal of Group Psychotherapy and the Journal of Correctional Education 24.0.187.139 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has several guidelines for deciding what sufficient notability is for articles about academics (nicknamed the professor test). You can read it here.— James Cantor (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional resources to satisfy WP:PROF

1. 13th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL ENERGY PSYCHOLOGY CONFERENCE on Thursday, June 04, 2011 -Reston, Va.

Workshop by Philip Friedman, Ph.D

https://m360.energypsych.org/event/session.aspx?id=24474

• C9 - Forgiveness Solution: Transformational/Energetic Approach to Peace/Love -

The Forgiveness Solution: a Transformational and Energetic Approach to Greater Peace and Happiness explores the different practical aspects of my new book The Forgiveness Solution. It draws on spiritual, cognitive, emotional and energetic approaches to forgiveness and healing. Participants will have the opportunity to learn the different levels of the Positive Pressure Point Techniques as well as psycho-spiritual forgiveness imagery techniques, affirmations and afformations designed to facilitate forgiveness. The thesis is that there is basically one core problem underneath all other problems which is unforgiveness and one core solution which is forgiveness. The goal of true forgiveness is peace, happiness, joy, love, healed relationships and eventually liberation. The powerful tools presented in this workshop have been empirically demonstrated in the authors clinical research to rapidly catalyze change. Philip Friedman, Ph.D, a licensed clinical psychologist and psychotherapist in Plymouth Meeting, Pa. He is Director of the Foundation for Well-Being and the author of “The Forgiveness Solution: The Whole Body Rx for Finding True Happiness, Abundant Love and Inner Peace; “Creating Well- Being”; the “Integrative Healing Manual”; the Friedman Assessment Scales on Well- Being, Affect, Beliefs, Quality of Life. Dr. Friedman has published over 25 published articles and chapters in professional journals/books including three recent ones on forgiveness. His current interests, research and writings are on forgiveness, gratitude, change, energy and transformational healing, positive psychology, spirituality and well-being. Dr. Friedman is a co-founder of “Integrative Therapy” (IT) and “Integrative Healing” (IH) as well as the “Positive Pressure Point Techniques” (PPPT), a form of energy therapy. Currently he serves as an adjunct professor on the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology faculty in Palo Alto, Ca.

2. International Positive Psychology Association Annual Conference 2011 Philadelphia, Pa http://www.ippanetwork.org/assets/1/7/2nd_WCPP_Final_Program.pdf

Workshop 7 on Sunday July 24th Philip Friedman, Ph.D Forgiveness Solution Interventions: A Transformational, Energetic and Positive Approach to Less Stress and Greater Peace, Love, Joy, Life Satisfaction, Happiness, Well-Being and Relationship Harmony

2:30 - 3:20 P.M. ROOM 330

3. 10th Annual Mid Year Conference on Religion and Spirituality (sponsored by Loyola University, Maryland and co-Sponsored by Division 36 of the American Psychological Association www.loyola.edu/pastoralcounseling/myc FRIDAY, MARCH 30 - SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 2012

PAPER SESSION #113 http://www.division36.org/conference/12FinalProgram.pdf· ROLE OF THE NUMINOUS IN HUMAN FLOURISHING

CHAIR - Philip H. Friedman, Ph.D. Self-Compassion, Self-Forgiveness, Resilience, Spirituality and its Relationship to Flourishing and Well-Being

Philip H. Friedman, Ph.D., Foundation for Well-Being The Inclusion of Spirituality as a Dimension of Human Flourishing

Melanie McEntee, Ph.D., LCPC, Loyola University Maryland

4. 11th Annual Mid Year Conference on Religion and Spirituality (sponsored by Loyola University, Maryland and co-Sponsored by Division 36 of the American Psychological Association www.loyola.edu/pastoralcounseling/myc FRIDAY, MARCH 22 - SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 2013 www.loyola.edu/~/media/joinus/myc/documents/myc-program.ashx

ROOM 272 PAPER SESSION SESSION #215 – SPIRITUALITY AND ULTIMATE WELL-BEING

2 to 2:50 P.M. CHAIR – Meredithe Talibon

Changes in Self-Compassion, Self-Forgiveness, Self-Worth, Positive and Negative Affect and Beliefs, Stress, Flourishing, Gratitude, Life Satisfaction, Spirituality, Happiness and Well-Being Over Time Philip H. Friedman, Ph.D., Foundation for Well-Being

5. International Journal of Healing and Caring Editorial Panel

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/editorialpanel.html

Philip Friedman, PhD is a licensed clinical psychologist, coach, psychotherapist, researcher, writer and workshop leader in private practice in Plymouth Meeting, Pa. and the director of the Foundation for Well-Being. He is the author of the "The Forgiveness Solution: the Whole Body Rx for Finding True Happiness, Abundant Love and Inner Peace" as well as "Creating Well-Being: the Healing Path to Love, Peace, Self-Esteem and Happiness" as well as the Integrative Healing Manual. He has also created the Forgiveness Solution and Creating Well-Being audio series. In addition he is the developer of the Friedman Assessment Scales on Well-Being, Affect, Beliefs, Quality of Life, Forgiveness and Personal/Spiritual Growth. Dr. Friedman is also a Certified Law of Attraction Facilitator, Coach and Trainer and the founder of the Positive Pressure Point Techniques. He also created a series of Positive Pressure Point videos. He is a diplomate in Comprehensive Energy Psychology (DCEP) and one of the founders of "Integrative Therapy" He was on the faculty of both Jefferson and Hahnemann University and Medical Schools in Philadelphia and Director of Training in Marital and Family Therapy for many years. Now he is an adjunct assistant Professor at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology in Palo Alto, Ca. where he supervises graduate students on their dissertations. His major interests are in the fields of Integrative Psychotherapy and Healing including Spiritual, Energy, Positive, Cognitive, Emotional, Relational, Systems and Behaviorial psychology plus ongoing tracking and assessment of change in psychotherapy. He has published many professional articles on a wide variety of topics (most recently forgiveness, gratitude and well-being) Dr. Friedman frequently presents at national and international conferences (most recently on resilience, flourishing, spirituality and self-compassion as it relates to forgiveness, gratitude and well-being.) He is frequently quoted in the media and on the internet. He can be found on Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter.

6. Book Creating Well-Being; The Healing Path to Love, Peace, Self-Esteem and Happiness (1989) published by R & E PUBLISHERS 212 pages, ISBN, 0-88247-841-9. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA

A powerful, beautiful and life-changing book that describes the 12 core principles for enhancing well-being. The stories of people's lives are inspiring and uplifting and convey a loving touch. The guidelines, questionairres and home work/play sheets make the material especially accessible, practical and useful.

"CWB is a beautiful book. The writing is simple and straightforward and the ideas get quickly to the core of things. The 12 principles of well-being cover the field in a new way. I think your questionairres and lists make the material especially accessible, and practical and useful. It is like a handbook. I hope it goes far." Randy Rolfe, author of You Can Postpone Anything But Love and Radio Host

"The 12 Principles of Creating Well-Being are thoughtfully and articulately presented. Phil Friedman's book is founded on spiritual truth. I expect anyone that sincerely applies the principles will find welcome healing." Alan Cohen, author of The Dragon Doesn't Live Here Anymore

"Philip Friedman's book is like going up an elevator and reaching inner peace." Jerry Jampolsky, M.D., author of Love is Letting Go of Fear, and Founder, Attitudinal Healing Centers

"This publication is a "must" for the searching, feeling reader and dynamic clinician. I truly welcome a publication of this innovative type in the area of life's intangibles-healing, self-esteem, and love, among others, that are articulated with depth and meaning, yet very readable and practical." Jack Porter, Ph.D, Past President of Pennsylvania Psychological Association

"Crisp clear and to the point this book offers the reader an opportunity to participate fully in the creation of his or her own emotional and spiritual well-being." Susan Trout, Ph.D, Director, Institute for Attitudinal Studies

"Philip Friedman is a sensitive, perceptive and open minded therapist." Arnold Lazaris, Ph.D, Founder, Multimodal Therapy, and Distiguished Psycholgy Professor, Rutgers University

"Thank you so much for the great looking book. I commend you on the work you are doing. May your life be blessed, and may all the energy you have invested in getting the message of "love" out to the world return to you thousandfold. All is well." Louise Hay, author of You Can Heal Your Life 24.0.187.139 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent sources are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Information provided above is unclear and looks to be WP:NOR. If the article can be improved sufficiently it should be by delete now, edit later applied per WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional reviews found for published works

1. Spirituality and Practice (S&P)

Frederic and Ann Burst

S&P Book Awards: One of the Best Spiritual Books of 2010 Book Review of the Forgiveness Solution http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/books.php?id=19653

2. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine Spring 2010

http://www.innovisionhm.com/landing_page/adv_spring10.html

The Forgiveness Solution: The Whole-Body Rx for Finding True Happiness, Abundant Love, and Inner Peace by Philip H. Friedman, Ph.D. (Red Wheel Weiser, 2009)

Reviewed by Loren Toussaint, Ph.D.

