Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 July	11 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan G. Moore

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

Non-notable junior league and collegiate ice hockey player. Has not played professionally. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Haven't found any indication of meeting any of our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-alcoholic beverage

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

This article is basically a list of 'non-alcoholic' drinks. Not only this, I assume that there are many more alcoholic drinks than non-alcoholic ones. I suggest that it be redirected to soft drink or some other article. Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What is the rational for deletion here? Your suggestion on a redirect is actually a sub-set of the Non-alcoholic beverage. This page is like a sophosticated disambiguation page with additional explanation and references on what it entails. I thought the page was well layed out. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Not all non alcoholic beverages are soft drinks other than that I see no valid reason for deletion Seasider91 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: We need crappy, useless pages like this. What are you trying to have here - useful, encyclopedic pages or something? Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per Cocoaguy. I assume that there are many more alcoholic drinks than non-alcoholic ones. Now that can not be justification for deletion, can it. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is an "alcoholic beverages" article -- why wouldn't there be a corresponding "non-alcoholic beverages", especially given that this is of reasonable quality? Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This will help people to identify different ways of thinking about drinks, and could have use in increasing readers' knowledge of different beverages. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies that my last edit appeared to have a line through it - I did not mean this, so please let it stand! Thank you, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rewrite. Using Uncle G's draft. T. Canens (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-physical entity

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

OR. None of the sources given describe "non-physical entity" as a coherent topic that includes both abstract concepts such as numbers, emotions, urges, ghosts, spirits, deities and morals. There are some sources using the phrase "non-physical entity" but none of them use it in the synthesised sense used by the article. It is basically the same case as the recent "ethereal being" AfD. The article should perhaps be a redirect to the different concepts as several editorsd have argued on the talkpage. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that the ideas shouldn't be "synthesized" per se, the term needs its own definition. However, see my comments under "Keep (but consider other titles, improve, and expand)". Cheers. Misty MH (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The concept is used in multiple fields and is completely unrelated to each other. However, the page as whole I believe could be cleaned up to be a disambiguation page - which makes more sense than outright deleting it. As written, the opening paragraph is horrible - and completely unreferenced. However, cleanup being needed is not grounds for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turning it into a disambiguaiton page as you argue is closer to delete than to cleanup. I would support turning into a disambiguation page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It can simply be deleted and replaced with a disambig. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Poorly sourced original research. The page is a mish-mash of unconnected concepts. There is nothing on the page worth keeping. I don't even see the need for a disambiguation page. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k, Cool. How did someone get this included in each of these? :) Misty MH (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - an attempt to synthesize completely different concepts under one umbrella. LadyofShalott 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to rewrite as per Uncle G's sandbox. LadyofShalott 22:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: While I agree that this article should not try to "synthesize", per se, note that the article on Being is also quite broad, and necessary, just as an article on non-physical being or intelligence is needed, for the purposes of discussion, since there are in truth many different concepts (spirits, angels, etc.) that refer to just that. The unfortunate part is that many discussions already probably-presumptuously "identify" these beings, based on concepts familiar to the people discussing them; when the reality is that they probably don't really know what the being was. Not to get long-winded, LOL, but a book such as the Bible says that even "satan can transform himself into an angel of light"; if true, then someone encountering such a being might be confused as to what exactly they are encountering. In such a situation, one might be safe to say that it seemed like a non-physical being or entity; but it would be hard to say which kind it was. Therefore, a term such as "non-physical entity" (I am open to a better term!) is needed. :) Misty MH (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of flattening any philosophical insights here, the problematic of the contradiction/paradox (depending of where you stand, I reckon) is undercut by the opening line of--DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA TO CITE WIKIPEDIA--Entity: it doesn't have to be material (which I, being the simple Calvinist that I am, take to mean the same as "physical"). As such, if you'll pardon the late-night silliness, we're dealing with a non-entity when we're talking about a non-physical entity. Qualia are great but there is no suggestion that this phenomenon would in any way qualify as an entity, and unexisting gods, well, I don't see why we would want to apply the term "entity" to them unless we're discussing American Gods, which is really not a bad book. In mathematics, well, concepts are entities in many ways, but again--entities don't have to be material in the first place. Or, delete, at least Uncle G rewrites the thing from top to bottom. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is, quite clearly, an article or a family of articles to be written about incorporeal creatures. This article that we're considering doesn't seem very good to me, but it's a plausible search term and Wikipedia clearly should have an article, redirect or disambiguation page with this title—so unless there's a copyvio or something, this material is fixable. Therefore I don't see how there's any scope to delete within our normal rules.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's incorporeality? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, and spirit and energy being. This is starting to look like a potential disambiguation page to me.—S Marshall T/C 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently, this is a quasi-dab page. Perhaps a redirect to Ontology (information science) may be more useful? Bearian (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but improve and expand) - There is absolutely a need for some term to attach to a being or entity whose identity, type, species, etc. cannot as of yet be determined, and may be or seem to be non-physical. While in many religions and spiritualities, people believe that what they are connecting with or discussing is this thing or that thing (such as a spirit or angel or demon or ?, etc.), the fact is, they often do not know what it is exactly. Terms for an objective discussion of the unidentified entity, being, or intelligence are absolutely needed. What terms ought to be used is another matter, but all substantive terms need to be included, for the purposes of study and discussions. Additional topics that include such an idea are: Artificial Intelligence, Other Dimensions, Parallel Universe, UFOlogy, and of course the usual: Religion, Spiritism/Spirituality/Spiritualism, Theology, Philosophy, the Paranormal/Supernatural, Metaphysics, Ontology, etc., etc. The article needs to be expanded to include these sorts of things. I think that the opening/intro could or should be kept short and inclusive, like a basic definition, with the details and various fields in which such are discussed moved down below. Rather than delete, let's list all of the related terms for this in current (and past) usage. (If someone believes it's not well-sourced, please state why.) Anyone have a favorite article form that we could base changes on? I'd also like to see an article based on the idea of an Unidentified Intelligence, which may be/is what many people encounter when they have an experience with something or someone non-visible/invisible. Misty MH (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose that it could be renamed Non-physical being and then made into a quasi dab for ghosts, spirits, energy beings and the like, with all the other stuff relating to mathematics and ontology removed. However it would be better to just delete this page and for someone to go ahead and create a completely new page. CodeTheorist (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I substantially rewrote the article, and expanded it, which is a near-equivalent of a completely new page. At this point, it's now worthy of a keeper, though more work needs to be done. I added comments explaining, at the article's Talk page. While I agree that "non-physical being" could be added elsewhere as a "quasi dab", the phrase "non-physical entity" deserves its consideration in this separate article. Misty MH (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there's someplace to go with the page on incorporeality but what I'm getting out of the renaming and repurposing is that the set of things that aren't physical in any sense doesn't define a single kind of thing. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is synth in my mind... is there any indication in any of the sources provided that they define, let alone cover this topic as it's described in the article? I don't see it if there is. Shadowjams (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:SYNTH. Obviously there are many more non-physical things than material things. Yet lumping them all together doesn't seem helpful. Borock (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The word "spirit" has several different meanings – from a noncorporeal being (or part of a being) to "team spirit" to attitude – but we don't delete that just because it has several disparate meanings that have nothing to do with one another. A term for non-physical beings is absolutely necessary for discussion of such things; but using a word like "spirit" or "soul" confuses the matter by assigning it to a type (when one might not know its type). "Non-physical being" is pertinent when one does not know what type of being it is, and when it seems that the being is not physical in nature. The phrase allows one to discuss the concept while keeping it at the level of specificity that it needs to be, without being too specific. I think it's a great term for that. The spelling "nonphysical" is also found; for example, at wordnik.com. :) Misty MH (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this could be quite a useful entry in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article rewritten. I've rewritten the article over the past couple of days. Before that, it sounded conflated, reading similar to a synth. It is now an expansion of a definition, as an encyclopedia should be. A few improvements could be added, and maybe a couple of things removed, but it's almost there! Reread to Keep! Misty MH (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It i still synth.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything, the current version makes the lack of relationship between the various set members even more obvious. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - … which is a shame, because they are in fact related. The draft at User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity will show you how. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is referring above to what I said when he had the munchies. I've done what I said that I might do. The draft stub article is at User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity. Misty MH, the basic error that you're making is the same error that would be made by putting every person in the encyclopaedia in the human being article. Approaching this by making a grab-bag of everything that one could possibly think of as potentially being a non-physical entity, and hoping that it becomes encyclopaedic once some unspecified critical mass accrues, is the wrong approach.
The right approach is to go and see what scholars have made of the subject. This isn't a "New Age stub" at all. But it is properly a philosophy stub. Metaphysics has dealt with the non-physical, as User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity explains. Scholars have dealt with this subject, and they have connected the dots between mathematical concepts and ontology. (I didn't find any that made the connection to computer science, though.) They have brought ghosts, gods, and angels into the discussion; using ghosts both as explicit examples and as metaphors. Ironically, it is the mathematics and the ontology that one retains, and the vague and woolly "quasi-disambiguation" stuff that one throws out, here: exactly the opposite of what CodeTheorist suggests above.
A taste of this scholarship can be obtained from User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity#Reference bibliography, which by no means exhausts the literature. (That's nine professors of philosophy, one professor of biology, and a couple of others. I leave it for now as an exercise for the reader to find which two authors themselves have Wikipedia articles. ☺) Notice that six of the sources explicitly say in their titles that they are about the philosophy of mind, whose umbrella is one of the two that this falls under, and nine of them explicitly position themselves as introductory works or broad overviews. You are encouraged to read them. I've given you the page numbers (although I recommend reading more than just those specific pages).
Two thirds of the WikiProjects on the talk page are not in fact applicable, and are just vague handwavings in the hope that the encyclopaedic will arise of its own accord; this does not have to be a multi-stub or a disambiguation; and this article was wrongly stubbed in its creating edit. There is an actual article, to go in Category:Concepts in metaphysics and on a specific metaphysical concept without a Big List of Every Article In The Project in its "see also" section, that is possible, as the draft indicates.
Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a very nice and well written article, and I think your participation would be very welcome at Mind where the kind of knowledge you have might facilitate coming up with a reasonable definition. I don't think it is about the topic of non-physical entities though, I think it is at best about the debate about whether such entities exist, and probably more accurately generally about the general question of physicalism/dualism which is already covered in those respective articles. None of the sources you use are about the tpoic of non-physical antities or even treats that as a specific and distinct topic, they are about a debate in philosophy. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, they are talking about non-physical entities, quite specifically. Professor Barbara Gail Montero of CUNY, to pick one, is very much attempting to form a definition of what it is to be non-physical. You can see more of the same in doi:10.1111/0029-4624.00149, also written by her, and even her chapter "What is the Physical?" in the same book that Balog 2009 is from. This is the Barbara Montero that is cited by some others for the via negativa definition of the physical, note, so be aware that she does try to answer the the question by defining the non-physical. To quote her directly: "Now, perhaps these problems could be overlooked if we had clear intuitions regarding the nonphysical. However, it is not at all obvious that we do." Then she starts talking about ghosts. As I said, this is far from all of the literature on this subject, and the literature cited is addressing non-physicality quite directly. And, before you say it, the non-physical is more than Hempel's dilemma alone, and so isn't dealt with properly there. It covers abstract objects too, as has been pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, that looks like the start of an admirable article about non-physical entities in philosophy and cognitive science. I do just wonder, though: if someone types "non-physical entity" in the search box, what will they be least astonished to find? A philosophical article? Maybe. But my instinct says they might be looking for something more like spirit#metaphysical and metaphorical uses (only less confused and confusing), or energy being.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made changes to incorporeality that may be of interest.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page using standard format. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to disambiguation page~~: I'm not convinced non-physical "entity" conjures up anything but ghosts; mind always turns out quasi-physical some how... the mind-body problem is covered in Philosophy of Mind and a non-physical entity version exaggerates the relevance of Cartesian substance dualism.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rewrite). Uncle G has shown that a decent article can be written on this topic. So the page should be kept, but completely rewritten along the lines of User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity. I still think that there would be some value in also having a quasi-dab page called Non-physical being. CodeTheorist (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sold~~ "non-physical being" in theology.Delete/dab Sorry, missed the first part, good idea for a different quasi-dab page.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mena Capital

