Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 30

Template:Recent Afds

< 29 July	31 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Profane

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

Non-notable musician/person. I looked and looked, but all I find is a blog, Youtube and Facebook references. If view counts on Youtube make someone notable, then he is notable. :- ) Don 05:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

Delete - I passed this through AfC last night, but looking back I can't think why I did. I certainly would have expected to have tagged it at least as {{blp refimprove}} and {{wikify}}. Anyway, no notability supported by reliable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just edited the article, added a few reliable sources. What sources do you need on verify citation [12]? -> All the releases are from "No Parade" , you can also find these releases on Amazon, Spotify, Beatport with the name of the label/company! Co-writes and productions, credits & releases -> What do you need here, these are a bunch of people within the music business he worked with/for. Should the form be edited?! --M-Preacher (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe all this stuff has be released, that is easy the easy part to prove. The hard part to prove is: Does someone who is reliable and respected care enough to write something about nim? -- :- ) Don 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I checked the added references and they seem to check out, however the problem now is that I believe he was the writer and/or producer. Hitting a national charts does not seem to apply according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for composers and lyricists. If I am reading things correctly. -- :- ) Don 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No opinion about notability, but the green links need to be removed from the lead if this is kept. Hell, I'll just save my breath and do it now. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He did hit several national charts: Holland + Belgium + Germany + iTunes Charts | another example: Jesus On Extasy - Stay with me | written with Michelle Leonard was #1 German Charts also licensed under the major label Sony BMG Music Entertainment Confirmation Chart Entry This does satisfy more criterions/notabilities of [for musicians and ensembles]--M-Preacher (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you check the log, I took out over 1kB of links going everywhere in the world. -- :- ) Don 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -So what is the current status? Did someone check the page/article now, there is enough said to satisfy the criterions/notablilities..

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. -> Added
This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. -> more other independent sources added (see above)
This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. -> added and listed more reliable sources

--M-Preacher (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per cite 1 & 2 put together, as a song writer per WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Notable composition according to WP:NSONG: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, or ...." The song written made the German charts, so I believe he meets the notability requirement as a composer. I don't see any thing else significant. As of this time, I do not believe notability for YouTube work has ben established. Take your trout home and fry him up for dinner, Ritchie333 -- :- ) Don 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover 2 cover (Morse, Portnoy and George album)

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

Non-notable album — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 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, Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 13 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deyermond Field

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

Non-notable stadium — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What makes the field notable is how it was built -- on an improperly sealed landfill site that the town now has to re-seal at considerable expense. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has received little significant coverage outside of the local newspaper. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Millions of these sorts of fields exist all over the world. This one has nothing particularly noteworthy about it. The story about the landfill is a local news curiosity but thats all. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find nothing in any notability criteria, Eastmain's assertion notwithstanding, giving a presumptive pass for ball fields built on landfills, and await Eastmain's linking to the same. Failing that, this certainly fall short of the GNG. Ravenswing 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, is someone actually defending the encyclopedic significance of a Little League baseball field? Fails WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT----to the extent it has achieved a certain local notoriety in eastern Massachusetts, it is solely a result of the environmental issues. Please review WP:ONEEVENT and consider the policy principles embodies there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1. AutomaticStrikeout 22:19, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mia and me List of Episodes

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

List of episodes fora non-notable show — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 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, Jenks24 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. Non-notable, and the show itself is also. The list seems pretty messed up. TBran dl ey 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the nominator pretty much said all that needs to be said. Zaldax (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re notability of the show: It seems it has won an award at an international film festival [1]. 78.73.90.148 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is, it is worse than a stub of stubs, direly in wait for an editor to add more data. But it does refer to some popular films, which do not have any other entry yet. --202.43.9.110 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Theodore and Friends. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Rivers (song)

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

No notablity established and unlikely there ever will be. The second reference given is extremely tenuous. The band themselves are notable, but song stubs like this are completely pointless. There is no information to be found here. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would probably be best served by being merged and redirected with Theodore and Friends. That article is a little light on sources but I'm finding some as I search that suggests that the album itself is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 30 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, Jenks24 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 13 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of AMC legacy midsize and large cars