The Forgiveness Solution is suitable for three audiences. First, the book is a good choice for anyone in the general public struggling with issues of unforgivenesss who wants to experience more peace, love, joy and happiness in life. Second, clinicians, counselors and coaches who want to help their clients learn how to forgive themselves and others will benefit from reading the book. Third, people who want to enhance their personal, relational and spiritual well-being and connect with the inner Self or light within will benefit.

Dr. Friedman is uniquely positioned to offer authoritative instruction and advice on forgiving and realizing greater happiness, love, joy, harmony, and peace. Early in his career, Dr. Friedman developed an appreciation for the utility of sound assessment in treatment. One of the first written exercises involves determining levels of forgiveness and well-being using self-report measurements. Assessments are then repeated later in the book. The unique aspect of Dr. Friedman’s approach, however, is that he takes this emphasis on scientific assessment and couples it with the very best of clinical tools and spiritual wisdom developed over the course of forty years of clinical work and spiritual development. The result is a method that allows for deep and meaningful personal insights stimulated by reliable and valid scientific assessments and efficacious techniques for addressing issues that are raised through this careful and accurate inquiry.

The scope and layout of The Forgiveness Solution is reader- and user- friendly. “User-friendly” in the sense that this book must be used, not just read, in order to attain maximal benefit. In this sense, Dr. Friedman planned each of 18 chapters to provide bite-sized content and experiential exercises that are challenging but not overwhelming. There are stories and quotes at the beginning of each chapter and one ongoing case study. Chapter 1 contains self-assessments to be used as an individual baseline from which to measure progress. Chapters 2-3 discuss how to be clear about what/who it is that you feel has hurt you. One cannot offer “blanket forgiveness” but must be specific about what offense is being dealt with. These chapters also introduce journaling within a positive, refocusing perspective. In Chapters 4-8 key cognitive tools for use in bringing about forgiveness are introduced including affirmations, afformations, and teaching stories as well as the central 2 paths model of happiness and change. This model maps out a journey for the reader from darkness to light. The cognitive tools are largely based in standard cognitive-behavioral therapy and focus on one’s volition in the forgiveness process and the important role of perspective-taking and reframing. In addition, in these chapters, Dr. Friedman introduces transformational forgiveness for the first time which adds a spiritual component to the cognitive tools.

Techniques based in energy psychology (i.e., energetic forgiveness), including 8 levels of the positive pressure point techniques, are introduced in chapters 9-11. Many of these techniques have detailed instructions, schematics, and pictures to demonstrate their proper execution and effectiveness. An overview of how the methods of the book can be applied in relationships, in one’s own spirituality, and in life in general is offered in chapters 12-15. These chapters include 12 forgiveness imagery exercises, many with a spiritual focus, as well as, role-playing, structured letter writing, and forgiveness worksheets. Chapter 16 provides a second set of assessments and conveniently allows the reader to, using objective measures, judge progress over a course of time. A chapter on frequently asked questions is included near the end of the book (chapter 17). It summarizes key points about The Forgiveness Solution and discusses common misunderstandings and otherwise unaddressed questions (e.g., the role of evil, sin, perpetrators, victims, terrorists, etc.) that may have arisen in reading the book. Finally, chapter 18 summarizes the book with a series of questions and comments that pull the key ideas in the book together in a coherent way.

The Forgiveness Solution is a comprehensive, integrated, well-designed, and effective method for achieving forgiveness and reaching one’s fuller potential for happiness, peace, joy, harmony and love. It is an excellent how-to guide on learning how to forgive oneself, others and unexpected life circumstances.

Nevertheless, there are a couple things that could possibly have strengthened The Forgiveness Solution even more. First, it might have been published as an oversized book with additional spaces for readers to more easily write down their responses to the exercises in the book. Second, there might have been a more complete integration of some of the materials available on Dr. Friedman’s extensive websites. Third, a brief comparison and contrasting of Dr. Friedman’s method with the methods of other psychologists teaching forgiveness, such as Everett Worthington, Robert Enright, or Fred Luskin, would have helped to illuminate the uniqueness of the energetic forgiveness approach.

That said, The Forgiveness Solution has personal, relationship, spiritual growth and psychotherapeutic value. Psychotherapists of many different orientations will be able to easily use the exercises and techniques in their therapy practice; and for a few dollars the reader gets over four decades of clinical tools and advice from one of the country’s leading forgiveness psychotherapists.

Loren Toussaint, Ph.D is anAssociate Professor of Psychology, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa and was a Visiting Scientist, Mayo Clinic, 2009-10

3. Published in the Energy Field: the newsletter of the Association of Comprehensive Energy Therapy (ACEP) July 2010.

Book Review of the Forgiveness Solution by John Freedom, M.A.: Editor for the Energy Field and Chair, ACEP Research Committee

“Historically, forgiveness has been addressed rather minimally and ineffectively in traditional therapies. We have always recognized that unforgiveness was a problem in human adjustment. But, we have tended largely to ignore it as a treatment issue. There are many reasons for such neglect……..” Larry Nims.

Another book on Forgiveness? If you’re anything like me, your reaction might be, “Ho hum, I know forgiveness can be powerful, for people who are angry, hostile or who hold onto grudges, and I certainly recommend it to my clients, but I already know about all that stuff, and I don’t need it personally……” WRONG! In a very systematic, yet personal way, Dr Philip Friedman leads us step by step through the process of who, why and how we need to practice forgiveness.

At the heart of this remarkable book likes the radical proposition that virtually all our psychological and emotional ills, including anxiety and addictions, anger, guilt and depression (and many physical issues as well!) are rooted in some form of unforgiveness. Forms of ‘unforgiveness’ include not only ‘attack thoughts’ such as judgments, criticisms and grievances, but also shoulds and expectations, comparisons and projections; any belief/attitude of non-acceptance towards another or oneself. If unforgiveness is the cause of unhappiness, then forgiveness is the cure.

The Forgiveness Solution draws from a broad palette of ideas and methods, including CBT, attitudinal healing, positive psychology, Energy Psychology and A Course In Miracles. After an introduction, Chapter 2 encourages the reader to complete some basic self-assessments, such as the Subjective Happiness Scale, the Satisfaction With Life Scale, the Gratitude Questionnaire and the Heartland Forgiveness Scale. Friedman then guides the reader through the steps of identifying specifically whom they have felt harmed by, discovering the hurt underlying the unforgiveness, identifying grievances, ‘attack thoughts,’ and old tapes, and then choosing to embark on the “Path of Transformational Forgiveness.”

But this is more than just a book on forgiveness. Like a workbook, it contains numerous exercises guiding readers to examine, explore and transform their attitudes and perceptions. There are chapters on both using affirmations in forgiveness work, and on what Friedman calls ‘affOrmations’, interrogative statements assuming a certain (positive) experience has occurred, asking WHY it occurred. Especially heartwarming are the stories and case histories of redemption and healing interwoven throughout. There are also sections on using guided imagery, forgiveness with relationship issues, ‘cutting energetic cords,’ transpersonal techniques, and more. What began as an apparently simple exercise of forgiving another, can turn into a major attitudinal and spiritual overhaul.

A couple chapters are devoted to ‘Energetic Forgiveness,’ which is the application of EP techniques (which Friedman calls “Positive Pressure Point Techniques”) in the service of Forgiveness. Very often, even when we want to forgive and ‘let go,’ we are unable to. This is often the case when emotional hurt or trauma underlies the anger/grievance we feel towards another. Tapping on this underlying trauma releases the hurt and pain, and releases both the ‘stuck’ energy and the fear that it might happen again, opening the way energetically for forgiveness to occur spontaneously.

Friedman sees forgiveness as a Bridge leading us from the path of fear, ego and narcissism to the path of health, Wholeness and Self-Realization. As Stanford researcher Fred Luskin writes, “Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does change the present……..” The Forgiveness Solution is the most comprehensive book yet written on this important topic, and deserves to be in the library of every clinician, as well as all those on the path of healing and recovery.