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

Non-notable company. The Fortune magazine "profile of MENA" is actually not a profile of this company; it is a review of investment opportunities in the Middle East and North Africa, a region known by the acronym MENA. The MENA company is mentioned, once, briefly, as the source of a single quote. Other references show similarly sketchy coverage. This investment firm does not appear to be anything by run of the mill. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should fix the reference then, but the notability of the company is that it's an influential private equity firm operating in the Middle East during a time of economic unrest associated with the Arab Spring. Their current AUM is low ($28 million), but that's down from over $100 million just a year ago - again, making them of interest and relevant. There aren't adequate Arab private equity firms investing in the MENA region represented in the private equity firm space on Wikipedia and this is a good candidate to help address that information gap. The firm is notable for being out front in encouraging investment in countries like Tunisia and Egypt during this period of political transition 12.171.157.178 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are better references to be found, please bring them forth. Confusion may arise from the fact that there is an unrelated real estate development company named MENA Capital in Lebanon, and that fact that the term "MENA capital" is a common term used in articles about the general capital funds market in the Middle East/North Africa region, but unrelated to this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included this profile after seeing them referenced in the Fortune article. My intention was to add them as an influential private equity firm for their work in the Middle East region investing in new Arab democracies while balancing the sharia-related challenges of Muslim "investing" - the firm appeared to me to meet the qualifications for inclusion based on other private equity firms listed, their formal reporting and coverage in high visibility mainstream news reporting (like Fortune). I characterized the Fortune reference as such because it included an interview with the firm's CEO, which I thought was the relevant link for those interested in the article and didn't mean to mischaracterize or present the information inappropriately. I intended this as a stub, for which additional work would be done by myself and others in the private equity working group recognizing that additional references and details would need to be provided. It is noted as a start class profile in need of additional input and work. As such, I hope it won't be deleted. AliceStanley11 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of obscure topics on Wikipedia. Don't see why this can't be one. Also agree with the IP on the niche here. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be obscure topics on WP, but that doesn't justify having more. For the record, there isn't enough secondary sources to make this company notable. The website for the company sure mentions itself, mission, staff, etc. But no secondary coverage, no independent sources to make this notable enough. If in fact it is an "influential" company a plethora (or at least a few) secondary sources would support this. As it is, that isn't the case.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Fortune article describes them, as " a small London-based hedge fund" & I see no information to indicate that the firm is significant. We have always held that just being one of the people interviewed by a journalist in connection with a single article on a topic is not evidence of notability. Being frequently interviewed as a major source on a topic can be another matter. If we were to have a criterion for funds of the sort, the monetary value would be the obvious demarcation: this firm is apparently worth only $12 million. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking indepth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Without prejudice toward a future Merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes

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

List of encyclopedic information missing out from what the usual "List of episodes" should have. Includes only date of telecast and episode titles and plot; all unreferenced. The plot is also written in a advertisement manner, (What will happen?!) also gives writers opinions (However, it could have been divided into two episodes.), gives trivial info (Registration number was Mum889956671566787, Stops on Kajal's face, Stops on Malini's face, Stops on Amir's face, Stops on Koel's face). Such a garbage fan-forum article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need to, as that's not the proper analysis here; it makes zero sense to speak of the "notability of the episodes as a group" as LISTN would ask somehow separate of the notability of the series of which the episodes are parts. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a list of episodes is an integral part of the topic of a TV series, the proper standards are instead WP:WHENSPLIT and (less importantly here) WP:LISTPURP#Information. So unless it is unverifiable (can that be the case for any TV series broadcast by a major cable network in India? the nom seems to think so, I don't know), it should either be merged to the series article or remain a standalone list. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Postdlf is substantially correct. The principal guidance document is WP:SAL. Our normal custom and practice with TV shows is to merge back to the main article (Dhoom Machaao Dhoom) or keep as a standalone list. Bearing in mind WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, I cannot see how it could possibly be compliant with our guidelines to turn this into a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean we should merge it back in the main article and then delete it from there as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think we delete anything that is merely unreferenced? postdlf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practically we don't. But ideally we should. Shouldn't we? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The fact that something's unreferenced is certainly not an indication that it should be removed. Factual, uncontroversial material should typically be kept in some form.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is this all factual? Is it verifiable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you're asking about WP:V, Animeshkulkarni, rather than for a discussion about the finer points of epistemology. I've spent a great deal of time reflecting on WP:V. I was one of those involved in drafting the current text, and it was me, personally, who wrote the phrase "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"—which I suspect is what you're alluding to.

WP:V refers to contentious material. It means anything, and I quote, "challenged or likely to be challenged". It does not mean uncontroversial statements of fact. Wikipedia policies are supposed to be applied carefully, thoughtfully and on the basis of good editorial judgment. They were never meant as a way of removing perfectly accurate, non-promotional, non-defamational, copyright-compliant material from our encyclopaedia. It is good editorial judgment to leave such material untouched and concentrate on the problematic stuff. Unfortunately WP:Editorial judgment is still a redlink, and I wonder if my next policy-related effort should not be to make that blue.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh! Founding father here!)

I understand that "uncontroversial" statements of fact do not require sources. Here the show itself is the primary source and we have to believe in good faith on whatever is written here is true. But are our standards gonna steep so low that the whole article is okay to be unsourced? Also "uncontroversial" is a relative term. Plus i don't know if we should keep such poorly written article. Ofcourse someone can rewrite it. And someone should have do it since 2009 had it been any notable at all. Not a valid point to gauge notability, i know. There can be a new user just registering who would clean this all and make it a FL if you like. But till then do we keep such articles? Maybe your editorial judgement essay should write about this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't advanced an argument that this episode information is unverifiable or that the series is not notable. So you're using a lot of words without saying anything relevant to the issue of deletion, with a lot of simply incorrect assertions along the way (you insisted "...as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia", then you acknowledge "Practically we don't [delete content merely for being unreferenced]. But ideally we should." Then why did you insist in the first place that we did?). Now you say, "Of course someone can rewrite it." Then this AFD should be closed as "keep". postdlf (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine! Keep it. Amongst all the garbage some more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cant close the AfD now as some editors have voted for deletion. Or else i would have closed it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Dhoom Machaao Dhoom characters

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

The title itself says how unnotable the subject is. Probable fan-made article of not so popular characters of a not so popular TV show. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 03:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is nowhere interested in transwikiing it. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Leeder

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

As there is nothing in google to hint his notability as well that Wikipedia is not a resume, therefore this person is not notable, which explains my nomination for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did find plenty of references for him in google search. IMBd and this, this, this all on only first page of search. Seems notable enough to me, I don't understand your rational for nomination. The article does need cleanup though. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 17:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will be happy to pull it but not in this current form. Donnie Park (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well ask for the creator if he/she wishes to clean it up. Otherwise request for help from someone in WikiProject Films. If I find time I will try to fix a few things. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.

The impactonline mention does not count toward notability as Leeder is a contributor, and so it's not independent.
His own web site doesn't count.
The IMDB entry is anonymous-submitted, and see both Wikipedia:Notability_(films) and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. IMDB isn't acceptable to establish the notability for films or actors, and by extension other industry figures as well
HK Cinemagic is a fan forum and message board and probably fails WP:SELFPUB, maybe... Like IMDB, the site itself is notable enough for a Wikpedia entry: Hong Kong Cinemagic, but even so, the site looks comparable to IMDB, and like IMDB, has low standards for inclusion (looks to have over 20,000 entries for people by now) and as such an entry on the site is probably not useful to establish notability toward WP:GNG.
The one source that might contribute toward WP:GNG is the interview at fareastfilms. It's in-depth, but the site fareastfilms.com is basically a fan site. It might contribute to notability within the sub-genre of figures in the Asian film world... someone who does a lot of Wikipedia editing in this area would have to chime in. And besides, it's the only semi-legit looking source, and we generally require multiple sources to establish notability.

Other searching did not turn up any significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Unless there are special notability rules for a figure in this subject area, the individual does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Zad68 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of database entries and some passing references, but no deoth of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:ACADEMIC #1; can be reworked to be less promotional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kahn-Harris

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

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Previously speedy-deleted, page created by a possible sock-puppet of an indef-blocked promotional account. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. NtheP (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had initially nominated the page for deletion via WP:PROD with the same rationale as above. TeaganK (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the latest contributor is indeed blocked as a sock; the current article is just different enough for me to not delete it as a recreation, though YMMV, passing admin. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is a genuine and accurate article about the most important demographer in the Jewish community in Britain. Kahn-Harris is well known and highly respected in his field and I do not understand why this has been marked for deletion. I have quoted him in my own publications and he is often noted in secondary sources. 11 July, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystar (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of a number of edits all connected to Hodder (the publishers) involving one account that I blocked and the sock blocked by Drmies. Going through the references here, the first is a profile (not a reliable sources), and the second is a name in a list; the third doesn't mention the subject; the fourth is be the subject, and cannot establish notability; the fifth, I regard as a possible source for notability - but only just (and others may disagree); the sixth and seventh are a profile, and so is the seventh. The list looks impressive, but contains only one of what I would consider a possible reliable source - which refers to a book not discussed in the article - possibly because it is published by Berg rather than Hodder. I notice that the publisher is only named in the list here for one book. I may be cynical - what the heck, I am cynical. I would note, by the way, that the enthusiastic post above is (to my surprise) not by an SPA but is by an editor who first edited in 2007 and has made few but apparently sound edits which do not seem to be connected to Hodder. (My apologies for suspecting the worst...) Peridon (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am Keith Kahn-Harris. I did not write this page but I have been made aware of the deletion discussion. I could of course edit the entry to respond to Peridon's (reasonable) critique. However, I understand that it is not my role to do this! My status as an academic and writer is sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion, but it's difficult for me to prove this! Please look at my website kahn-harris.org for more info. Could someone let me know what I can do to ensure that the entry for me is unmarked for deletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.7.185 (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Keith Kahn-Harris is a reputable scholar, who has authored several books and research reports, has co-written the only contemporary sociological study of British Jewry, is a regular media commentator on his areas of specialism (popular music and the Jewish community), writes regularly for periodicals such as The Guardian, Jewish Chronicle, Jewish Quarterly and New Statesman. So, not the most notable of academics, but sufficiently for a Wikipedia article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further to my statement, have looked again at WP:ACADEMIC. The subject meets a couple of the criteria, of which only one is needed.1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The article needs citations to show this better, but Kahn-Harris has made significant impact on sociology of Jewishness and popular music studies. There are plenty of book reviews that could show this in scholarly journals, as I saw from glancing at Google Scholar. So, citations needed rather than AFD. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. KKH's media profile shows this. When I have time, am happy to do some research to add citations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editing an article about one's self is not forbidden, so long as the editing doesn't introduce promotional material, or remove referenced material that the subject doesn't like. There is no problem about bringing better references to the table here - believe me, they are needed for a clear showing of notability. No matter how many people come here and shower praises on the subject, if there are no references in reliable independent sources WP:RS that back this fulsome praise up then their time is wasted. Don't just say he's the best thing since the Exodus from Egypt - give us evidence. I am also going to suggest that either the publishers of all three listed books be named, or the one that is should have that name removed. This is in the interest of avoiding an appearance of advertising by that publisher. Peridon (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Most widely held book in libraries (co-edited), After subculture: Critical studies in contemporary youth culture, currently in more than 320 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. This book has over 190 citations on GS. I wonder if COI is really at play here; this book was no even listed in the article until I edited it a few minutes ago. Also has other books of solid impact.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article seemed rather keen on promoting Hodder publications and authors (and a small number of others). There's no suggestion (on my part at least) that the subject of the article has been involved in the creation of the article. Peridon (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eric Yurken above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Baker

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

This youth player doesn't yet pass WP:NFOOTY, and I can't find any sources that would indicate they pass WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and improve. There is broad agreement that this article is deeply flawed and written from a particular perspective. In fact the primary author's comments right here in this discussion show their own prejudices on the topic. However, the topic is broader than just the civil war, having been demonstrably present both before and after it. There is no agreement on if or how it could be merged, but that discussion can continue on the talk page if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka

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

unsourced, no real point to the article, includes myths and legends to a present day situation. Sri Lankan Civil War article already exists. Blackknight12 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an apparent WP:POVFORK, all of which is covered under other articles. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the final version of the article. Currently I am adding references to this article. I will complete finding and referencing things within a month. Also I want to add more details than this first version which is more towards the structure. It is some tedious work which can't done in few hours. This is not a WP:POVFORK since no other Wikipedia page is created to discuss the history , tension situations, civil wars erupted. Sri Lankan Civil War is only a stage of the ethnic conflict. So it's scope is limited only to the civil war. Also history of Sri Lanka/any other country is a huge ,"non categorized" topic. In this article only subjective events were concerned. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There should be an opening paragraph (the socalled lead) where a short description about the topic is given. Also, the article must reflect both sides of the conflict. If myths and legends are to be mentioned at all, they should not be presented as facts, and myths and legends of both sides and the role and significance of these myths in the ethnic conflict should be presented. Otherwise you are absolutely right that the ethnic conflict should have an article on its own, where the article focuses on contributing factors to the ethnic conflict, how it developed and evolved. --SriSuren (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will update according to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article is certainly not a POVFORK and should most certainly not be deleted. The ethnic conflict and the civil war are not the same. Let me explain it in a simple way - the ethnic conflict predates the civil war by several decades and it continue to exists even after the civil war ended. The civil war was just one result of the ethnic conflict. The present article is very one sided and has some irrelevant myths etc and therefore needs to be rewritten and improved, but it must not be deleted. It amazes me that there has not been an article on the topic until now. --SriSuren (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- I am not clear what else exists, but this looks adequate to me. There are conflicting views between the Tamils and "natives" as to history. This is probably too raw a subject for a NPOV consenus to arise on the history of the issue. If necessary, it should be userified, so that the main editors can bring the article to a more finished state. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a WP:POVFORK. The user who created this article believes that the information in other established articles to be fake ([1], [2]) and so they have created this article to put across their POV. Without a lead it's difficult to say what the point of this article is. If it's about the "Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka" then there are plenty of other articles which deal with this: Sri Lankan Civil War, Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war, Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism etc. But as it stands now the article is actually about the entire history of Sri Lanka, going back tens of thousands of years. Again, there are plenty of articles dealing with Sri Lanka's history - History of Sri Lanka, Prehistory of Sri Lanka, Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka, Colonial history of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka in the twentieth century, Post conflict history of Sri Lanka. Most of the article has been copied from other articles, most of it is unreferenced, it contains original research, it contradicts itself and it's full of factual errors.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war is in Sri Lanka is over. Not the Conflict. Still some popular topics are spreading through the world. eg : Tamils are the Natives to Sri Lanka. There should be no Sinhalese colonies in so called "Tamil Home Lands". From this article I want bring the complete picture of the ethnic conflict. That means History, civil war, ethnic conflicts after the war (homeland,traditional land, natives,...) --Himesh84 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. We should keep articles which give interesting information about countries. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan Civil War. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep-I agree with Peterkingiron, this article clearly has some POV material, however it is a notable conflict that does predate the civil war. It needs to be copy edited/cleaned by multiple editors, but it is a notable subject.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Sri Lankan Civil War, as it is an unnecessary fork. —Lowellian (reply) 20:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated that Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is a combination of Sri Lankan Civil war + History of Sri Lanka. Logically it is correct. But it is not practical. History of Sri Lanka is a huge subject. Also it is very much brief description about all the history which can't be written in details within a small wiki page. For me it is very much difficult to find specific details about ethnic details from the history of Sri lanka page. We must implements detailed specific things in derived pages for a subject like history. Also "Sri Lankan Civil War" only contains about things happened after 1900 and the last battle between two groups. But ethnic conflict containing more details. More battles (Magha invation, Parakramabahu VI's Jaffna invasion, ... ) and relationships (king Senerat and Cankii) agreements, how intermediate parties settled tension in past (Portuguese, Dutch, English) .... Those things can't be talked from "Sri Lankan Civil war" wiki page. It is out side the Topic (which target the last battle) and scope.--Himesh84 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that I have one supporter. I am not qualified to undertake the necessary restructuring of the articles. This probably needs a multiple merge to otehr articles on the history of Sri Lanka, undertaken by a NPOV expert. If no one will come forward to do this, the aritcle will have to be deleted, as it is undesirable to have multiple articles all covering the same subject, unless they form a tree with a general article pointing to more detaield main articles, which may in turn have main sub-articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to merge this page to "History of Sri Lanka" or other way around ? I believe it is not a good idea since History should be brief. Also this article contain some extra details which hasn't not covered in any articles. I think Ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka is huge subject and there should be a wiki page for that. Also recent civil war is huge subject , there should be another wiki page for that. There are lot of wiki articles which talk history about particular subject from that page without merging into the history of that country or continent. Logically we can merge every wiki-page into History except what is still going on but practically not. So we have to merge all the kingdoms into history of that country,no wikipages about kings that belongs to the history. Battles, empires, rebels,Olympic games, football games,elections,famous presidents,famous persons also into history. More than 75% wikipages are logically belongs to History. That will be not good.--Himesh84 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a multiple merge to the histories by period. If I knew about the subject, I might do it, but I do not. Or perhasp what I am saying is that much of the content needs to be merged to those articles, leaving a much shorter summary, covering the main points. Lowellian is wrong, becasue most of the article is not about the recent civil war, but about the source of the tensions that lay behind it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is any significant material in this article that doesn't already appear in other existing articles, let me know and I'll be happy to restore the article to your userspace for the purpose of merging. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sri Lanka: pre-Colonial era (500 BC – 1505 AD)

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

This article is a very out of date collage of other history of Sri Lanka articles and is not a total representation of of the time mentioned, it is very poorly done. Also the history of Sri Lanka does not separate into pre and post colonial periods, all the appropriate sub articles already exist. Blackknight12 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That sounds like WP:RUBBISH. The article certainly needs clean up, possibly reduction in size, but that's not a reason to delete - there are enough references in there to warrant an article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sure the quality of the article can be upgraded, but the point is that everything in this article has been taken from one of the other subpages that have been properly spun off. And you missed the point that the history of Sri Lanka is not defined by pre and post colonial periods. The colonial era was just a fraction of the nation's 2500 year written history.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator that this namespace does not seem useful in describing Sri Lanka's history, and there are already articles on the History of Sri Lanka as well as for Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka, and Colonial history of Sri Lanka. Nothing is to be gained by having an article that artificially combines two of these three periods based on them having nothing more in common than that they aren't the third. Useful, non-duplicative material should be moved to either the general article (which, by the way, could use quick summaries of the individual kingdoms within the medieval period), or the pages for individual periods. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of Sri Lanka, Anuradhapura Kingdom, Chola dynasty, Polonnaruwa Kingdom, Kingdom of Dambadeniya and Jaffna kingdom. I notice that some parts of the article, for example Kingdom of Dambadeniya, have already been merged with the appropriate articles. The rest of the article should also be merged, preserving the vital references and further reading material. But there is no reason for this article to exist separately, because it falls under the broad category of Hitory of Sri Lanka, and there exists a separate series of articles that deal with each era. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. My answer is almost the same as Astrmonyinertia's. I would also like to add that, when one speaks of precolonial era, the time limits tend to differ depending on the context. In a political context or if one is interested in tracing the history of the divisions which existed in the island, then it generally refers to the time right before the colonial entry into the island in 1505. Colonial era for the different parts of the island was quite different. Eg. for a good part of the Sinhalese people, namely the Kandyans, the colonial era doesn't start until 1815, when the Kandyan kingdom fell. In other words, the Kandyans have no history of Portuguese and Dutch colonial rule - they just had encounters with these colonial powers, mainly in the form of war, trade and negotiations. Sri Lanka's colonial period proper starts in 1815, with the whole island coming under foreign rule, and in the literature related to SL, one will therefore often find that scholars treat the period right upto 1815 as pre-colonial in many contexts. Also as Blackknight12 has pointed out, Sri Lanka's history is not (usually) dealt with, by dividing it in this manner and there are other sub-articles which deal with all the topics in the almost 2000 year period this single article tries to deal with by squeezing them into short paragraphs. --SriSuren (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Merge -- This is certainly not rubbish. The problem is that it si duplicating History of Sri Lanka and its more detailed sub-articles. It is trying to cover everything up to 1505. We have Ancient history of Sri Lanka and Medieval history of Sri Lanka, which should be sufficient. However, the latter has a section that merely consists of a list of links to main articles on each kingdom. This could do with expansion to provide a general account of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand the reasoning for merging with other articles but I doubt this article contains any content that other articles don't - it's simply been copied from other articles. The section on Jaffna kingdom is the lead from Jaffna kingdom, the Books and magazines section is copied from the Further reading section of History of Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistresses (2009 TV series)

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

Why the page should be deletedI think the article Mistresses (2009 TV series) should be deleted. It's really pointless to be on Wikipedia and never even aired. Bob Mono (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Category:Television pilots not picked up as a series. --Alrofficial (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I have refactored the nomination to add the AfD templates, the substance of the nomination is unaltered. This discussion was not listed in a deletion log, I am adding it to today's log. Please consider this comment as the initial time of listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Program never aired or went beyond pilot stage, sourcing and article text is very confusing (it's a pilot that was re-picked up in 2012 from a 2009 pilot? I don't understand that), and despite the cite of the category above, that's mainly for pilots that have had deep discussion in the media about why they weren't picked up and were very good, not this unexceptional program that seems to be in a purgatory between ABC and Lifetime. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the nominator's rationale isn't really valid, I do agree that the article should be deleted, for lack of stated notability. An unaired pilot needs to have some sources to show why it is notable enough to be included in the project, and the only sources provided or that I can find are just very minor confirmations of who was to star in it, and does not establish why this pilot was notable. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There isn't strong agreement on whether the sources in this article establish notability, both sides of the argument have valid points and neither side is overwhelming. Also, the strange nature of this AfD (sockpuppet nominator, botched relist) makes it more difficult to close one way or another. For this reason, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong | prattle _ 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Monaghan

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

The page contains only information gathered from newspaper sites. The content is over 5yrs old; it reads simply as an old newspaper story. Fedgetrashmore (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well... newspaper sources are typically considered to be reliable sources that can help show notability and to be honest, there shouldn't really be anything in here that isn't sourced by one thing or another. We also don't delete something because it's old news. If someone or something achieves notability per Wikipedia guidelines, that notability does not go away over time. (Unless the standards tighten up and they don't meet the new guidelines, that is.) I cleaned the article up a little and took out a few things, but I'm more worried that this didn't get enough coverage to count as notable. I'll see what else I can find or if this can be mentioned somewhere else on Wikipedia with this name as a redirect. It's big enough that it got quite a bit of coverage, but not enough to where it clearly isn't just a case of WP:ONEEVENT.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the WP:ONEEVENT not making the person notable; however, from the brief research I did I see that he is an outspoken activist. The arrest would be an event surrounding his activism and his activism is what I believe would make him notable (not that every activist deserves a Wikipedia, but the most notable ones that get arrested for what he did probably do). Just a thought....I'm moving on. --Morning277 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim of notability is in the article and supported by citations. Regardless of the citations being in print or online, they are still citations. The notion that the article should be deleted based on the citations being from newspapers is rediculous. Google the name followed by "arrest" and there are plenty of online sources. Just a note to Fedgetrashmore - it is always good to check out sources to see if they exist prior to making a Rfd. --Morning277 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - this article is precisely what should be avoided when we talk aboutWP:ONEEVENT. If you read any of those news links, th arrest had nothing to do with activism, it was only after the arrest that the media got wind of those associations. Moreover, the activism was hardly national news... it relates to a small local bookstore. How can this be considered as notoriety? Delete. --Fedgetrashmore]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedgetrashmore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) User has already !voted--v/r - T P 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the above. This seems to be a promotional page for a relatively unknown person. If a page was created for every activist who got arrested, we'd end up with a lot of useless clutter. Delete. --Archie888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie888 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Archie888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note The above comment has been struck out, as the user has been determined to be the same person as the nominator: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archie888. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no good reason to keep the article. It's about a minor figure involved in a perfect example of WP:ONEEVENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.8.152 (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — 99.234.8.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note The above comment has been struck out, as the user has been determined to be the same person as the nominator: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archie888. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note To Administrator - I do not care about the article as I only came here to vote on AfD; however, nominator is a new user and there are 2 back to back delete votes from new users that were created back to back. --Morning277 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archie888, based on what I see as evidence of sock-puppetry with Archie888, Fedgetrashmore, and 99.234.8.152. Anyone may comment there if they are interested. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. Clearly not enough coverage to support the biography of a living person. Subject is only notable for one event in his life. The event itself meets no section of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Something went wrong with the relist of this discussion, it is not currently listed in a deletion log. I am adding it to today's log. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIME, and WP:BLPCRIME. Subject is notable for only one event: being arrested for a crime that he was never charged or convicted of. I don't believe the "person of interest" and his punk rock band are at all notable, and the "Awards" section doesn't have any citations, and the single award doesn't seem notable either. If the crime (the leaking of government plans) was notable (doubtful), it should have an article, but the article should be about the crime - not the person who is only notable for being arrested and released the same day. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Agree with User:Morning277. The citations are reliable for the article. Unlike the US, in Canada we have no laws provincially (as far as I know) or federally protecting "whistle blowers". Further, the fact that the RCMP was investigating him in 2008 is significant. Argolin (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is another ref:

Allan Woods (Ottawa Bureau). "The anarchist and the leak". The Star. Toronto. Retrieved 2012-07-15. The man arrested for allegedly leaking the Conservative government's environmental plan was a temporary employee...a drummer in a punk band that sings an angry screed against the Prime Minister and the 'rise of the right.' This is a close call. Of course the event passes WP:GNG, but is it a forgettable WP:NOT routine event or is this a part of Canadian history? There is a problem here in not knowing the person's full name, but it would be nice if the next time this is nominated the editor has more than ten edits total. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets wp:n and sourced. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Căpîlnăşiu

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

This individual fails WP:POLITICIAN. The claim advanced is that he is notable because he is the mayor of a Romanian county seat. That claim is, however, rather flimsy. To be sure, a few mayors of Romanian county seats are routinely notable: those seats that also happen to be large cities and regional centers (Cluj-Napoca, Iași, Timișoara, Constanța, Craiova). It does not follow that every such mayor is notable: the mayors of, say, Târgu Jiu, Slatina, Vaslui and, yes, Zalău are rarely prominent beyond the borders of their respective cities. With all due respect to Zalău, it's a town of just over 50,000, Romania's 38th-largest city, and not really influential outside a very small radius.

To use an American example, it's one thing to be mayor of Atlanta or Denver (always notable, often influential in national politics and routinely in state politics), and quite another to be mayor of, say, Jefferson City, MO or Pierre, SD (people no one outside those cities have heard of). Not every mayor of a US state capital is automatically notable either, and Zalău is more of a Pierre than a Denver.