4. International Journal of Healing and Caring

Book Review of the Forgiveness Solution by Elizabeth MacKenzie, Ph.D

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/101books10.html

The Forgiveness Solution is not a book to read, as much as it is a journey to experience. Most of the book consists of exercises designed to connect the reader with his or her own true Self or Inner Being, mapping out the pathways form fear to love. Friedman’s basic philosophy is summed up here: A lifetime of personal and spiritual growth and practicing psychotherapy has led me to understand that underneath all distressing emotions is the core emotion of fear, which is itself a lack of love. Love is the core positive emotion that we experience when we are connected to our inner Being or true Self. When we feel separate from our inner Being or true Self, we experience fear. … The essence of our Being is love, and our journey through life is a quest to return to our core, which is love (page 49).

He draws on perspectives and techniques from transpersonal psychology, spiritual healing, energy medicine, visualizations, and forgiveness research to create a comprehensive protocol for emotional and/or mental distress. Each exercise assists the reader in releasing fear, anger, judgment, scorn, blame and so on, making room for love and light. Personally speaking, Friedman’s perspective makes a lot of sense and it seems to cut through a lot of psychological complexity that may bog us down on our journeys. Sad? Angry? Confused? Bitter? Afraid? Use forgiveness of self and others to get rid of all the garbage that obscures your beauty, allowing your natural joy, love, and light to shine forth. The underlying simplicity of Friedman’s approach will appeal to those readers who are no longer interested in trying to analyze the roots of their pain, and wish instead to simply step into the present in a joyful way. Once we can really internalize that “every communication is either an expression of love or a call for love” (page 5o), our relationships can begin to evolve, long-time grudges can dissolve, wounds can heal, and we can learn to love unconditionally, starting with ourselves.

However, it must be said that readers of The Forgiveness Solution must be able and willing to devote some time and effort to actually doing the exercises on a regular basis – affirmations, visualizations, self-acupressure, emotional freedom technique sequences, letter writing, journaling and prayer. Just sitting down and leafing through the book will probably not result in any meaningful shifts. But for people who are really motivated to make changes in their life – releasing fear and embracing love – this book could be exactly what the doctor ordered. Practicing psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists and counselors will find this book a treasure trove of useful exercises that they can prescribe to their patients and clients, helping to shift the focus from the therapeutic process to producing real results by connecting people with their capacity to love self and others. Blessings,

Book Review by Elizabeth MacKenzie, PhD Lecturer in the Health and Societies Program University of Pennsylvania Fellow of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind

5. Proceedings of the ISQOLS (International Quality of Life) Conference in Philadelphia, Pa 2004: Edited by Richard J. Estes and Karen Zurlo

http://www.isqols.org/resource/advancing-quality-of-life-in-a-turbulent-world/

Theme: Advancing Quality of Life in a Turbulent World

Symposium on Spirituality and Quality of Life Organized by Philip H. Friedman, Ph.D

Topics and Participants:

“Forgiveness is the/a Key to Happiness, Well-Being and Quality of Life” by Philip H. Friedman, Institute for Transpersonal Psychology and Foundation for Well-Being

“Gratitude, Spirituality, Materialism, and Well-Being” by Robert A. Emmons, Ph.D. University of California

“Hope and Spirituality in the Age of Anxiety” by Anthony Scioli, Ph.D Keene State College

“Spirituality Predicts Psychosocial Outcome: A Cross-Cultural Analysis” by Ralph L. Piedmont, Ph.D Loyola College in Maryland

“Hope and Spirituality” by C.R. Snyder, Ph.D University of Kansas 24.0.187.139 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She Dick

AfDs for this article:

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

Burnberrytree had some technical problems when nominating this article for deletion. I found this posted on the notability noticeboard by Burnberrytree:

I don't know how to re-nominate the band She Dick for deletion. Although the former result from years ago is keep, the sources presented for notability only come from local papers where the band is based (Dallas). The band has not charted, has no reviews, has no awards, and is an "orphan."

prior AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/She_Dick —rybec 08:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the administrators: it might be appropriate to let this run until the 19th. I didn't put the proper headers on this page until 01:50, 12 March. —rybec 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to agree with Cirt here, but almost all that coverage is from July 2007--I don't see more than a flash in the pan, a 1E kind of blimp, so right now I'm leaning delete. The first AfD leaned keep, but only by a hair; if there is nothing further than we should conclude that this is not in fact notable. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But just barely. Subject meets at least two criteria in WP:BAND, article has multiple sources (albeit only local) that meet WP:RS. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Uncle M. Secondary source coverage has only improved (mainly from New York publications since 2009, e.g. [59]). Needs expansion/adoption. – SJ + 05:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely notable doesn't cut it here if we are dealing with topics like BLPs and Bands, the only reliable sourcing I have seen is from the local news media in a one month area, easily fails WP:GNG as that isn't considered to be significant, independent coverage of the band, it needs more sourcing outside Dallas and a concert performance video (albit from Brooklyn but still....) Secret ^account 21:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per WP:BAND I'll give the group some leeway, they have at least a reasonable degree of notability. Ducknish (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails criteria of WP:BAND, and I don't consider those mentions in local blogs/the Dallas Voice substantive coverage, they read like promo material. Hekerui (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TB randley 07:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvel

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

Unremarkable band. Only two websites cited, one of them being allmusic (which has had reliability issues in the past). Article does not establish notability. – Richard BB 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I agree that as of now, the article fails to establish notability of this act. However, since it appears that the article was just created, perhaps we should wait a few days to see if the article's author expands it further. If not, then definitely delete.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Please see the sources I have added. The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. (I am not the article's original author.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Paul Erik's additions (Spin, Guitar Player, Albuquerque Jounal etc), demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 04:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Muhammad al-Tijani. J04n(talk page) 01:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I was Guided (book)

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

While this book is quite popular among English-speaking Shia Muslims, none of the sources which can be found on the web about this book - both those with positive views and negative ones - are realible or neutral. The book is not particularly well known outside of the small niche market of Shia Muslims in Anglophone countries, and really has no support for its notability - I am confident that reliable, verifiable sources cannot be found for the book. Additionally, the article's creator seems to have made an account on Wikipedia in 2008, created this article, uploaded the picture and disappeared. It's possible that a big fan of the book or author simply wanted to make a fan page without learning Wikipedia's notability guidelines. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria states:

Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

I think it's notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion as this book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Also, the book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that the book originally was written in Arabic and then it was translated in several languages, in English, Farsi, Arabic, French, Urdu, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we just merge this to Muhammad al-Tijani as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shi'a: The Real Followers of the Sunnah? I think the same goes for all other entries on the subject's books; plus, the article on the subject (who is definitely notable himself) is lacking in sources, so perhaps these merges could beef up his own article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria does not contain any such text, or even a section called that, and hasn't been edited since the comment above was left. Where is this text from? Morwen (Talk) 15:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to finish this out with some sort of consensus, another book by the author, and the result of the discussion ended up going from delete to merge with the author's article. The article for this book itself has no references, and its presence in libraries isn't enough to support notability in and of itself. If we switch from deleting to merging and keeping the article's history like with the other book (there are still two plus this one up for deletion for the same reasons), would that generate some form of consensus and finish the issue? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established per WP:GNG or Wikipedia:BOOK. Above arguments Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Muhammad al-Tijani. J04n(talk page) 01:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be with the Truthful

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

While this book is popular among the small niche market of Shia Muslims in Anglophone countries, it's not notable enough to warrant its own article. Even when searching the Net, any and all sources which come up - both those for the book and against it - are too POV-laden to serve as reliable sources. It's simply a non-notable book. Additionally - and I don't like to bring this up but there's no way around it - this article was created by User:Striver, a Shia user who had a long history of creating articles on non-notable subjects only for them to be deleted later. Now that Striver has been retired from Wikipedia for a few years, I think it's safe to say objectively that, while he made a huge amount of valid edits, much of the articles he created like this one were designed to push a certain POV. That's a view of these articles widely shared by those who encountered such articles, so it isn't simply something I'm saying as a personal remark but a valid assessment of edits over a long period of time to which many editors concurred. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria states:

Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

I think it's notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion as this book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Also, the book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that the book originally was written in Arabic and then it was translated in several languages, in English, Farsi, Arabic, French, Urdu, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we just merge this to Muhammad al-Tijani as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shi'a: The Real Followers of the Sunnah? I think the same goes for all other entries on the subject's books; plus, the article on the subject (who is definitely notable himself) is lacking in sources, so perhaps these merges could beef up his own article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just to finish this out with some sort of consensus, another book by the author, and the result of the discussion ended up going from delete to merge with the author's article. The article for this book itself has no references, and its presence in libraries isn't enough to support notability in and of itself. If we switch from deleting to merging and keeping the article's history like with the other book (there are still two plus this one up for deletion for the same reasons), would that generate some form of consensus and finish the issue? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Muhammad al-Tijani. J04n(talk page) 01:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Those Who Know

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ask Those Who Know (2nd nomination)

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

I'm a bit surprised that there was no consensus the first time around. While this book has wide readership among the small niche market of Shia Muslims in the Anglophone countries, it still fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While it will turn up hits on search engines, virtually all links regarding the book - both those for and against it - will fail WP:RS as they're simply the polemics of the few people who have heard of the book. Even the book's page on Arabic Wikipedia is completely unsourced and has been since its creation. It also bears mentioning, as unpleasant as the subject is, that this article was one of User:Striver's creations. As other users put it years ago before he retired, he created a virtual fiefdom of articles which were eventually deleted on notability grounds. Now that those multiple fiascos have ended, I think we can objectively say that while the editor himself was a huge contributor to Wikipedia, numerous articles were created merely to push a certain POV as is evident from User talk:Striver. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria states:

Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

I think it's notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion as this book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Also, the book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that the book originally was written in Arabic and then it was translated in several languages, in English, Farsi, Arabic, French, Urdu, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we just merge this to Muhammad al-Tijani as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shi'a: The Real Followers of the Sunnah? I think the same goes for all other entries on the subject's books; plus, the article on the subject (who is definitely notable himself) is lacking in sources, so perhaps these merges could beef up his own article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to finish this out with some sort of consensus, another book by the author, and the result of the discussion ended up going from delete to merge with the author's article. The article for this book itself has no references, and its presence in libraries isn't enough to support notability in and of itself. If we switch from deleting to merging and keeping the article's history like with the other book (there are still two plus this one up for deletion for the same reasons), would that generate some form of consensus and finish the issue? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pelé Rap's Revolutionary

AfDs for this article:

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

I am renominating this after a recent AfD discussion that I initiated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelé Rap's Revolutionary, ended with no consensus due to low participation. I'm hoping that I can get a decision one way or the other after I first patrolled the article back in July 2012. Here is my deletion rationale from the previous discussion:

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. The references in the article either don't pass WP:RS or are about the subject's father. I don't think the YFM Hot 9 countdown or the Hype magazine profile are enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO on their own. The TV appearance doesn't automatically confer notability either.

My opinion hasn't changed since the previous nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In sufficient coverage to establish notability. I note that many of the soruces are not reliable. The Philadelphia Inquirer article ia bout his father, and the CNN article is from their iReprot initiative which is community submitted articles which are explicitly noted as not fact checked. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find anything about him that would justify a blp about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burtov

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

There does not appear to be any evidence for notability. None of the accomplishments seem intrinsically notable, and he refs seem insufficient as reliable truly independent coverage DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the refs meet the standards of the GNG for discussing the subject in "significant detail." Ravenswing 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After editing the article so that the text matches the cited refs, and removing copyvio and potentially unduly self-serving self-published sources, there is insufficient independent evidence to show notability. —SMALL JIM 23:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 21:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Dunbar

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

Contetested PROD. This article is about a living person and appears to have no reliable references. All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source. The three references are either self-published or blogs, so none of them are reliable. Thus, the alleged prize is also not backed up by a reliable source, so I have concerns about the notability of the subject. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a source for the award, and a review by Seth Abramson on Huffington Post (both added to article). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of the better references. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added another poem that was published by PEN America. The subhead reads "author of Eyelid Lick (FENCE, November 2012), which won the FENCE 2012 Modern Poets book prize." Can this source be added to "His collection "Eyelid Lick" was awarded the Fence Modern Poets Series Prize"? Not sure if it's necessary, or appropriate, but PEN America might be considered a more venerable source than HuffPo. --Travismeyer (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomakira Li

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

Probable hoax article. Google hasn't heard of this person or his claimed fashion label. --DAJF (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming good faith, I'm not going to agree that this article is a hoax. But even presuming the facts presented to be true, if Li is such a recluse, not even showing his face and "letting his designs speak for him", he is unlikely to have the kind of coverage needed to build a biography on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All my searching has only turned up this blog, which just started up last week, the day after the Wikipedia article was created. (Note that searches under "Thomas Li" didn't come up with anything either.) Whether this is a brand new designer just starting up, or part of a larger hoax, I cannot tell, but clearly this fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced BLP.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything either, so have to concur with the Delete votes. Mabalu (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if confirmed to be a hoax - If he were such a recluse, then it's possible that the more that he should receive at least some coverage. Surely, being a fashion designer but keeping much info about him secret would surely raise some eyebrows (much like the Japanese music duo ClariS, whose anonymity is the subject of a DYK). But either way, this is either a massive hoax (again, a fashion designer being unusually secretive would either receive commentary for that very reason, or smell of hoax), or a biography about an up-and-coming fashion designer who is simply not there yet. The fact that the only source in the article is a blog which was created a day after the article was created is only the final nail in the coffin. Lights out, and bring down the curtain. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TB randley 07:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Leather in Relation to the Jewish Tradition

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

Not worthy of an article. Possibly made up(no references). ♥ Tentinator ♥ 06:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are references, but the badly formatted page did not show them. I have now tidied up the page so refs are visible. No opinion on keep/delete at this stage. Emeraude (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:The article has been renamed to Jewish views of leather, per Category:Jewish views. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is usable to a History subhead under Leather. The article as it stands now is OR, as the sources discuss Leather-making in the Bible and Tanning in the Bible. There is no connection between leather and "Jewish tradition". Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to Keep per IZAK and inclusion under Category:Jewish views, and per WP:RS and WP:V, as article is based on the source material. Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure about merge. Seems a classic case of OR from some kid's school homework. Emeraude (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem like it, but it clearly isn't. See my comment below.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's really not enough substantive encyclopedic content to justify a merge. However, if an editor deems some bit or piece of the article to be salvageable, it could be incorporated into Biblical clothing. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: In light of the article being renamed and rewritten, I can now agree that the topic is encyclopedic and notable. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information is valid, however, the formatting was terrible I admit. Feel free to delete it, if you do not agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglederman (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be based on an entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia that is linked in the article.[60] The source is proper and the henceforth the topic is proper. My understanding is that the copyright on these articles have expired but I'm no expert. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brewcrewer (good catch!) and Speedy Close. NOTE: The article is now renamed Jewish views of leather. This is now a fairly complete and legitimate article that complies with WP:RS and WP:V mostly from the free domain Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906. I have added new applicable categories as well as the {{Jewish Encyclopedia}} template. This is now the main article for the new Category:Uses of leather in Judaism. Like many other articles, this one still needs polishing (see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE, and definitely proves the importance of WP:COMPETENCE), and could use improvement by competent editors but it's very encyclopedic. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article represents an emerging field in Jewish studies and presents several interesting facets concerning the evolution of the Jewish tradition. Most of the information is derived from Jewish encyclopedias and all information was cited. I appreciate the help from whomever reformatted the article and corrected my faulty citations. Mglederman (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Against the two points of the nomination: made up and non-notable. The Jewish Encyclopedia addresses both as untrue. Mkdw ^talk 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added ref to 123 page book: David Gonzalo Maeso, Skin and leather in Judaism. Mishnahic-Talmudic and Medieval Ages (I-XV Centures), Vic. Spain 1979 In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The sort of nomination that a good wp:before search could have avoided -- leading to less of a waste of time for the community. Given this nomination by nom, as well as nom's recent nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JECatt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jürgen Cain Külbel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Greene, I would suggest that nom consider watching some discussions and participating in them and reconsidering how he nominates articles before engaging in too many nominations at this point. Nominations which lack a proper basis waste the time of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userify upon request. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ammo (musician)

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

After a relatively extensive search, I find nothing of note on this artist. The sources given does not mention Ammo. I have found a 'source' (http://hamadamania.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/jessie-j-collaborates-with-joshua-ammo-coleman-for-new-album/). It's wordpress, but if someone can find the original source, this article might be saved, otherwise, I fail to find notability for the subject. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a look for references and have to agree with the nominators analysis that this doesn't provide the coverage necessary to establish meets WP:NM --_nonsense ferret 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no objection towards userfying - He has associated himself with notable people every year but there isn't much aside from brief mentions. Searches including Google News rounded back to that WordPress link but I did find a list of charted songs that mentions him here and here (brief mention for Adam Lambert). I also found this list "Top 20 Songwriters of 2011" that lists him and provides a photo but I doubt this is notable. As mentioned above, I have no objection towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think userfying it to User:Empty bottle1234 is a good idea. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Spinning Spark 18:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Risen Christ