In sum, neither Căpîlnăşiu's position, nor the press coverage he has received, which is invariably routine, indicate he is a notable politician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This AfD is not currently listed in the daily log. I am adding it now, please consider the time of this comment as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated, otherwise a mayor of a town with 62K population fails WP:POLITICIAN--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

112 Katong

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

Doesn't appear to qualify under WP:CORP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator; just another small shopping mall. I found no reliable sources and notability is neither asserted nor present. Ubelowme (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional reliable sources added since nomination. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ^(Talk) 07:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional reliable sources added since nomination. Passes WP:CORP now --Xaiver0510 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG as reliable sources have discussed the mall. Till 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - new sources are merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL shopping mall that, alas, is not notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage in reliable sources in the article is sufficient to establish notability per the general notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 19:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? It's been relisted twice on the same day. Till 03:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Something went wrong with the above attempts to relist the discussion, it is not currently transcluded in a daily log. I am adding it now. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of installation software

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

I truly fail to see how this article can be considered to contain encyclopedia-relevant information. The material in this article appears to be much more specific to an almanac/buyer's guide (to computer installation software.) I also see that at least one of its hyperlinks connects to a similar article being peer-reviewed for deletion. Less importantly, its bias is difficult to determine and completely lacks in citation. --b1naryatr0phy (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a list of software tools with a common purpose, most likely used for reference or for researching the available tools for that specific purpose. How is it different from any other list in Wikipedia? Also, does the article break any rules or guidelines? It looks ok to me. chrisjn (talk) 9:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a useful reference article for anyone who is interested in installation software. We should keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.213.55 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I have refactored this AfD to include the AfD templates, and to seperate the comments by different editors. The discussion was not transcluded in a daily log, I am adding it to today's log, please consider the time of this comment as the start time of the AfD for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable installation software is an obvious keep by list policy. This list has a lot of stuff that isn't notable, but this could still be fixed by editing, and there are sufficient notable packages listed. Also, what does "its bias is difficult to determine" mean, and how is that grounds for deletion? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a pretty useful list to me. There aren't that many widely used installers, so it should be possible to list all of the most common ones. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion Pending

I don't think deleting the article is the best solution, the issues can be fixed by editing. The issues you brought up were....

The material in this article appears to be much more specific to an almanac/buyer's guide

This can be fixed by editing.

how this article can be considered to contain encyclopedia-relevant information

I think lists have their own criteria for being encyclopedia-relevant.

at least one of its hyperlinks connects to a similar article being peer-reviewed for deletion.

the Hyperlinks can be removed.

its bias is difficult to determine and completely lacks in citation.

The bias can be removed/reworded

So all the points you mentioned can be fixed by editing, so I don't think deleting is the best idea at this point in time, although I may be wrong. Ziiike (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP. This article is useful as a navigation page for related topics. The red links in the article can encourage the creation of new articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SAL. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge non-notable software. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just used it after googling for installation software, so it answered my questions. Sure, needs work, but we are not on a timetable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ishaan episodes

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

The article has no encyclopedic information that is associated with List of episodes. This one merely writes the plot and date of telecast. Also unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent references (indeed any references at all). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and a failure of WP:GNG. Till 08:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic example of WP:CB. No reliable sources, no real indication of notability, huge amount of pointless content and I have trouble parsing the lead. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ishaan characters

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

List of not so popular characters of a not so popular TV show. If at all encyclopedic can be included in the main article of Ishaan. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tehkikaat episodes

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

Abandoned article, probably started by some fan in 2009. Gives no encyclopedic information. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (if kept) merge and redirect to Tehkikaat. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalabhavan Road

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

Quite simply, fails WP:GNG. Tens of thousands of GSearch hits for directories such as Yellow Pages but nothing that discusses the place as a place. Sitush (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A look at Google Maps shows that the road in question is a short North-South connection and not any main street in any way. From looking at the map, the geographical content of the article is generally accurate but there is nothing there to say why this road is more notable than any other road. In WP:NTSR terms, this qualifies as a "Secondary roads in a city or suburb", which are generally not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not redirect? After all they are cheap. This article can be redirected to Kochin. (I am gonna do that on almost all AfDs now.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if this is the only 'Kalabhavan Road' globally, which seems unlikely. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for redirects when the subject of the redirect is covered in the target article, but they are confusing otherwise. (A reader would think "OK, I looked up 'Kalabhavan Road', but Wikipedia sent me to an article that makes no mention of it!") A city article will generally not cover each and every street and road in the city, and I see no reason why Kalabhavan Road would be an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | confess _ 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Boyle

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is a talented youngster [has] represented his nation at youth levels and is ... much discussed. I see no evidence that this discussion has generated significant coverage, and WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers, meaning both points are invalid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boyle is not a youth player, he was the top scorer across the Scottish football league and spent the 2nd half of last season training with Aberdeen of the Scottish Premier League and won awards at the SFL Awards night for 2012 http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/irn-bru-sfl-end-of-season-awards-201112/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.8.23 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder - this player fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (he has not played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 11:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SFL is semi professional so this player hasn't played in a fully pro league and the victory shield doesn't count for notability I'm afraid Seasider91 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL as the bottom of the SFL is semi-pro, but he's got a lot of Scottish press coverage[9][10][11][12] as well as the more routine stuff e.g.[13][14][15][16] and a long article on the SFL website[17]. If you decide to delete, I'd suggest incubation/userification, as based on some of those reports, he may well become notable soon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is about a footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and the links provided by Colapeninsula are from my point of view all routine transfer-coverage except the last one, but that isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. He might be notable soon, but it wouldn't be a problem to undelete/recreate the article once he is notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Except the last one ... which passes WP:GNG. Hirest scorer in SFL last year. Which explains the burst of media coverage. Hence meeting WP:GNG. Not sure why users are focusing on WP:NSPORT and WP:FOOTY when they are trumpted by WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To answer the previous editor's question: Because WP:GNG is a guideline, not a suicide pact. The general notability guideline was not created with the intent that everything that has ever received independent coverage, anywhere, ever, somehow automatically is encyclopedic. I concur with the nominator's appraisal. Trusilver 06:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is nothing independent of his youth play that would raise him out of WP:NFOOTBALL. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3, author has been creating hoaxes to support userpage —SpacemanSpiff 11:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manmadhan Yudham

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

Article has been tagged for CSD and deleted multiple times, and CSDs are now being immediately deleted by anon IP, no referencem lack of notability Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIM-HIGH

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

No significant coverage on the topic (no results from Google News nor Books), only hit is the official website. Article is about a medical trial conducted that does not have significant, notable implications on a medical field. Every trial does not merit an article. --IShadowed 09:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this study is notable (and you may actually conclude it is when you see what I found), it is mainly notable as a flop - a study that did not prove what it set out to prove. It produced quite a few papers,[18] although only one is cited in the article. The citation rate of the papers about this study is not high.[19] There was actually quite a bit of general news coverage, possibly enough to meet WP:GNG.[20] The main thing reported is that the clinical trial was halted prematurely due to "lack of efficacy."[21] (You sure wouldn't know that from the article, would you?) If the consensus here is that the article should be kept, I will undertake a rewrite to make it accurate and sourced. But I personally favor delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G7. Hut 8.5 11:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MIrage Rock

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

I have created the proper page for Band of Horses new album as Mirage Rock but also accidentally created THIS page with the "i" in Mirage as a capital letter. **PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE "Mirage Rock" page, only this one! Thegraciousfew (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 - Author requests deletion. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Relist has resulted in an even more solid keep consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Starlight

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

Delete - fails WP:BIO due to a lack of verifiable and reliable sources. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight. SplashScreen (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Certainly fairly well-known, and in addition to the sources in the article, there's this. Much of the coverage relates to Lady Gaga and their friendship, so the case for inclusion is weak. I have declined the G4 put on the article as this is quite different to the version previously deleted at AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of the coverage relates to Lady Gaga and their friendship" - yes, and notability is not inherited. Lady Starlight needs to do something independently from her celebrity friends in order to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a tabloid or and indiscriminate collection of information. SplashScreen (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist was highly influential in launching and shaping the career of a widely-known, pop sensation. Sourcing can be improved for sure, but I think there is little question that this individual has and will get plenty of attention from reliable sources for her role in Gaga's career. Here are some book sources that can be used to improve the article: [22] [23] [24].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"[S]haping the career of a widely-known, pop sensation" does not pass WP:NMUSIC per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Those three sources (which are all of questionable reliability) are all in relation to Lady Gaga; Lady Starlight has no notability outside of this tabloid "friendship". SplashScreen (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a magic wand to make pop culture articles go away. It is not a "tabloid friendship", but a professional relationship between two entertainers. The subject of this article played a powerful role in influencing and building the career of a highly notable entertainer and there is plenty of coverage to go with that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tabloid friendship", "professional relationship", whatever. If a person is only known because of their association with another person and are not subject to independent and non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources, then they are not notable on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED does not mean that just because something is only discussed in the context of something else that there cannot be an article on it. The standard for having an article spinoff is if the subject is notable enough for an article and the amount of coverage of that subject is substantial enough that it could not all be included in the main article. Other policies apply, but there is no indication that this article violates any of those policies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio. After seeing DC's comment I found that, aside from the portion ripped from wikia, the rest of the article appears to be copied from her official page. Even if there is some sort of permission involved we should not be substantially copy-pasting this kind of material into an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the copyvio issues appear to have been addressed and there are editors looking to insert original wording based on reliable sources my reasons for keeping stand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to meet General notability guideline and WP:Notability (people). Sadly, this appears to be another poorly thought out nomination from SplashScreen (talk · contribs) having failed to follow the guidelines of Nominating an article(s) for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fæ, you can follow me around Wikipedia and make as many smears on each of the pages on which I comment as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that this article fails WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. SplashScreen (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the encouragement. Please do not feel obliged to respond to every keep comment in this AFD. --Fæ (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Same to you. SplashScreen (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally closed as keep (based on above !votes and sources), but relisted on request by nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this common practice? I'm wondering why DRV was not applied. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called talking to the closing administrator, and it precedes Deletion Review. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can editors please note that the three aforementioned trivial mentions in "unofficial biographies" of Lady Gaga which, as well as violating WP:BLP, focus solely on the subject's friendship and do not address the concerns raised in the opening nomination. SplashScreen (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has featured on international tours and received press coverage. There's also significant coverage in books on Google Books, e.g. Lady Gaga: Just Dance: The Biography, Helia Phoenix (Hachette), Lady Gaga: A Biography, Paula Johanson (ABC-CLIO), as well as references already mentioned. Lady Starlight is a DJ in her own right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without regard to whether or not a viable article could be written about this person, it should be noted that the current article copies passages verbatim from here and uses an image that is almost certainly a copyright violation (hint: the copyright owner is "Chris Kralik/Retna Ltd"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it passes notability guidelines either, but I've removed most of the copyvio from the article and took away a few of the "sources" that were not usable. (Such a link to a tabloid and a ticket sale page.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UT

On top of Tokyogirl's edits, I've removed some more unsourced content and citations from unreliable blogs and even Wikipedia itself. We now have citations from a potentially unreliable biography of Lady Gaga [25], a list of dates in which she will be performing at the same place as Lady Gaga [26] and a series of unverified claims about Lady Gaga in a interview [27]. I think it's safe to say that this individual holds no notability outside of her relationship with Lady Gaga and fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:MUSICBIO. SplashScreen (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not "safe to say" as there are plenty of reliable sources out there on this individual and even tabloids confer notability. However, at this point, until those reliable sources are added in and material written based off them, this article would have to be a stub. I think we are better served by scrapping this article and starting over from scratch, unless someone is willing to step in and make the necessary contributions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is important to note that several users have been improving the article and SplashScreen has been deleting their contributions in an attempt to game the system and eventually get the article deleted. This should be a fact to be considered by the closing admin when making the decision on wheter to keep or delete the article. —Hahc 21 20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed statements with "citation needed" tags and removed statements sourced by unreliable blog sites [28]. Please read edit summaries and assume good faith before throwing around allegations. SplashScreen (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you now? Statυs (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Splash, you are involved in a edit warring against Status and Tomica, that will get you blocked, so be careful. Also, BLP says that unsourced content that may likely be challenged should be removed. I think that her bio won't be challenged, since it is not libellous. I recommed you to talk the matter before on thet talk page and then, after a consensus is reached, remove the content. —Hahc 21 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not edit warring when WP:NOT3RR is involved. SplashScreen (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If you keep doing that, i will report you. Speaking is better than deleting information. Cheers. —Hahc 21 21:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If information about a living subject is unsourced and/or poorly sourced, then it should be removed. As an aspiring admin, it shocks me that you are unaware of this. SplashScreen (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, don't play that old trick on me, it won't work. I'm not the one who has been rejected from ANI several times and asked to cool down. I know what BLP says and what 3RR says and you are close to violate 3RR. The fact that you are deleting content from the article while this AFD is open is a mere way to game the system. I won't comment further, i don't need to engage a fight with you, Splash. Cheers. —Hahc 21 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What policy tells that? Cause I have seen a lot of article contain the {{cn}} at the end of sentences. — Tomica (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:BLP and remember (as you've been reminded on other AfDs) that other stuff exists. SplashScreen (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as you've been reminded on other AfDs" and "As an aspiring admin, it shocks me that you are unaware of this." Seems as if you are taking personal digs in this now. Statυs (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomica, {{cn}} actually states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it: immediately remove it." Statυs (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG with extensive sections in several books. See Colapeninsula's detailed and informative comments. The Steve 06:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been moved to Lady Starlight — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page accordingly. Statυs (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 12. Snotbot t • c » 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems notable enough.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources provided will need to be integrated into the article by Greek/Danish/German speakers. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sasse (musician)

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO – Lionel ^(talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and no suitable merge / redirect targets within sight. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NRVE, topic notability for Wikipedia articles is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [29], [30], [31], [32]; Resident Advisor has a brief biography of this producer: [33]. Appears being notable in his genre, and passing, less or more weakly, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw my vote if/when those are integrated into article. I can't do it since none of the independent ones are in languages I speak. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There appears to be sufficient evidence that this article is a copyvio of translations and commentary that have been recently published. That, and there is also some agreement that this topic is not appropriate for a non-list article on Wikipedia. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 17:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