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question By "the organization is notable", do you mean that the parish of Church of the Risen Christ is notable (in which case, we ought to have an article about that organization, e.g., Church of the Risen Christ#Music and Church of the Risen Christ#Organization), or do you mean that the Roman Catholic Church (the worldwide organization) is notable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, otherwise I would not have nominated it for deletion if I thought it was notable and would not have cited WP:BRANCH. Mkdw ^talk 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep printed references sufficient In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 13:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Church buildings or local congregations are not inherently notable, and must satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG, respectively. Every church I have been associated with has its own history of fundraising, development of ministry, activities, and building projects, the same as this one. The refs provided are not independent of the congregation, or are passing references. Edison (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, no doubt, but has every church you have been associated with had a choir recording for WEA and singing at the Vatican? I don't see how the refs relating to the Risen Christ Choir (not just re. the papal visit) can be considered passing references, although inevitably the choir isn't independent of the congregation, but Billboard, the Straits Times and Singapore Times are independent. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that notability is not inherited. An otherwise non-notable church with a fine choir which was associated with it years ago does not inherit the choir's claimed notability. Choirs and college choruses have not had much success at AFD, even if they have performed before famous persons or issued LPs. How many choirs around the world have sung for a Pope or issued recordings, but do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music)? A great many, I would expect. And even if the choir satisfied notability, that notability would not be inherited by every institution they were associated with, though it should be mentioned in the articles about any such institutions which themselves satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you mentioned that notability is not inheritable, but the fact was that the church choir was what it was described as. As in, it is the church choir and not an independent choir within the church. It only gained a separate and independent identity when it moved out of the church itself. In that case, shouldn't the notability of the choir be credited to the church itself instead? I am of the impression that since notability is not inheritable, but since it is also not temporary, then should it not be the case that the church has acquired notability as well? Pretty Pig (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, I believe you are incorrect about what constitutes notability for choirs. Choirs which have issued 3 LPs with WEA would not be deleted at AfD. If you show you me where one has been then I request userfying so I can source and restore it.

I believe you are also incorrect to apply not inherited to an element of the church's history. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable parish. Reasonable and significant refs. – SJ + 05:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Peter Low Choir and cut out most of the rest. Agree with In ictu oculi's assessment that the choir is notable but not seeing it for the church itself. J04n(talk page) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be more inclined to support a rename and change of the article topic to the choir, but you're almost looking at a fundamental rewrite at that point. Mkdw ^talk 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I assume that a parish of 8000 refers to members/adherents/worshippers, not merely the population of the area where it is. That makes it a large congregation. WP has no clear guidelines on what churches are (or are not) notable, except in relation to tbe building. I am inclined to err on the side of keeping (1) size (2) LPs recorded by its choirs. If the latter is used, then any separate article on the choir should be merged here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure)

Closing comment: Despite In ictu oculi's extremely poor assessment of the situation; "too lazy" and "biting newcomers" and "wasting all our time" and "I'm now going to delete them all". For starters, I nominated only one article Pretty Pig created. You have largely based your WP:BITE accusation on the fact that you think I nominated multiple articles created by Pretty Pig when I only nominated Church of Saint Alphonsus (Novena Church). The standard generated notification was in line with Wiki-policy. I chose to ignore Pretty's vandalism warning because, I'm not sure if you'd agree or not, but AFD's are not considered vandalism, and another admin was already addressing the situation which unfortunately ended in a Pretty Pig's 24 hour block. Even after In ictu oculi was told the truth he neither struck his statements in the AFD nor on my talk page demanding an apology. A lack of assuming good faith all around and criticized me for not thoroughly checking yet at the same time he made an extra attempt at accusing me here at the AFD, on other user talk pages, and my own, when he failed to even confirm the fundamental basis of his own complaint. Also, you mentioned I nominated "8 large articles" yet I only see 6 over the last month that have gone through AFD. Seemingly In ictu oculi had this opinion before you had any evidence and chose to throw fuel on the fire. Separately, I highly respect the AFD process and it's clear that my assessment WP:BRANCH is against the consensus. I do regret Pretty Pig's initial experience at Wikipedia, but I stand by my decision that the article he created, which is not this one, is still a nomination I will keep open. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article already states, this building is a National Monument of Singapore.[61] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a national monument does not necessarily mean its inherently notable either. Every city has monuments and heritage houses. The fact that Singapore is essentially a small island/city country does not change this. I would not be opposed to a merge into National Monuments of Singapore like they did at Vancouver for all the List of heritage buildings in Vancouver#Residential in cases where the building lacked SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 06:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what is inherently notable? We cannot have a proper debate when the definition is being changed all the time. Pretty Pig (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that Singapore has only so far designated 63 buildings as National Monuments, fewer than those designated by the national government (as opposed to the local government) in most European cities of a similar size, I think it is fairly obvious that this is a genuinely notable building and not one of simple local interest. In general we consider buildings designated as national monuments to have at least a good chance of being notable even where, as in Britain, there are many thousands of them. In a country that has designated so few, I think it's fair to assume that all are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? Pretty Pig (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in this case being a National Monument makes this a notable building. @ Pretty Pig you might want to tone down your aggressive style, challenging everyone who disagrees with you as editi warring or vandalism when clearly they are not just makes you sound like a jerk. People can have their own opinion and many people will not agree with you at any given time. It's important to remember that we all have to work together ultimately and you're only burying that good will under a ton of dirt when you might need it later. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hell In A Bucket, excuse me, perhaps the real question should be, were the initial challenges justifiable in the first place? I am only carrying out a defence of the entries, so why do you flame me for? For example, this mass nomination thing. Was any real homework done beforehand? I agree that people can have their own opinions, but you cannot just do things without any justification. Pretty Pig (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case they have supplied a reason, they may be off base but that is their reason. No one is flaming you, you're a new editor. I've left a much longer rationale on your talkpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the problem here is not Pretty Pig, the problem is User:Mkdw. I think Mkdw owes an apology to PrettyPig and to everyone else for wasting all our time with these AfDs. I have not often seen a newbie editor bitten in such a pointless way. Instead of a note on Pretty Pig's Talk page saying "Hi, I've just seen your articles, I'm now going to delete them all" which would have been bad enough, we get this standard robot note. Mkdw was not only too lazy to search Google Books, he also was too lazy to write a personal note to a new editor who had just created 8 large articles. I'm not impressed at all. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Actually, I only created one of the articles, namely the one on Novena Church, but I realised that User:Mkdw had done a mass nomination on numerous other articles, not including the ones involved now, and did not think there was much basis for the nominations. So I leapt into action and we're now at where we're at now. Granted, I probably could have reacted in a better manner, but the mass nominations and the standardised notifications gave me the impression that the nominations were not done out of good faith. I even wrote on his talk page but it was just deleted without a reply. Deleted Comment Even if my definitions were off, a reply or correction would have been nice. Pretty Pig (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was several editors several tags then. The main problem remains, lack of checking. Well done in finding the Straits Times article Pretty Pig. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St Mary of the Angels

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry but this is the 4th one I've looked at and the 4th where finding sources was immediate. You say "No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise."? Mkdwtalk did you bother to check any of these AfDs in Google Books before doing this mass deletion attempt? How do you explain the gap between the AfD and the President's Design Award 2006 for this structure? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's stick to the AFD at hand. There is a reason I did not do a group nomination and I have replied to your concerns at each. For starters, the award helps its argument for notability but does not make it entirely notable. There's nothing to suggest the award is notable and thus winning it also make the subject notable. WP:ORG specifically avoided this argument in the past because of the number of awards to companies that are out there. The same with WP:LOCAL. As with the other ones, several churches share the name Church of St Mary of the Angels, and when you add Singapore in separate parenthesis it narrows down the hits and reveal numerous trivial mentions. Mkdw ^talk 20:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe WP:LOCAL was intended to dismiss e.g. a full page on the building in a guidebook such as Discover Singapore: The City's History & Culture Redefined 2008. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the standard is more than mention, but significant coverage, but I think it's met by a full page in a guide book. The book absolutely does not have to be entirely or even primarily about the subject. Cf. WP:N and WP:RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is close to a keep, but several of the keep arguments make no reference to policy, and seem to invent their own criteria for notability. Some of the delete arguments, however, fail to address the fact that there are sources and thus at least a possibility of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Trinity, Singapore