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

I came across this when I was cleaning up Good articles and after a talk with Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) delisted it. It has since been flagged as a copyright violation and needs to be re-written completely from scratch. The more I think about, the less value I see with having this article. Pre-blanking it was basically just a list of quotes from different literary sources. It was really just a large footnote section in the form of an article. Any information here would be much more use in expanding the origin of the Romanians (unfortunately also blanked due to copyright violations). AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-blanking version here. Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may become moot. If the article isn't rewritten, it will be deleted 6 days from now. But it's probably worthwhile to register a consensus about keeping it as a suitable topic. My main reason for deletion is that the subject "Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians" does not appear to be a topic of independent study. Various authors refer at times to the interpretation of literary sources in the context of dealing with larger issues, but that's not the same thing. This article is full of synthesis and original research, both in terms of what quotes to select and the interpretation of their significance. Also, many of these quotes have interjected interpretations of what they are referring to, which isn't necessarily in the source. Frankly, I don't see how such a topic could be anything but original research and synthesis unless the quotes were simply presented with a minimum of commentary, in which case the article is just a a quote farm. Note also that many of the quotes are in English translations that are still in copyright. Others are from such old translations that their accuracy is subject to challenge. This makes the quote farm approach even less viable. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"does not appear to be a topic of independent study"? You are mistaken. Google Book search for "origin of the Romanians". The article can be elaborated from those sources and comply with all WP rules. I strongly object to the blanking of the page and any deletion under erroneous grounds of copyvio, see below. Anarchangel (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use shows rationales for using quoted material in articles, just as QUOTEFARM is a link to rationales against. As late as 2011, WP:LONGQUOTE said, "Using too many quotes may detract from the encyclopedic <feel> of Wikipedia." <my emphasis>, which I think exemplifies perfectly this rule's status as a purely stylistic preference, and not to be taken seriously as a guideline, however cleverly it was reworded. Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is saying that the topic "origin of the Romanians" is not a legitimate topic. However, we are questioning the validity of "Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians" as one. The copy-violations and blanking are separate to this afd, and would need to be argued at a different venue (WP:CCI I would think). AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir has already shown that lists of sources are a common focus of articles; returning to an already resolved issue instead of answering the issue of scholarship on this topic really just seems to me a lot like moving the goalposts. It would be better practice to use the phrase "alleged copy-violations", or as the notice says, "potential copyright violations". Origin of the Romanians is currently blanked. The claims of copyvio on that article are stronger in that they are quotes from the scholarship of secondary sources, but considerably weaker in that there are comparatively very few of them. Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In this case please delete pages like "List of sources for the Crusades" or "List of sources of Korean culinary history" or "List of sources of law in the United States" or "List of sources for Disney theatrical animated features" etc..... This article is about historical sources (mainly primary sources). It is very useful for Romanian historical researches and helps to avoid POV. Wiki contains lots of fringle theory and if you do not know history you will accept those false/nationalist views easily. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all those articles are merely lists of works, not a series of cherry picked quotes from them. If this article were rewritten in a similar format simply to list the sources, it might be worthwhile. But that would be a completely different article. You could try starting something like that at this temporary page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the same as the current article, with the last three using a completely different definition of source. WP:Otherstuffexists is never a strong argument, but it is better to compare like with like. AIRcorn (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These replies attempt to show that differences between this article and Fakirbakir's examples, namely, this article's extensive commentary and sourced examples for each entry, are reasons why it is irrelevant to compare them. ~~In fact t~~Those differences are testimony to this article's superiority to the examples Fakirbakir chose, under WP:PROSE. Anarchangel (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the difference is (apart form the crusades one) that those articles are showing the origin of the different topics. For example, that the snow white film was derived from the Brothers Grimm story of the same name. This article is compiling literary references and quotes relating to the origin of the Romanians. Those are quite different topics. AIRcorn (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally agree (and I struck from my previous comment an unnecessarily argumentative phrase, accordingly). But is that difference really of the uppermost importance, when there is this elephant in the room labelled, "the similarity is that they are all lists of sources"? Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody can explain me that why we have to delete substantial knowledge from Wikipedia.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowledge" which is the product of original research and synthesis is always to be deleted from Wikipedia. It's one of the Five Pillars and is non-negotiable. The question here is whether or not this topic can be construed as inherently original research and synthesis. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, copyvio. I get it. Stealing the words of Runestone G 134 and Anonymous, a Florentine author of the 14th century. But perhaps I am exaggerating. After all, there are some quotes from named people in the 12th and previous centuries, and even...well, no, actually no authors of any centuries after the 14th. But lots of quotes.

Which leads me to what I believe is the misapprehension here. Copyvio is any single instance of substantial copying of a single work. Not tiny snippets from lots of works, each one of which is not a copyvio. Especially when they are hundreds of years old and therefore eligible for public domain legislation.

Another courtesy link to the pre-blanked page. Anarchangel (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voc has not responded to argument that I contend refutes his central premise, so I will elaborate up here. Every single quote in the article is from sources written before the year 1400, and thus falls under WP:PD by at least 523 years, according to US law (WP servers being in the US). Scholars have written their informed opinion about all manner of aspects of these quotes, I am sure, and they should quite rightly receive the benefits of their expertise. But those are not in the article; the scholars did not actually write the quoted material, and copyright law does not affect WP using those quotes anymore than it does the scholars using them. Anarchangel (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issue is entirely separate from the discussion here as to whether this is a viable article at all, regardless of copyright violations. Please see Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians#Copyright problems. If the copyright problems in this article are not addressed in 7 days from the blanking of the article, it will be deleted, regardless of the decision here. It's not a question of the quotes, it's the verbatim copying of the commentary on those quotes from Curta (2006), Curta (2007), and Pohl (1998) which is pervasive and foundational to the article. You are welcome to rewrite a copyvio-free article at this temporary page. Incidentally, several of those quotes from ancient authors use modern (post-1923) translations which are indeed copyright. At most, a few of them can be used under Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. But again, that is a separate issue from this deletion discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would like to draw attention to both statements, that 'copyvio is not at issue here', (not a direct quote) and that "No one here is saying that the topic "origin of the Romanians" is not a legitimate topic" (direct quote). I contend that these are perhaps grounds for a Speedy Keep. If things do not improve, they are most certainly grounds for a No Consensus close. Arguments against these primary points of both the nominator and the sole Delete voter have thusly been avoided, leaving no grounds other than waffling for the nomination, and making it impossible to gain a consensus. Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All versions of the article consist mostly of a collation of translated quotations from various historical sources. While the sources themselves are in the public domain, copyright still subsists in the translations, insofar as the translators have not been dead for 70 years, which is very unlikely because the citations are to works that appear to be of relatively recent date. This amount of quotation clearly exceeds what is permissible under fair use. The article is therefore a copyright violation and must be deleted. (If one were to just delete the quotations, the remainder would not make much sense and would be duplicative to Origin of the Romanians in scope). Sandstein 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the main copyvio problem with the article is the commentary, not the quotes themselves. Many of the quotes are from pre-1923 translations and therefore public domain, although certainly not all of them. However, virtually all of the commentary is verbatim from books in copyright. Because this copyvio is pervasive and foundational (i.e. no clean version to revert to), the article will be deleted, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, unless a clean version is written on a temp page. The AfD was brought as a separate issue, i.e. whether even a copyvio-free article like this is appropiate. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denisa Legac

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

Sex therapist of no real renown, founder of various red-linked groups. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't really see any english language coverage of her, there are a good number of hits in gnews and other archives in other languages (mainly Croatian) that look like they might constitute significant coverage of her. Playing around with google translate doesn't bring up any of them as obviously significant enough to make her pass the WP:GNG, but it'd be helpful if someone speaking croatian could take a look around for significant coverage about her Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's some significant topical coverage in Croatia, interviews in Nacional in 2004 and Slobodna Dalmacija in 2008, and Jutarnji list used her as a source in 2006, in 2010, also in 2010, etc. The article certainly needs help, but the person certainly appears to be at least as notable as the random 19yo footballer who played a pro game for the 11th club in Prva HNL. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this article needs help from someone who reads the languages that the sources are written in ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reduced the article to the verifiable part, which now also more precisely demonstrates the extent of the person's notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Although expansion potential is limited the person does seem to be marginally notable per local press. Timbouctou (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Wilson

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

Ordinary--and not particularly busy--actress. CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think she qualifies the first point in the WP:BIO entertainers section .Surely the article can do with some more links but deletion would be harsh.Ayanosh (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of 'significant' I was previously unaware of. Also, any actual biography should have more than a series of CV entries glued together in prose structure. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep All the article needs is references and AfD is not cleanup. Plus, she clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the case is anywhere near what QuasyBoy thinks it is... the problem has nothing to do with cleanup, it's a core question of notability. There are people that can play an extra in dozens of movies and that doesn't make them notable (we've had afds about serial-extras before). That said, that's not the case here, as this actress has performed in credited roles in major movies and TV. Shadowjams (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me, the cited roles meet the definition of "significant" in WP:ENTERTAINER; although she's not a household name, she's more than a day player. She has had significant roles on Broadway, television and in films. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of West Virginia Mountaineers significant football games

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

The selection criteria for this list is subjective and not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games for an analogous article that was deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Criteria in selection of games for inclusion in this list is subjective and probably violates the Wikipedia prohibition against original research per WP:OR. Furthermore, regular season college football games are not inherently notable, and must satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. In all events, a subjective "highlights" game list such as this is contrary to the established policy of WikiProject College football, whereby regular season CFB games are collected into season articles or season decade articles. While CFB bowl games and other CFB championships games are presumed to be notable, individual regular season games are not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might make a further suggestion: the closing administrator should userfy this article for any editor who requests it, so that any salvageable content may be transferred to the West Virginia Mountaineers football season articles. Most the WVU football season articles are bare stubs, consisting of only a lead, infobox and records table. We should do anything we can to promote their improvement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dirtlawyer1 is correct: totally subjective and WP:OR.--GrapedApe (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not ready to pull a trigger on this one. While certainly the content needs to be better scrutinized, I'm not so sure about the idea of the list itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really see it as original research - the material has external sources. However, the page is primarily a compilation of information from this list and this other list. As of now, the decisions as to which games were included appear to be subjective.

However, if the list had categories based on some objective standard (e.g. highest attendance, games that clinched a conference championship, most viewers on television, etc.) then it would be more appropriate. But even with that, I'm not convinced a list of "significant WVU football games" is any more appropriate as a Wikipedia article than a similar list for Nevada, or North Texas, or Appalachian State (which is to say it isn't appropriate). Therefore I recommend the article be deleted.
I think what would make more sense would be to include a "top five" list of games based on objective categories (such as the ones I mentioned above) on the West Virginia Mountaineers football page. Perhaps if desired, the two external links that are the primary sources could also be included (although the links to the home pages for those sites are already on that WVU football page). I also agree with Dirtlawyer1's suggestion about transferring info to the individual season pages for WVU football. Mdak06 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Virginia Mountaineers football per precedent cited in nomination. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Content should be WP:PRESERVEd into West Virginia Mountaineers football#History or appropriate season specific article (from list at List of West Virginia Mountaineers football seasons)—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, after looking over the list, I can say that most of these games are "significant" only to WVU, not on any kind of national or collegiate-football scale. The "significant" games are such things as: •400th game, •Final game at Old Mountaineer Field, •Bill McKenzie kicks a 38-yard field goal as time expires. These sorts of things are not notable to anyone but diehard WVU sports fans. The history of the team is already covered in excruciating detail in West Virginia Mountaineers football. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And protect from recreation. Sandstein 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric

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

Article has been tagged for CSD and deleted multiple times, and CSDs are now being immediately deleted by anon IP. Article consists solely of peacock wording based on blogs and primary sources. No notability shown. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meandering personal and corporate promotion. Salt it too. EEng (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. It'll just keep getting added. I did a search and the only source that seems to be halfway usable are a few blogs written by a Huff Post editor in various forums. Since it looks like she's the only person reporting on this company (and some of the posts read like press releases), that's not enough to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a historically important fabric company - only 5 years old and not widely covered in reliable sources. No indication of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, few if any independent reliable sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per Tokyogirl79. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The article has been copy and pasted to User:Lwilkins93/sandbox without attribution. Please consider dealing with that once the decision here is made. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some advice to the (original) author about this, at the Teahouse. Sionk (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been resolved. (Lwilkins93 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note to closer This page should not be closed. I have copied the page to my sandbox to address issues raised and have requested help from [Vibhijain], who initially wrote me back after my first request for advice. I am looking for constructive guidance and will work to create a page that complies with the guidelines of Wikipedia. Corrections have been made subsequent to discussions above on 10 July 2012 in order to address the concerns stated by the above. LWilkins93
Note to closer In response to DBigXRay's message about secondary sources and citing sources, I wrote, "Thank you! Are the sources I currently have on the Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric page not formatted correctly? My secondary sources are Seasons Magazine, St. Louis Magazine (St. Louis, Missouri), New York Social Diary (online International Reach), and The Studios at Key West (Museum, Key West, Florida). These meet the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources, are these sufficient? LWilkins93"
Note to closer In reference to the five users that have posted above, I have since their posts addressed each issue raised and made the necessary and requested additions and/or deletions. In addressing the three cited reasons for deletion, each has been addressed as follows:

1. Peacock Wording and meandering personal/ corporate promotion-eliminated.

2. Notability-According to Wikipedia, a page "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." This page references industry regional sources in Seasons Magazine and St. Louis at Home Magazine, internationally recognized online sources in The New York Social Diary, and the Museum industry in The Studios of Key West.

3. Reliable Sources-Wikipedia suggests that secondary sources be listed as "editorial control"-please see the secondary sources listed above. I have not heard back since the initial posts on 10 July 2012. Will this discussion be closed and the page be allowed?

Strong Keep Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric is important in the history of 20th century fashion in the United States. The artists working with Thatchers' Fine Timeless fabric created an entirely new genre of textile design for fashion: The Lilly Pulitzer Brand. There are over 400,000 Lilly Pulitzer fans on Facebook alone, each fan touched by the designs of Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric's artists. They are taking their iconic designs into the arena of home textiles. --Lwilkins93 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair most of the peacock terms have now been removed, and Lilly Pulitzer is notable, but notability can't be inherited. There are very few reliable independent sources that provide any coverage of Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric. Maybe the company will be important one day, but at the moment it doesn't seem to be notable. CodeTheorist (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing my changes. In regards to notability, the artists created the look that is Lilly Pulitzer. The Lilly Pulitzer brand promoted its artwork in order to gain notability. These artists are taking what made the Lilly Pulitzer brand notable-their own work: the designs-and transferring it to the home textiles under "Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric. (Lwilkins93 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Notable Sources The sources used on the Thatchers’ Fine Timeless Fabric page are much more substantial that the examples of “trivial coverage” given for the “Depth of Coverage” portion of the Wikipedia’s “Primary Criteria” for notability of businesses and companies. (Lwilkins93 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - with regret I have to agree with the other editors. There are some reliable magazine articles cited, but they are generally 'specialist' and 'local' publications, so would not meet the notability requirements for companies. In addition, the magazine sources spend far more time talking about Becky Smith, only mentioning Thatchers Fine Timeless Fabric at the very end. We need to see more than brief mentions to prove notability. In my view, an article about Becky Smith would stand far more chance of success (in addition the notability requirements for people are slightly less onerous). Sionk (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I am delighted that you agree that the cited sources are RELIABLE, I am confused as to your reasons why they do not meet WIKI's notability requriements for companies."The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." WIKI. Pursaunt to Wiki standards, the sources cited indeed meet the exact specifications as outlined above. Thatchers' inception was in, and is currently based in, Saint Louis. Articles written by reliable, secondary sources, most certainly first came from this geographical area. GO Design Go, a NEW YORK based, online secondary source was added as Thatchers' gained a hold in thIS new geographical area. NYSD, a fourth secondary source, is an INTERNATIONAL online SECONDARY source, added thereafter as Thatchers' became a presence internationally. Further, WIKI's Primary Criteria on Notability is open, it does specifically state: "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I have listed not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE secondary sources.

Further, the purpose of including Thatchers' is because the components which make up Thatchers', notably the art in the textile designs, corraborates with that which is also specifically outlined in WIKI's section on Notability: hence, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The art which is Thatchers', has, and continues to have, an important and impactful part in the United States textile design history.

Furthermore, while it is true that Becky Smith created this company, the artists ARE the company. A company aches through it's human components. The Thatchers" company, as well as all companies, are merely actions of those who act on it's behalf. The company name is merely what identifies a collaborative effort of those within the company. All articles topics are titled, or refer to the company, "Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric". In creating the page on the company, the history is revealed through the actions of those who created it.(Lwilkins93 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Bear in mind 'Go Design Go' is a website for a Design Centre, so not a reliable journalistic source. To be honest, I have my doubts about the other magazine sources because they each repeat the same meandering, confusing story about a chair, a grandmother, a French Mill, Lilly Pulitzer, without really explaining the connections with great certainty. Thatchers Fine Timeless fabric seems to be the commercial face of Becky Smith, who (inspired by her grandmother) arranges the design, production and distribution of fabric (designed by Pulitzer designers) and upholstered chairs. I think that's all that can be safely gleaned from the sources, in my opinion (I can't even see anything that says it was set up in 2007). Everything else is tangential. If the artists are employees of the company then you would need to provide proof to justify their biographies making up a third of your article. If Thatchers has had a major impact on fabric design, you will need to cite that statement to a reliable source. Sionk (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Thank you for your suggestions. Revisions have been made pursuant to your suggestions. Go Design Go is an online trade magazine, reporting within the industry, relevant news. Seasons Magazine, Saint Louis AT HOME Magazine, NYSD are all notable secondary sources within WIKI standards.For those individuals who are not within the textile industry, Brunschwig et Fils is one of the oldest most prestigious brands and being a part of that substantiates credibility and importance. I am happy to make any changes to comply with suggestions. (Lwilkins93 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and salt. No assertion of notability. Sources are tenuous at best. Trusilver 06:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Pandoran Age

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

Appears to be a self-published series with no evidence of notability. There are a number of ghits but all are social media and or involved with the title & its publication. Can't find any evidence it meets any notability guidelines. StarM 04:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is relatively new from June 27 but from this it fails WP:RS The sources given are youtube or amazon or self-published sites. None from a reliable site such as the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. --Artene50 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable series of self-published books that according to Amazon have rankings such as "#2,579,814 in Books". No reliable sources. Article has no sources and makes no attempt to establish notability. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Modern School

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

I cleaned up the page to remove unencyclopedic information. All remaining data is unreferenced and does not address notability standards Metao (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Secondary schools are generally considered notable. School obviously exists.[34][35][36][37] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified secondary schools are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe school obviously meets Wikipedia:Notability (high schools).Also i have added some links on the article given by Colapeninsula and a few more.Ayanosh (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayanosh, you just cited an essay as if it were a guideline. If you weren't aware of that, please make yourself aware by reading something before you cite it. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OlYeller21 I had read the essay ,I did not know that you can not use them in a discussion. since they "represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints".Thank you for pointing out out the mistake.But still the school meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Ayanosh (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use them in a discussion. You just have to be aware that they don't have equal status to guidelines. They're still valuable pointers to usage on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would suggest that the merge proposal at Talk:Barasat is also flawed. Experience shows that a standalone page encourages article development. TerriersFan (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Arutt

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

The subject does not appear to meet general notability requirements. Although there are a number of citations they seem to mostly be primary sources. The refs for her acting career seem to be from her hometown area newspapers of local girl does good. As far as her career as a psychologist goes all the sources appear to be primary. No doubt this person has been on television a number of times as a forensic psychologist, but there is no known secondary source for this. Perhaps merge article to here: List of former child actors from the United States Wlmg (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress meets WP:ENT for career under WP:NTEMP. We do not expect nor demand that someone who left acting must somehow remain in the news a an actress. Her television career began in 1979 and ended in 1991. Her Young Artist Awards nomination for "Best Young Actress in a Family Film Made for Television' was in 1985. Her first film was as Lauren Daly in Primal Rage in 1988. Now as a real-life forensic psychologist, she has appeared as an expert in 2009 for the TV series In Session, and again in 2012 for the series Studio B. Interestingly, now that she is not a child actor she is even getting coverage for her expertise as a forensic psychologist by such as CNN.[38] But still, and not being too concerned of the addresable issue of the article not making use of them, a little WP:BEFORE shows her childhhod acting career can easily be verified in such non-primary sources as USA Today, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Times-News , Los Angeles Times, News and Courier, Washington Post, Daily News of Los Angeles, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Montreal Gazette, and even such as Merced Sun-Star and Anchorage Daily News. [39][40] Her career has turned in a different and sourcable direction, but notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENT. CNN is a reliable source. --Artene50 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes CNN is a reliable source, but if you check the references in the article there are no less than six cites that are from CNN. I see the problem here that they all are primary sources of transcripts of Cheryl Arutt interviews. Dr.Cheryl Talking, but no one talking about Cheryl--Wlmg (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One might hope that CNN has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy even when sharing interviews... but that's the recent stuff and can be sourced directly to the projects themselves. Her earlier work as a child actress establishes WP:ENT and is verifiable away from the CNN interviews of her as an adult. Even if the article does not make use of the other sources listed above to verify her early career, it is verifiable none-the-less as having recieved some amount of attention. WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS: enough past and current coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. H. Bihari

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

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:V completely. A glance over Google books does not provide any indication that WP:NOTE could be met (just discussions about movies that he did the soundtrack for, only mentioning him in passing). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused about this nomination, as the nominator acknowledges that most of the article is verifiable on Google books. These credits are probably sufficient to pass WP:CREATIVE. Given that the subject died in 1987 and that his work was in India it's not surprising that there's little on-line information about his life. I submit that any songwriter who had composed music for at least 22 Hollywood movies would be considered notable. Pburka (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the part where I said that the few mentions are only in passing, and thus fail WP:NOTE? And do did sources causing the article to meet WP:V appear in the article before I nominated it? I found nothing about him directly, only stuff about movies, with a mention "oh, by the way, this guy did the soundtrack." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Editors are expected to search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating articles for deletion. Clearly you did so, which is good, but you still claimed that the article "fails … WP:V completely", which I found puzzling. Pburka (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:Creative. And definitely notable for writing some golden classics like "Bahut Shukriya Badi Meherbani", "Yehi Woh Jagah Hai", "Zara Haulle Haulle Challo Mere Sajna", "Kajra Mohabbat Wala", "Chain Se Hamko Kabhi Aapne Jeene Na Diya" and all the classics of Kashmir Ki Kali including "Diwana Huwa Badal". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, could you please present one source that passes WP:NOTE? All I found was passing mentions, not anything beyond trivial coverage. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his biography at a major Indian radio station: http://www.planetradiocity.com/musicopedia/music_lyricists.php?conid=1164 Also keep in mind, as I noted above, that the subject died in 1987. Given his prolific output in between 1953 and 1987 it's almost certain that significant coverage exists in off-line sources. Pburka (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if direct sources about the subject would be available online. But proving his work to be notable could be a way here. But i couldnt find that too. I dont know how i can prove that these songs, amongst maybe others, are notable. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lyricist! I am also surprised to see the nomination! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep A lyricist with a long history of contibutions to Indian cinema. We protect such if verifiable. In our understanding that pre-1990s Indian sources are not well represented on the internet, just as are not pre-1990s Indian films, we do not insist that someone whose death predates the existance of internet itself would have continued coverage online. Worth noting also, is that even after his 1987 death, his works continue to be used in film. Enough of a legacy for him to be included here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I share the confusion about the nomination, especially by someone who confesses to know a very limited amount about Hindi cinema. A correction to the original note, S. H. Bihari did not "do the soundtrack for" anything. He was a song-writer/poet, not a composer. His songs and the movies they were part of, were widely watched in India, South-East Asia and across the Middle-East. He collaborated with the major composers, singers and musicians of his generation in India and the words to his songs are remembered by millions. Purely as an example, a much stronger case could be made for the non-notability and limited reach of an artist like Jonathan Larson, whose single Broadway musical was not as widely distributed as the movies and songs of Bihari (and is arguably a derivative work). The difference in assumed notability is that Bihari wrote in a poorer country, in an era before the Internet, and in a language unfamiliar to the contributor. Indian newspapers of his generation were about a tenth the size of American papers and books had very limited runs as newsprint and pulp were prohibitively expensive in the India of his time. You will find very limited references to even more significant song-writers who died prior to the eighties. In addition, literacy rates below 50% meant culture was largely oral, and songs in movies had even more significance. You would have to go back to the 19th century, or the deep south and Appalachia to find a time and place in the US where songs were as important. Of course, you will find more sources in Google Books for those eras because competent folk-art studies have been completed and wonderful surveys were done as part of the WPA. I will try to scan a copy of his obituary which was published in the Times of India. This deletion request should not have been raised by a contributor who is unfamiliar with the area and the subject. §§SubirGrewal —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The obituary would be a great resource if you could scan it. Thank you! Pburka (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toukir Ahmed

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

Fails WP:BIO. Also COI issue. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 02:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Daruchini Dip, which appears to have notability, refs and etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have played a significant role in multiple notable films, which would mean he passes WP:ENT. Press coverage refers to him as "Renowned actor", "popular actor", "popular TV-star", etc. It is therefore reasonable to assume that high quality sources exist, although not necessary in English/available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB; it would appear that the subject of the article is at least reasonable well known and covered to the point of being notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue expansion and sourcing. I note that the article was authored in July 2009, and edited by individuals other than User:Mohd. Toukir Hamid (same guy as topic? Maybe so... maybe not.) who made two very minor and noncontroversial edits to the article in January 2012.[41][42] Even were these done by the subject of the article, those two very minor edits made three years after the article was contributed by someone else did absolutely nothing to promote Toukir Hamid. I see no issue with COI. That said, the article subject has been the recipient of coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG,[43] and his career in Bangladeshi film and television meets WP:ENT. Even if WP:UNKNOWNHERE, notable to Bangladesh is fine with en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of Filipino Americans. Contact me when the merge is done and I'll delete the page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities with large Filipino American populations