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - this is the only 1 of 6 AfDs where sources did not immediately pop up in Google Books. Presumably because it is new 1988, even though "13,720, the largest parish in Singapore" - it seems silly to delete this simply because it is newish. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Straits Times article isn't overwhelming, it seems pretty pointless deleting 1 out of the 6. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 13:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Local church congregations are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the largest Catholic congregation in Singapore, plus one of the largest church buildings in Singapore with a distinctive $8m 1988 building complete with waterfall reported in the Straits Times is not just any church congregation. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and WP:ORG do not grant inherent notability for the largest, smallest, newest, oldest, or shiniest X in location Y. "Ooh, they spent 8 million for their building" (not that much for an institutional building) and "It has a waterfall" (or a trapeze, or an alligator pit) also do not guarantee a Wikipedia article, any more than "ILIKEIT!" does. Please stick to arguments based on relevant guidelines. Edison (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems regionally notable, with local coverage. Systemic bias. Largest and oldest in a region do reflect on notability. Shiniest, less so. Having the largest congregation in the region is certainly relevant. – SJ + 05:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdawn (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint Francis Xavier, Singapore

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another AfD in this group with sufficient Google Book coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found three books. In two of them, the church is mentioned only once and not even the subject of the sentence. The last is unverifiable but the church is not the subject of the book. Mkdw ^talk 20:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? Pretty Pig (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing in inherently notable in Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears in just about every tourist guidebook as a notable building, and also in e.g. History of the Church and Churches in Malaysia and Singapore (1511-2000) by Fr. P. Decroix. The seminary from which the church grew appears in numerous books on the history of Singapore, e.g. The French in Singapore: An Illustrated History by Pilon and Weiler. -- 202.124.74.66 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem very well adversed in Wikipedia for your edit history. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a guide. Mkdw ^talk 20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable in Singapore on the evidence provided. Contrary to what is being asserted by the nominator, mentions in guide books, histories of the settlement and elsewhere are evidence of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard is more than mention, but significant coverage, but I think it's met. The book absolutely does not have to be entirely or even primarily about the subject. Cf. WP:N and WP:RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint Alphonsus (Novena Church)

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

Classic case of WP:BRANCH. Notable organization, not inherently notable individual church building. Mkdw ^talk 06:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. It seems that the entries that were nominated were done so with a certain preconception in mind. It is insufficient to merely cite a wikipedia guide in order to delete an article. By nominating such entries, it shows a clear lack of understanding of the situation at the actual location of the entries in question. It is easy to prove the worthiness of the entries, especially of this particular one, but it is not right in principle to do so as it would encourage the nomination of more entries in future when no proper research has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination in particular, should not be treated lightly. It should instead be treated with the utmost seriousness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. I agree that AFD's are not to be taken lightly, and my track record supports this. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable branch of the Catholic church. Nothing to set it apart from another, and so far as I know churches aren't considered inherently notable by themselves. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage in Google Books and notable for being main centre of the novena prayer practice in Singapore. In ictu oculi (talk)
- one book that has a trivial mention? Unless you omitted Novena Church in which you would have found hundreds of books about the "Church of Saint Alphonsus" which includes all the churches worldwide such as the New Orleans one that is fairly prominent. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hell In A Bucket, have you even done any research? Prove that it isn't notable instead of just saying it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Under the name "Novena Church," appears in numerous histories of Singapore, e.g. History of the Church and Churches in Malaysia and Singapore (1511-2000) by Fr. P. Decroix. The procession, which receives coverage in the Straits Times each year, makes it nationally famous. The building is recognised by the government as historic, and gazetted for conservation. There is a clear failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.74.66 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem very well adversed in Wikipedia for your edit history. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a guide. Mkdw ^talk 20:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkdw, I think it would be simpler if you stated the reasons why you think the article should not be kept. You cited earlier "Classic case of WP:BRANCH", but in my opinion, it has already been shown that the Church in question, is certainly notable enough to be listed on its own. Pretty Pig (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keeper | 76 15:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ejovi Nuwere

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Beach drifter (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News Archives shows significant coverage in Business Week and the Chicago Sun-Times. That being said, this article needs some work. Deletion is not the solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The news articles are only about his success in leaving a bad part of Brooklyn at a young age to go on to a promising career. The article fails to establish that any of his ventures are notable enough for inclusion, and an autobiography is the primary source for many of the claims. Of the reaming sources one is a blog and does not even support the assertion in the article, one is a dead link, two make no mention of him, and one is in Japanese. The Tokyo Times appear to be a small time, online only publication and as "publisher" that means simply posting stories to the website. The only reason I would support this person for inclusion is if it can be established that his writings for Sankei Shimbun have gained significant attention. Beach drifter (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are probably a dozen mentions of FON currently in Google news and many of them refer to FON as the worlds largest wireless network. Wikipedia states on notability "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." are Wired, Boston Globe, Businessweek and Techworld/IDG not reliable secondary sources? The Washington Post is a independent news publication that only has print in the Washington DC area. By your definition its a small time independent "mostly" online news publication in the USA. Does that make it less significant? Having sued the Japanese government for freedom of speech and received coverage for that in several independent publications also appears to be significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwaiwey (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources for this article are not reliable secondary sources. The claim that Nuwere co-founded FON is not supported in the sources. The claim that FON is the largest Wi-Fi community is from a press release. Many of the other sources are not good sources and do not mention Nuwere anyways. I agree that suing the Japanese Govt might be notable, if sources can be found to show that it was a major event with coverage. In that case, that should be the focus of the article. Beach drifter (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also if you have sources from the Boston Globe and Wired PLEASE include them that would be very helpful. Beach drifter (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete An IT bod and journalist, but none of the mentions I've seen lift any of this above the day job level. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are about organizations and not subject and WP:NOTINHERIT DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify which sources? Are you talking about FON? His book covered in wired? His security company covered in business week? Not all sources are about the organizations. There are sources that reference FON as a business, sources that quote him as the Country Manager, perhaps those are week? But what about the other sources referring to him as a entrepreneur, company founder or security specialist? (wired/IDG/businessweek) ? This person meets the definition of WP:notability based on Significant coverage from reliable sources there are at least three sources profiling the AUTHOR and things he has done of significance. Additionally notability is not temporary and while the subject hasn't received much coverage in USA media recently, there are articles that cover him in Japanese media based that can not be sourced for this English entry

Hwaiwey (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually Wikipedia Notability guidelines are a little more involved than that. Please look at the guidelines to see the specific things mentioned, such as making a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record, receiving a well-known and significant award or honor, originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, being widely cited by peers and successors, etc. Being mentioned in sources is not enough. While I agree that the subject is present in some sources, I dispute that it is significant coverage. Beach drifter (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does pass WP:AUTHOR. His book, published by a major publisher, is in over 450 WorldCat libraries and has been translated into Japanese. But what is definitive is that he is included in the major encyclopedia Contemporary Authors in vol. 216. That sort of coverage in the appropriate major reference source is accepted proof of notability in all areas. I note that this reference source is included in Gale's Literature Reference Center , available (remotely) to anyone with a library card from many major libraries, and essentially all college libraries. But that a bio is in there can be verified by anyone at all by searching for the name in WorldCat. I'm adding the reference. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on exactly which part of WP:AUTHOR he meets? I don't see how being listed in "Contemporary Authors Volume 216" meets what I am reading there. Beach drifter (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of New 52 DC Characters

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of New 52 DC Characters

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

This article serves no real purpose. It is unmaintainable, and ends up being no more than WP:OR. A list of DC's characters already exists, and the characters are the same from previous continuity besides for minor alterations. || Tako (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arguably the New 52 are supposed to be "new" characters, but as given in this list, this aspect is not discussed at all, and the "new" aspect should likely be discussed on the individual character pages rather than here. Consider if there's any potential merging opportunities (if not already duplicated) at List of New 52 publications. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that this is probably difficult to maintain, and given the lack of information already here there may not be interest in that. Already it's outdated. I think that a page like this COULD be useful, but it would need to have more information - for example, a section on how each character is different in the new DCU. But as it stands, it's not serving any purpose. Caseylf (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no written lead paragraph, it's hard to ascertain why this list is even important. It's more like a pull list of #1 issues than an actual encyclopedia article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no context provided, this article appears to be claiming that Batman and Superman made their first appearances anywhere in 2011. I know that's not what the article creator meant, but I don't know what they did mean, nor why any of this is supposed to be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 245