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

Article falls under WP:REDUNDANT. Additionally, there are insufficient reliable sources provided in the article to indicate that the subject of the stand alone list is notable. Another alternative is a Merge & Redirect of verified content into Demographics of Filipino Americans, however I have proposed deletion due to the lack of verified content that isn't already included in the aforementioned article or elsewhere. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Redundant with Demographics of Filipino Americans, and could be merged even if it was better sourced. Doesn't appear to be a significant enough grouping to merit a list (a list of cities in the Philippines would be notable, a list of cities with mayors called Juan isn't notable, this falls somewhere in between). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, merge the content to Demographics of Filipino Americans per Colapensinsula. The article is redundant, it is not significant enough to have its own article (do we have a List of U.S. cities with large Chinese-American populations? No), and whatever content there is is better of in the Demographics article. The title isn't even a valid search topic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept a merge as suggested. I will not be able to work on that until Tuesday. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Demographics of Filipino Americans. No indication that this list or the concept underlying this list has notability -- it's apparently a Wikipedia invention. I don't pretend to know what POV this article is pushing by asserting that a "critical mass" exists when Filipino Americans are "at least 1% of the total urban population and at least 10% of the total suburban population", but this smacks of some sort of POV-pushing. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Crisco 1492. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Markelis

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

He has not played a senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 10. Snotbot t • c » 02:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep !vote notes that the subject almost meets notability guidelines or that a case could be made, but the consensus is that such a case has not been made. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Rabinowitz

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

This article may not satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Rabinowitz has published many papers and holds many patents, but it's not clear that his impact rises to the level of notability required. I am not voting for deletion of the page at present, but would like to start a solid debate on whether it qualifies. The article appears to have been created by Rabinowitz himself, or someone closely associated with him, using several sockpuppet accounts. Srleffler (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has published numerous papers which are documented online and he exists. I think we can assume he's notable enough in his field of study and a wikipedia article on him is merited....although he does have a low profile. But one should judge a scholar by the number of quality papers which he publishes. --Artene50 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In academia, one judges a scholar by the number of papers he publishes, and where they are published. That is, however, not Wikipedia's standard. We care about how many people are reading (and citing) a scholar's papers. Notability is determined by the influence a scholar's work has on others, not on the volume of that work.--Srleffler (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete At the moment I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:SCHOLAR or WP:WRITER. A lot of papers, but none with >50 citations according to Google Scholar. One self-published book, which has got a little coverage[45] but not enough for notability requirements. Adjunct professor. Lack of discussion in 3rd-party sources, with most web hits being articles/papers by him. It can be hard to tell if someone's made a major contribution to a small field of study, which might make them meet notability requirements, and I've no specific knowledge of his field, but more proof is required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With h-index of circa 18 and top cites of 94 satisfies WP:Prof#C1 for this field of scholarship. However article is overly promotional and could do with being cut to 20% of present length. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

If you want to count citations, you have to exclude patents. The publication with 94 citations is a patent, not a scientific paper. I don't have access to a proper scientific citations database, but the Google Scholar results (excluding patents) indicate an h-number of 10, which is certainly too low to qualify as notable on that basis alone. Microsoft Academic Search, gives him an h-index of 4. --Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair comment and I change my vote. Patents probably ought to be given some weight but there is not enough here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete not notable, shotgun spray of papers and patents on the cause de jour is not notability. Greglocock (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I change my vote. Perhaps it is better to delete his article given the low number of citations this person gets in the scholarly community. --Artene50 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting case. If you consider the patents, the subject has an h-index of 17 on GS. I would argue that the subject almost meets WP:PROF criterion #7 (substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity). The problem is that he is not an academic, strictly speaking, even though his involvement with the IEEE Trans. is typical of an academic. One could also make a case for meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as many of the patent citations are from researchers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in the question of whether he has made a notable impact outside academia. This is part of why I hesitated a long time before bringing the article to AfD. He has published a lot, and it is hard to judge from the material available whether that has had any impact. I don't think it is justifiable, though, to look at an h-index that includes patents. Patents are not reliable sources (except as evidence that something was patented), nor are they peer-reviewed publications. Patents cite each other for reasons not related to a researcher/engineer/inventor having read and been influenced by the cited work. The patent lawyer's job includes citing all other relevant patents. The person applying for the patent frequently will not have read the cited works in advance.

Skimming through the list of citations to the patent with the most of them, I don't see any citations on the first ten pages of listings which are not either other patents, or articles by Rabinowitz. This is not unexpected. It's not all that common for academics to cite patents other than their own.--Srleffler (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this explanation of the citing practices of patents. However, looking at the patent with 94 cites, I find that most of the cites are from persons other than the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but every one (in the first ten pages) that is a cite from someone other than the subject is a citation from another patent. This is not evidence that Rabinowitz' work has had any influence on anyone. There is no reason to think, for example, that the other inventors whose patents cite Rabinowitz's actually read or even were aware of his work. The citations are put in by the lawyers.--Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another fair comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article shows no evidence of subject meeting WP:GNG. It doesn't matter how much one has written, only what is published about one in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge proposal/discussion can take place at the talk page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tutti and Todd (Barbie)

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

Do we really need an article for every Barbie doll? I think not. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No adequate reason to delete has been provided. Note that Barbie dolls are documented in sources such as Warman's Barbie Doll Field Guide and Collector's Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives. Warden (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Barbie's friends and family which contains most of the same information. It would perhaps make sense to turn the latter into more of a table format. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - come to think of it, merging is a way better idea now. Maybe I should've just WP:BEBOLD and merged it instead of RfA'ing this here... CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - I voted to merge/delete on the other Barbie related stubs up for nomination, but this is one I could see keeping. The first reason being that they were introduced back in the mid 1960s as part of the "vintage" Barbie line and have subsequently become highly valuable collector's items (as well as all of their associated friends/clothing/accessories), much like the vintage Barbie, Ken, Midge, etc, dolls of the same era. The second reason being that the Stacie and Todd twins which were reintroduced in the 1990s are commonly thought to be the same set of twins (with "Tutti" thought to be simply renamed to "Stacie"). Todd appears to have been used as recently as 2008 and Stacie appears to be a current doll (which means their chronology has spanned over more than 40 years), so I would suggest that the "Stacie" article could be merged with this one, and the history of Tutti & Todd/Stacie & Todd could be explained on this page with "Stacie" redirecting here. I admit this article is relatively "stubby" as of now, but I know I have at least one book specifically about vintage Skipper, Tutti and Todd dolls (not just Barbie books that mention them in passing) that I could try and dig up to work on this page and once we've added the Stacie & Todd chronology, I believe this page could have some merits to keep as its own stand-alone article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These names do seem to have a bit more history, but again, I'm not seeing here that there's substantially more information or awareness of these dolls than of others in the F&F list. Most of what's in this article is repeated in the list article, and adding what's omitted wouldn't overly expand the latter. Indeed, the list is better in one aspect: it's much clearer about the existence of two distinct Todds. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crakkerjakk, with kudos. Mabalu (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion provided by nominator. Carrite (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, especially per Crakkerjakk Theopolisme _TALK 02:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pete Collective

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

Social group that received some passing news coverage, none of it apparently in any depth. A Google News search turns up nothing current on the group; a search of the Google News archives turns up three short pieces from September 2005: six short paragraphs in v3.co.uk, six short Spanish-language paragraphs at La Flecha (filed under "Curiosidades"), and four paragraphs at the Register, which describe the group as a "pointless bit of fun". Following indications in the article, I found a seven-sentence article in the Sun, September 2007. The article indicates that there was coverage in the Guardian as well; however, a search of their website, whose archives go back at least through 2005, turned up nothing. From the small number and brevity of the articles, I'd say that the subject fails the depth-of-coverage test at WP:ORG, and fails WP:GNG generally. Ammodramus (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is literally something somebody thought up one afternoon, and insignificant coverage from reliable sources gives the subject the barest standing under GNG and exactly no standing under WP:ORG. A google search for the date range 10/1/2007 and today brings up a total of seven hits. Nothing to keep. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG, as above. Performed my own searches as well, and see nothing recent or substantial in any way to warrant an article. Theopolisme _TALK 02:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, neither meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Tresson

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains true. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both- both articles are about footballers who haven't played in a fully professional league, or represented their country at senior level, which means that they fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Per WP:NFOOTBALL - they just keep coming.... Ah, those fans... :P Theopolisme _TALK 02:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Don't know why this article was recreated. --Artene50 (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete both as LOI is not fully professional Seasider91 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As noted by most !voters, this article has possibilities and there is coverage. AFD is not clean-up, so there is no requirement to improve the article while it is at AFD. That being said, this article could really use a guiding hand to bring it up to snuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed community

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

WP:NOTE No context Meclee (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, move to wiktionary if possible Seasider91 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:TOOLITTLE, or the 7th Notability Fallacy -> no valid reason for deletion; "even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion", and this is a notable sociological concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disagree that it is notable sociological concept. Not found in many sociology dictionaries or encyclopedias. Meclee (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 69,000 Google book uses of the term argue otherwise. This term is commonly used and deserves an entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a (very) frequently used term, but it is frankly an entirely self-explanatory combination of words and doesn't require an encyclopedia entry to explain. If it did, we would need the following articles: Frequently used, entirely self-explanatory, combination of words, doesn't require and encyclopedia entry. I bet all of those have lots of googlebooks hits too. That don't mean nothin'. Famous _dog (c) 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listen up people. This subject has significant coverage here, here, and here. It has technical and historical significance covering the biological and social sciences from 1963 to the year 2008. And that's only for sources I've found in a simple Google search. This stub can be improved. And no it's not a simple dictionary entry. It's encyclopedic for its significant impact on health care and society and its wide technical coverage in academic literature. It's not a dictionary term. The subject is a strategic concept to manage and control diseases as well as handle communities. PolicarpioM (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well put. Perhaps you could expand the article with some of the sources you found? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently only a stub, but it should be possible to find reliable sources that discuss different religious sects that live in closed communities. So I think that it would be better to improve the article than to delete it. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the Google Books/Scholar results use "closed community" as a rather vague descriptive term for a specific community, but I can't find any sources discussing the concept of a closed community. And I'm surprised, because it seems like it should be a notable sociological concept, but in the absence of sources, I have to !vote delete. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good definitions in academic literature are rare. I've written a number of articles on sociology, and in only few cases I was able to cite a proper definition, more often than note, we have to cobble it from how it is used and briefly described in various works. This is most likely no exception, other than it hasn't really been expanded much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wiktionary if people feel strongly about keeping the information somewhere. If there was enough content here to merit an encyclopedic entry, I'd be all for keeping, but as the article is written now I believe it would fit better in a dictionary. Velinath (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a stub is no criteria for deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with WP:PRESERVE, regardless of how the article is written now, unless someone actually believes there aren't any reliable sources out there which could be used to expand this article, the 'dictionary definition' arguments don't apply much. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse me. WP:DICTIONARY specifically states the major differences between an encyclopedia and dictionary. For Wiktionary, "articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." For Wikipedia, "articles are about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." The delete and move suggestion to Wiktionary certainly runs counter to Wikipedia policy. Also, not being able to find discussions of a concept is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Multiple sources describing the concept are available. I want to expand this stub at a later date. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Solid definitions exist in the anthropology of peasant life ("closed corporate peasant community" being a key term of reference in the literature, as originated here: Wolf, Eric R. (1957-04-01). "Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 13 (1): 1–18. ISSN 0038-4801. JSTOR 3629154.) and seemingly in sociology as well (see this article claiming in its abstract: "To address this issue, I develop the closed community thesis and argue that the theological and value orientation of white Conservative Protestant congregations undermines the creation of bridging group ties."). Wolf does specify a definition: "That is to say, in both areas they [these rural communities] are corporate organizations, maintaining a perpetuity of rights and membership; and they are closed corporations, because they limit these privileges to insiders, and discourage close participation of members in the social relations of the larger society."--Carwil (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this diamond in the rough has possibilities. Can someone incubate or saddbox this one? 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wilson (filmmaker)

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

Non-notable actor lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fails WP:BIO. Of the references included most are just listings, others are dead links or appear to be a PR notification, and others are interviews (primary reference). References to awards do not mention subject won an award or the awards are not major in nature. I do not see non-trivial coverage. Primarily a promotional piece. reddogsix (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

links to awards HTML have been change by both sites due to changes by content holder. Information on awards still exist on sites and will be relinked. Subject is not promotion however the precedence for inclusion happened from the success of the film paparazzi eye I'n the dark which had tremendous impact On the genre of African cinema Due to his part I'n it. Name was changed to tim Wilson film maker . It should still read black magic tim cinematographer as this is the name he is known by and specialty he has been most noted forDustyairs (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also note his evolvement I'n nollywood set historical precedences. Please google black magic tim nollywood.Dustyairs (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see African post news paper cites recently posted. 2 separate nationally printed newspapers covering tim wilsons involvement I'n paparazzi, awards won and impact of film I'n nollywood174.255.16.48 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources are tangential, promotional or otherwise unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to call the sources promotional and unreliable is very insensitive to African media. The very fact is has any movement into American media is due largely to the success of the film paparazzi and the involvement of Tim Wilson, Who raised the standards of an entire genre to be a viable quality to even be placed In limited release In USA and Africa. Especially the silverbird theater In Ghana which only plays USA films . This cross over is due largely to him and is very notable. To exclude him from wiki is to exclude the film "Paparazzi eye in the dark", and to exclude the category of nollywood "the cinema of Africa" category as a whole. Why have a category where you cant even add major news covered by several sources and the key people involved. Can you name any African A list Actors or the top Nollywood films? If the answer is no, this is the main reason why this info is crucial. What film salutes the efforts of the cinematographer and editor over the director? Also the nominator of the deletion merged the title from Black Magic tim (cinematographer) to Tim Wilson (filmmaker) thus reducing his pertinent involvement. and several cites were also deleted, Instead of eliminating crucial historical information moderators should be finding ways to include and better the articles not eliminate.

The African Post links alone are a nationally printed newspaper available In newsstands across the USA. He has 3 articles In 3 separate editions. This alone should validate his notability and should not be considered trivial, promotional or not unreliable. African Movie Academy Award is equivalent to the academy awards In Africa an is the highest award ceremony In African film making. An article in the AMA awards should not be considered lightly and list the film as a "classic Nollywood movie". He is listed in the Who's WHo in the nollywood database. The links below are not considered trivial in the African community.

http://www.modernghana.com/music/16802/3/paparazi-movie-premiers-tomorrow-at-silver-bird.html Modern Ghana mentions Tim Wilson As "cinematography and editing by American filmmaker Black Magic Tim"

http://www.shadowandact.com/?p=42980 USA Article

http://issuu.com/afrikanpost/docs/september_2011_part_3. Both Front Page and page 31

http://www.modernghana.com/music/16747/3/nollywood-film-with-american-appeal-makes-historic.html

http://filmclique.com/2011/is-paparazzi-eye-in-the-dark-a-nollywood-game-changer/

http://www.modernghana.com/music/16746/3/van-vicker-and-tchidi-chikere-to-appear-at-the-sil.html

http://www.ghanalinx.com/2011/12/08/paparazzi-eye-in-the-dark-movie-premiere-in-ghana-dec-9th-2011/

http://beeafrican.com/pt/Van-Vicker--Paparazzi--EYE-IN-THE-DARK-Movie-Review/blog.htm

http://www.ama-awards.com/news/coming-america-going-nollywood Dustyairs (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above links are not considered trivial in the African community, but they are in the Wikipedia community. reddogsix (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links above Should not considered trivial in the african community or wikipedia community. I have presented references that meet wikipedia standards. Another page that you nominated for deletion was just accepted using some of the same references View AfD "JJ Bunny". How can they be trivial to one article and not other? And how can a National Printed newspaper like the African Post be considered trivial? Dustyairs (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, please refer to WP:BIAS We need more diverse viewpoints on topic before haphazardly arriving at a conclusion based on demographic sensitivity Dustyairs (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cite is an opinion that may or may not represent the widespread norm. Rather than talk about bias, how about providing adequate references that meet Wikipedia standards? reddogsix (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see very simular case that just got accept using same cites in the same genre View AfD the deletion of JJ Bunny was overturned Dustyairs (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Black Magic Tim has a Headline exclusive on him in Golden Icons (Deemed Creditable by Wiki Standards) and is notable impact on Nollywood http://www.goldenicons.com/2012/07/12/black-magic-tim-nollywood/ Dustyairs (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boeing RC-135. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rivet Amber crash

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

Non-notable military accident. Nothing in the article shows any signs of notability, fatal military accidents are far more common than similar civil aircraft and this didnt kill anybody notable or hit anything notable. Contested PROD. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH for military accidents. Nobody notable on board....William 21:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nineteen deaths and no trace of the aircraft was ever found. This strikes me as notable enough. WP:AIRCRASH is of course no more than an essay with which many of us do not agree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect and Merge details to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1960-1974); there is a stub for this incident there already which links to this page. While I'm not sure this deserves its own article, it does deserve more than the one-liner on the list at the moment. Also Comment: a strict interpretation of WP:AIRCRASH would suggest that Flight 19 is also not notable, which I would argue is ridiculous.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because Flight 19 meets the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Rivet Amber and make the article about the aircraft itself - a unique subtype - which includes the crash as part of the article, not just about the crash itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information on the aircraft and its crash already exists in the main RC-135 article. I'd also be ok with a redirect to the main RC-135 article. Intothat darkness 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to parkour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stress flip

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

Contested PROD. Not notable, no reliable source, WP:NOTESSAY. KTC (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in transwiki-ing this to Wiktionary since I can't find any reliable sources, which is the problem. I think this is a case of WP:MADEUP. An interesting move but there seems to be no consensus on what, if anything, it's called; my limited knowledge of parkour shows no cognate. Perhaps Urban Dictionary would be the best home for this. Ubelowme (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't madeup but I think this should be moved to the main parkour page under moves then redirect to parkour.Seasider91 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is for sure not made up. We have been doing this in the West Coast for a while but in B-boying not parkour. I've seen a few people in tricking mess around with it but it looks like its just starting to move around a bit more. We call it a Striz-bee. After reading it here I can see where the name came from and that we're mixing the names together. It’s nice to know the difference between the two. The guy that made it up was part of a crew that was on top here in the states for years and that crew is credited for a lot of innovation in the B-boy scene. If it’s moved maybe it should be placed in a list of B-boy moves. I don’t think you can even find this type of flip anywhere, which is special. How often do you come across something thats new? Rodimuskhz (talk) 2:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a link to a list of free-running/tricking moves that include the Stress Flip-List of Moves UK 16:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.193.22 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Could merge, redirect, or similar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lingwood

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

Does not meet basic WP:N requirements, known only for fairly low-key MTV tv series, no notable awards, no significant news coverage as an individual. — raeky t 03:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 3. Snotbot t • c » 02:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking dpeth of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author of New York Times #1 bestselling book and co-creator of well-known MTV series. The book alone should do it, no?BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a book with four authors, none of whom had any obvious previous (or later) writing experience and the book spun out of a previous project. This is exactly the kind of situation where there might professional ghost writers and / or an extensive editorial input might have been used. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Is not, in fact, even the author of a book. Qworty (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Although being the author (or co-author) of a book is not in itself notable, there are still plenty of reliable sources that support the book and the series. His appearance on Rachel Ray and Oprah should be included in the article as these are pretty good sources. He is also mentioned as a co-producer on numerous other projects on IMDb.--SimonKnowsAll (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to VoltDB. T. Canens (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H-Store

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY. I have searched for better sources with Google and found nothing useful. It's possible this may become notable in the future, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: H-Store is quickly becoming the strongest reference for new database architectures. I don't think it's too soon to include an entry of this project on Wikipedia, since it has started in 2007, and will definitely be a relevant for future databases. I strongly recommend its entry on Wikipedia.eribeiro76 —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — eribeiro76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: H-Store has been one of the most influential transaction prossecing system designs of the recent years. Many products (eg. voltdb) as well as academic research projects (eg. HyPer) are based on it. It definitely deserves an entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.211.229 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — 76.126.211.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I just rewrote this article to use less language from their website and add more meaningful citations (I am not affiliated with this project). This system is significant because it represents the beginning of a new wave of database systems, much like how MongoDB and those types of systems are part of the NoSQL wave. This is not a product like DBeaver. If you don't know the history of previous academic systems from this group, like C-Store, then you shouldn't be commenting.--UMD-Database (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)— UMD-Database (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

At AfD, we're usually trying to decide WP:Notability. Newcomers are often surprised that we use the term differently than they expect. Here on Wikipedia, it's not enough that a subject seems notable. Other people not connected to the subject have to have actually taken note and they have to have done it in WP:Reliable sources. Generally speaking, it takes two good sources, e.g., two journal or magazine articles actually about the subject. This is why even though you may be absolutely correct that H-Store is "the beginning of a new wave", it's what we call an argument to avoid, meaning that even though you could be right, it's still not a very strong argument here because it doesn't address the key question, are there sources to establish notability. If we can't establish notability, we usually either delete the article or merge the content somewhere else. I hope this is helpful. Msnicki (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This feels similar to the DBeaver page nominated for deletion yesterday in that there is not enough signifiance to it. At the moment I would argue that this would fail WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velinath (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Velinath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Agreed with User:UMD-Database (not affiliated, but familiar with the work and authors). H-Store is heavily cited in the literature of the "new wave of database systems" and its design is the inspiration for the well-known VoltDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbne (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)— Pdbne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: H-Store is heavily cited in the literature (>50 cites) and is part of many lectures. We use H-Store as one main part in our Lecture New Database Models at the University of Innsbruck. --Woolf44— Woolf44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: By head count, this discussion should at this point be called a "keep" outcome. However, aside from the nominator, the six accounts and ips discussing this software product have amongst them a total of 37 edits, including the nine edits of the page creator. To my reading, the above assertions are pretty much a list of arguments to avoid in such discussions. I'm thinking we need eyes more experienced in policy and guidelines to broaden this discussion. BusterD (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge Could merge with VoltDB, which is based on H-Store. There's a bit of coverage outside academic sources[46][47][48], enough that I'd favour merge rather than delete, but it's not very in-depth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Buster and would add that many of the references are hosted on a Brown website (one of the universities involved in development) and only a few are what we would consider outside sources. The article's well put together; but those who want to keep should be looking for outside sources that discuss the project. The ZDNET article is a start, but that article alone's not enough (it's more of a blog entry really). If the verdict is to delete I would suggest userfying it to the creator's page, letting them reintroduce it later if there's more widespread coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard for non-experts to judge the significance of this DBMS, but I think that there are just about enough citations, papers and other references (such as the ZDNET article) that we should err on the side of caution and keep the article. There are some mentions of H-Store by people working at universities other than Brown, so not all the sources are primary. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ZDNET article isn't very substantial, and most of the others seem to be from people associated directly with the project. Do you have any examples of external sources? Shadowjams (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"H-store: a high-performance, distributed main memory transaction processing system" seems to have roughly 60 citations in Google scholar, many of which are from researchers at other universities ( citations ). CodeTheorist (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's more than that. You are citing the second publication. The original H-Store paper has almost 200 citations. UMD-Database (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to VoltDB: we have an independent source to prove the relation and some academic sources, which are assumed to pass editorial control and/or peer review. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of Stonebraker's other systems have their own articles: Ingres, Postgres, C-Store, Mariposa. The newest two are H-Store and SciDB. I also note that C-Store and Vertica are separate articles as well. --LeonWrinkles (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)— LeonWrinkles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I vote against merging. Hstore and voltdb are separate projects with very different goals. Hstore is purely a research project (but as others have pointed out, it is cited a lot), while voltdb is a commercial product. The web sites show that they are developed by different people and have different code. Somebody should also make a separate article for the other hstore Frugalmoogle (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)— Frugalmoogle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. As noted by BusterD in his relisting comment, we seem to be overrun with SPAs, all but one !voting keep. This basically never happens unless someone is WP:CANVASSING. Eight of the 12 13 the editors !voting have only a miniscule number of edits outside this AfD. The 4 5 remaining !votes (me, Colapeninsula, Shadowjams, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff and CodeTheorist) are delete, merge, comment only, merge and keep. Msnicki (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you missed me. I have no connection whatsoever with H-Store and !voted keep. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you did, you're not an SPA and I miscounted. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I am not being counted. Some of us have day jobs and don't edit stuff a lot. This thing is interesting to me because we studied it in class. UMD-Database (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal. The concern is that you only have 9 edits and 5 of them were either here in this AfD or in the article itself. That's an unusual pattern unless someone has been canvassed -- especially when there are several of you. As explained at WP:SPA, "experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here ... for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. ... New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards." Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to VoltDB with redirect, H-Store was/is the research behind the notable, commercial VoltDB Zad68 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nom, obviously I was asking for delete. As above, I think this could become notable, just not yet. But I could definitely support a consensus to merge. That would be very appropriate. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to VoltDB, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep": AFAIK, H-Store is open source, VoltDB is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfermigier (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Riposte (Québec)

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

Delete as virtually identical article at La Riposte (Quebec) was deleted in May. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Quebec). No independent verification of notability, most sources are linked to sources related to the organization (the "In Defence of Marxism" website is run by La Riposte's parent, the International Marxist Tendency; Fightback is La Riposte's sister organization in English Canada, and TMI is the organization itself). Of the two other sources one,a Daily Telegraph obituary of Ted Grant makes no reference whatsoever to La Riposte or Quebec; the second, an attack article from the International Communist League fails Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. Overall, this article fails the notability standards and other tests set out in WP:ORG, WP:NGO and WP:N. Downwoody (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I commented on the last AfD that it's not notable, and nothing has changed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree; on a brief search I found nothing to make me disagree with the opinions above. This may need salt. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The statements in the article are verified by reliable sources. As far as notability is concerned, the term is used more often to refer to La Riposte (France), with fewer searches yielding the paper in Quebec. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised, because I think I've seen this publication in town. Yet I can find no bona fide French-language WP:RS, not one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation once she passes the GNG — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Sharp

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

An actor. Entire resume is a TV documentary. She has an upcoming role as a maid in Downton Abbey that isn't to be shown until late this year. Only references I can find on her is short blurbs announcing her Downton role. Bgwhite (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable yet (WP:NACTOR), when she is famous we can recreate the page. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a few sources but nothing that I was certain was exercising editorial control and, more importantly, nothing that talked about her abilities as an actor -- merely that she had been cast in this high-profile role on Downton Abbey. I'm fairly sure she will be notable in a short time, although it's not clear how important the role will be to the production, but in the meantime the article doesn't quite meet Wikipedia's standards. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None who have commented have opined in favor of keeping this article, and multiple relists are discouraged. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Access Business Communications

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

Non-notable Business, fails WP:CORP JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be more fruitful to seek media coverage of the firm's trading name "abica": 2009 Scotsman article (though that is not sufficient for notability in itself). AllyD (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 3rd party coverage that has been found (2009 Scotsman article on BT fibre deal and Herald article on local customer services award) are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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