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable college a capella club. Not signed to a record label, no major hits, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hence, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Wikipedia:No one cares about your college a capella group. GrapedApe (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards are not major, compilation albums are not notable, performing lacks coverage. Nothing satisfying WP:BAND. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claim of disinterest from last afd is a reason to delete not keep. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Subject is clearly notable; further, notability is established by numerous, very reliable sources. The nominator's rationale is laden with vitriol and does not accurately cite relevant policies. NAC. dci | TALK 02:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick N. Millsaps

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

Patrick Millsaps is not a major figure or even a minor political operative. Nobody outside of his immediate family or former campaign coworkers even know who he is. He is undeserving of any wikipedia page - never mind one as long and pointlessly detailed as this one. This is clearly a promotion tool that he as established to market himself and bring in clients. In order to uphold the integrity of WikiPedia's integrity, this shameless example of self promotion should be removed CleanUpWiki575 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: CleanUpWiki575 had not completed the nomination by listing the article at the log page. I just did that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 66 references clearly indicate notability. My theory is that you have some issue with this person and are trying to get their article removed as some sort of revenge tactic. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Scanning the extensive list of references, I see that both Fox News and NBC News have done stories about Millsaps—not mentioning him tangentially, but as the primary subject of the piece and getting significant coverage. Looks like he meets WP:General notability guidelines to me. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motley's Crew (August 28, 1997)

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

This is an article about a specific episode of the comic strip Motley's Crew. There was nothing unusual or notable about this episode. The only reason this page seems to exist is because this episode is the image used on the main Motley's Crew page. Howicus (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be an over-detailed explication of a single run-of-the-mill episode of a not-particularly-distinguished comic strip. An individual episode of a comic strip would have to be very unusual to justify having a separate article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not really make a claim to significance; however, I don't really see a CSD that covers this kind of thing. dci | TALK 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rivalries of Mike Motley. This comic strip episode mostly deals with Mike Motley's rivalry with Abel and Buffy and deals with the situation with a humorous grasp. GVnayR (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Also, what are these? Mr. and Mrs. Motley, Mrs. Motley, Mr. Motley ? --HighFunctioningAutismIsVeryCreepy (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've nominated them all, and more, for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as utterly unnotable. A lot more Afds are in the offing ... Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless this specific day's strip gets coverage in books and/or academic journals. Individual days' comic strips cannot be notable without extraordinary coverage. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some quiet contemplating and some scholarly research, I have decided to change my vote to delete. GVnayR (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant rant in violation of WP:NPA. dci | TALK 23:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Comment: "After doing some quiet contemplating and some scholarly research bla bla bla". Always the same sh*t story, gvnayr, and because of that you already WASTED other ppls time... how about making the quiet contemplating (er?) and some (only some?) scholarly research before creating pages like a... [insert adjective].
- Wikipedians, this is very important, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydao&diff=prev&oldid=537474309
- "Hi, We're on completely different sides of this project, but we have a similar issue: I've had some concerns about this user, as he has turned many of the articles in my current region into a gigantic mess. I don't think he means harm, but it's really disruptive, and ultimately just wastes resources of editors. I've actually not bothered with the revamp I'd like to make to these articles because I know they'll be filled with nonsense. He seems to come back after leaving, if you ever need anything from me to get this addressed by a higher-up, please just ask."
- And also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theleftorium&diff=543004791&oldid=542663551
- Honestly, do someone know what to do with this gvnayr user....? --HighFunctioningAutismIsVeryCreepy (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uh, wow. I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but come on! Decidedly non-notable and lacking in secondary sources. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ewen

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

This article fails WP:N's coverage of requirement of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. Most of the references that I could locate were either trivial references or obituaries, neither of which suggest meeting WP:N's requirement of making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Anything verifiable from this article is already at longevity claims and there's no evidence of sufficient notability/information to justify a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one valid source. Notability hangs on the longevity claim, which is disputed, and covered in another article DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find additional sources, tried the usual plus Highbeam Research. I don't see this reaching WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 FIFA Confederations Cup squads

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

Pointlessly premature. Even management positions cannot be taken as certain at this stage. Kevin McE (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup (for now). Giant Snowman 18:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup -- Jreferee (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup until the actual squads are announced. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Papua New Guinea–United States relations. J04n(talk page) 01:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Papua New Guinea in Washington, D.C.

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage for example about the building or actions of the embassy. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Papua New Guinea–United States relations. Neutrality^talk 08:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Papua New Guinea–United States relations. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom WP:NOTDIR DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ivory Coast–United States relations. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cote d'Ivoire in Washington, D.C.

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage for example about the building or actions of the embassy. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Ivory Coast–United States relations. Neutrality^talk 08:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ivory Coast-United States relations; the embassy is not notable and does not merit independent coverage. However, there is an article entitled Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa; perhaps this, too, ought to be redirected into a more relevant article? dci | TALK 02:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect i.e. don't lose content. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom WP:NOTDIR DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering For Kids

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

I don't think the sources are adequate to show notability. Ref 3 & 4 are uncritical articles in a local paper, explicitly in a section saying that it is there to provide "occasional articles about local entrepreneurs" The articles are clearly based on their PR and not showing discriminating coverage--like most local papers, probably they cover anything local. . Ref 1, in a major national magazine, might be a good source, but also seems to be contaminated by PR--it's an uncritical interview where the founder says what she wants to. Ref 2 Is by the founder herself, in the Huffington Post, which increasingly serves as a source for such self-promotion.

I would not have nominated this for deletion a year ago. I think we should have less tolerance for somewhat promotional articles about borderline notable organizations with weak sourcing DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The HuffPo peice is a primary source as it is written by the founder. The 2 Fredriksburg sources are from a local community paper. Marie Claire is a reliable source, but that piece is an interview, and interviews are rather marginal for establishing notability. I can find no other coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Pierson

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

Non-notable person. The claims in the article don't amount to notability, and I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. None of the sources provided in the article are independent. Robofish (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding social networking sites/profiles and blogs/articles at IGN, but no coverage for this person in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Gong show 00:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gediminas Kruša

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the top flight teams he has played for are in fully professional leagues, so fails NFOOTY. More importantly, seems also to be a GNG failure and his international appearances for youth teams do not imclude U-21 so it is unlikely there are substantial sources even in offline Lithuanian press. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Wellhead

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

The references given dont explain how this wellhead is independently notable, and not just an example of a notable style of Venetian public decoration. I was not aware that WP has articles on each work in any given museum. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wellhead or rename to reflect that this is a sub article of the Indianapolis Museum of Art BO | Talk 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is but one of a large number of articles about objects belonging to one museum, many of which should also be deleted as unnotable, e.g. Urns (Indianapolis). I may go through the long list if I find time. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have started going through the list,. We really need some discussion of how to deal with this before other museums copy the absurdity. Mhy view at the moment is that it is appropriate for us to have an article on every major work of art by a famous artist,even when that is several hundreds. It is probably appropriate for us to have a brief listing of major works of art by notable but not famous artists in the article on the artist, though I can not say where to draw the line here. It is not appropriate for us to have a listing for every copy of every work of art produced in multiples, though we might have one for the work itself. Such articles should probably give the locations if there are only a few known, but it would be a very unusual copy that would be worth an article by itself, though I can think of a few exceptions. I am selecting for deletion on that basis, and will then probably start in merging. FWIW, the spree of articles from this museum is not on-going, so the way we deal with these will be to some extent a precedent. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Your argument for deletion is without basis. This artwork is absolutely notable, as it is part of the historic fabric of the Oldfields Estate, a 100 year old National Historic Landmark that is on the grounds of the Indianapolis Museum of Art. It is a well-researched and well-written article that describes part of this important cultural fabric. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what physical object within its boundaries is not part of the fabric of the estate? I am aware of the importance of even industrially produced works of decorative art, but there needs to be some selectivity. Are all object that the museum holds there absolutely notable? Every one of them? Do all deserve equally elaborate treatment? in a general encyclopedia? (of course they do deserve detailed treatment in the handbook to the collections at the museum, which ought to be on line and linked to from the article on the estate.

I was reluctant to mention conflict of interest. You are according to your user page a conservator employed by the museum. You therefore need to be very careful in selecting what to write about and how to write it. (I am Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts--I intend to enter articles for a few unique manuscripts or manuscript collections of particular musical or historical importance, not the hundreds of thousands of individual unique library and museum items that the library owns.) The rule is NOT INDSCRIMINATE.

Further, you have zero independent sources. Every source discussing the object that you have included is published by the museum if you could show that this particular object --not such objects in general, this particular object in the collection, is the subject of substantial independent work by scholars unconnected with the museum I will certainly grant its suitability for an article. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Interesting but not independently notable. This is an incorrectly named article - it is a generic title for a specific item. Either delete or merge with Indianapolis Museum of Art or an article on Oldfields Estate if exists DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone point to the notability standards for individual artworks; they exist in no substantial or individualized category. This deletion is at best coming down to personal taste, which is absurd.

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE signature moves

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

Delete, contested prod, this is unencyclopedic, unreferenced and in my opinion an apparent WP:NOR or WP:SYN violation. In my opinion also reads as a fan page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. We don't need a list of moves only about WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FAN. STATic message me! 16:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to start a page on Estonia-Canada relations I would be happy to userfy this page to them. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Estonia, Ottawa

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. unless there is significant coverage of its activities or the building it is located in, it is not notable. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I agree that it doesn't seem notable, and I can't find any evidence for notability on Google. However, there are 84 pages in the category "Diplomatic missions in Ottawa" and Ottawa is the capitol city. Similar categories for the capitols of other countries have numerous pages (Washington DC has 167 for example). So I think if this one was to be deleted a lot of others would potentially meet the same criteria for deletion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how is this an argument for keep, when you say no sources can be found. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping LibStar (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry, I wordered that badly and should have gone into more detial. I'm not saying it should be kept because there are others I saying that it can meret a page even if it doesn't meet WP:GNG because some things are inherently notable (eg. schools). If this article is deleted a lot of others may potentially have to be as well and I think a discussion about their notability and what to do with all of them should take place first, this might not be the really the best place for that. Here is a disuccion on the topic from about a month ago. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Estonia-Canada relations and expand. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that article doesn't exist. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said move not merge. And we can add "Canada and Estonia Convention between Canada and the Republic of Estonia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital. Tallinn, 2 June 1995" In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and nor is the suggested alternative topic. If there are 100 nations with embassies, having 100 factorial articles on all possible combinations is the road to pointlessness and ruination of the encyclopedia. Please guys, stop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maths check: If each of N countries had one embassy in every other country, there would be ~N^2 embassies, not N!. No comment on the AfD at this stage. --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no inherent notability either for embasssies or for "relations" articles created by taking all nations two at a time. Notability to satisy WP:ORG has not been demonstrated. Edison (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Canadian-Estonian relations may be notable (probably due mainly to migrants moving from Estonia to Canada and both nations being NATO allies), notability of this organisation isn't likely. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested. It can be the start of the article on the relations. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basil von Burman

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

A biography of a priest. Doesn't seem to pass WP:N. He was a deacon, but (correct me if I am wrong) this does not make one as notable as a bishop or such. Seems to have written a book or two, but bibliographical information is not very well presented, and I have concerns he would pass WP:AUTHOR. One ref is an obituary, two elinks are not even described, and are not in English (not a problem per se, but I cannot verify they even mention him). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I'm reading the article correctly, the subject was a deacon, which is a lower level in the hierarchy than a priest -- he did not become a priest. See Holy orders#Process and sequence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm just not seeing the claim for notability in this. Deacon is a pretty minor position. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure deletion is justified. It does need more specific sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- he might be notable as an author/translator, but I am not qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem like he was enough of a notable author, and since he's dead, that's not going to change any time soon. Ducknish (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Education

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This college may have a bit more claim to notability on the basis of the claim to be a designated centre of excellence? (Of course, that is currently unreferenced, as is the overall article, aside from the institution's own site plus a blog.) AllyD (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is claimed to be the oldest college in the University. If that claim and 'Center of Excellence' can be sourced then Keep if not Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. TerriersFan (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information needed in the wiki is all in the College's website. In fact, the college edited the page. Also, the College is really a CHED COE in Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.37.123 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ask all PUPians and they will say that COED is the oldest college of the university. Refer to PUP article and COED website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.37.123 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The apparent problem of the article is that most of the text have been copypasted from a source. Some details there should be removed as well (e.g. phone numbers and addresses as per WP:NOTDIR). Other information are also unsourced. When you take all of these out of the article, there's really not much to be left at all. The remaining sparse information can actually be just merged in a sentence or two to Polytechnic University of the Philippines as per my nom. Xeltran (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. No indication found, or presented, to indicate constituent college of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines is independently notable from the university. Merge to parent organization, leave article space a redirect to parent organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Needs the Blues Brothers

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

Not a notable compilation album. No description, no references (tagged as unreferenced since January 2007), no evidence of chart success, doesn't appear on AllMusic's discography of the band here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - I'm having trouble finding some substantial references too, not even something to support a redirect. There's a Discogs page but this wouldn't be enough to support an article. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is not a reliable source, since anyone can add content to it. While much of the content is good, it's as reliable as any Wikipedia page (ie: not at all) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Blues Brothers (which includes a discography section). I can't find anything to indicate this was notable: there's a lack of reviews or other independent coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom notability not established WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dzeny

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

This artist is very borderline for WP:MUSICBIO. All the substantial content has been added by a self described fan of the artist, who may or may not be associated with the artist. The article states that she has a single on "one of Bosnia's top lists." No mention of the exact list or whether this list is in itself notable. Also, I note that the very criteria of having a single on a country's list as an indication of notability is under discussion separately over at the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I would delete this, unless somebody can give a more firm and impartial indication of notability of this artist. Safiel (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist is becoming a name in Bosnia, her latest single has been aired on different Yugoslavian music channels, where bosniad biggest music channel s included, see NTV Hayat for more info. That same single had, for several weeks, been on the top list in bosnias biggest magazine Avaz express, see Dnevni Avaz for more info. You can see further references in the article. I think it's good for Dzeny to have a space here on wiki in order to become a more noticeable public figure, and I do t think Wikipedia should delete this particular article. It's at least as good as many other articles of people and/or subjects and objects haring the same popularity as Dzeny. Give her some time. Legacy doesn't come over night, it's very hard work and she works hard at the moment. All of us (friends and family) support her, hence our intention with this article, as so should You too!! DzenyFan (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — DzenyFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting artists. IF, down the road, this artist truly becomes notable, THEN it would be appropriate to create an article. Even then, as a self identified friend or family of the artist, it would not be appropriate for you to create the article, as you have a conflict of interest in the matter, please refer to WP:COI. Safiel (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be THE place for info about basically anything?? And where is the importance in who's creating the articles? I'm sure, and logically thinking, that many of these articles have been written by friends, family, artists, authors or whoever. I still think that this particular article should exist here..supposing the rest is up to You. Be well!! DzenyFan (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing As the nominator, I am going to go ahead and withdraw this. Safiel (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dot Vodka

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

Routine references, and a minor award not for the vodka, but just the label. An almost identical version was speedy deleted by another admin as A7 in 2011, but that was stretching the use of A7, for this is a product, so I bring it here. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - its vodka, so in-depth analysis in the New York Times is unlikely. The best we can hope for is that it might be profiled in a food & drink section of such a paper and for that to happen, it probably needs to have been around for a bit longer. There are some well-known blogs that have covered it, like Drink Hacker and a few items in industry publications like Bar Business Magazine. So there's significant coverage in blogs and the like but not much by way of coverage in reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON? Either way, I can't support keeping this at the moment. Stalwart111 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gong show 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I was definitely leaning toward the keep side, and am still a bit hesitant to endorse deletion. The product has definitely received decent coverage, and is fairly well-known, but it just hasn't gotten the amount of RS coverage (even if, as Stalwart says above, in a F+D section) that it needs. dci | TALK 02:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless more content or a stronger argument can be made towards its notability, I find most of the coverage run of the mill in what you would expect of a wide commercial vodka but nothing that particularly stands out. Mkdw ^talk 23:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mingle

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to have any extensive coverage by secondary sources Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gong show 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a brochure, does not establish notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline advert with run of the mill coverage for software and nothing that would make it stand out. Mkdw ^talk 23:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejovi Nuwere}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New 52 DC Characters}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fountainheads}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fountainheads}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit 245 (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick N. Millsaps}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motley's Crew (August 28, 1997)}}
-<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ewen}} -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ewen}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 FIFA Confederations Cup squads}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Papua New Guinea in Washington, D.C.}}<!--Relisted-->