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

This list is entirely composed of original research about how individual cars from defunct U.S. automaker American Motors influenced specific cars later made by other manufacturers. szyslak (t) 03:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and while there may well be sources which back up the facts in this article, notabilty isn't just about notable facts; it's about the notability of the list as a whole, and I doubt that an arbitrary grouping of cars from a defunct car company qualifies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely a duplicate of info at American_Motors#AMC_passenger_cars, which has the advantage of separating mid-size and full-size. It might be nice to have a big table of AMC cars with info on each model, but I don't see any utility in having a separate page combining midsize and large without compacts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 30 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 CSD G11. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerton Healthcare Group

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

Newly created promotional article on non-notable healthcare provider. The only reference that mentions the entity by name is an interview with a founder. The founders were nominated for an award, but it's not clear that it's a notable award or that it wasn't a self-nomination. Certainly the current nomination form makes it look like you can nominate yourself. Article was de-PRODd by SPA creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerton Healthcare Group was nominated for the The Spirit of Enterprise Award by a patient. SOE, though a local award, is a well regarded entrepreneurial weather-vane that forecasts upstarts and enterprising local brands at the cusp of global notability. Past winners like Globamatrix Pte Ltd (for their V-KOOL brand) have gone on to be leading brands in their categories, and even acquired by Solutia which is featured in Wiki. SOE promotes and advances entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore by honouring local entrepreneurs operating small and medium-sized businesses. and has a Board of Governors consisting of established political leaders and entrepreneurs. (ie. Mr Inderjit Singh, a Member of Parliament and CEO of Infiniti Solutions Pte Ltd) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhgit (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Fhgit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The only problem is that although the award might be notable to the local community, it doesn't guarantee that the award is notable to Wikipedia. The vast amounts of awards out there are not notable. You might be able to mention them on articles, but they'd only ever be a trivial mention and not one that shows notability. I run across this problem quite a bit in various articles. The only way to show that the award is notable is to show this via multiple independent and reliable sources that comment on the award and not just in the context of Fullerton. In other words, you can't rely on this award to keep the article because less than 2% of the awards out there (and this is all awards, not just ones given to businesses) show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced, blatant db-promo by an obvious SPA. Extra points for possibly the most strained piece of notability evidence ever, to wit was nominated for the The Spirit of Enterprise Award by a patient. Wow. I was nominated for Professor of the Year by a student -- can I be in WP too? EEng (talk) 04:21, 30 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjan Sinha

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for businessmen, or the GNG. No independent sources available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 30 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) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator: Notability is not demonstrated, and the only two non-affiliated source refer to one statement about the company which has dropped out of the rankings.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Kirkland

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

Child actress who has not been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article just escaped BLPPROD because her name is mentioned in this US Weekly short article but that's just incidental coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-DubIII (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 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} 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. Article bears a striking and too-close similarity to the IMDB bio apparently written by her father.[2] She has only recently won her first film role, in a production curently filming. Career fails WP:ENT. Coverage fails W:GNG. And what coverage she does have is for one thing... making this a WP:BLP1E. While it is possible she might merit an article after her second or thrid project, for now an article is simply premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [[WP:NYA|TOO SOON]. If she becomes successful in the future, an article can be re-created. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Zaldax (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cute kid, but not notable yet. Ng.j (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Genres

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

A literary magazine and website that has questionable notability. After doing the usual searches, I was unable to find any sources that were not first party. I can find nothing talking about the publication in any meaningful way that would indicate notability. The PROD was declined by page creator with the argument that the length of time the publication has existed, as well as some notable contributors, were both an indication of notability. However, I disagree as neither facts alone is enough to pass the GNG without reliable sources, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The James Tiptree Literary Award Council recognized a story published by the literary magazine in question as an honorable mention in its 2010 award year. They have been mentioned on wired.com. Multiple articles from the Science In My Fiction blog edited by Crossed Genres have gone on to be featured as articles at io9.com. Artwork from the Crossed Genres Magazine has been shortlisted for the British Science Fiction Association Award. Two stories from the magazine were selected as "Million Writers Award Notable Storys" by storySouth. Bcseda (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 30 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) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regrettably, I don't see sufficient evidence of notability. Having a story nominated for a prize doesn't really add notability in the Wikipedia sense, because even if it's a major award, that only goes to the notability of the story and author. We need information about the magazine, its founding, history, editorship, ownership, staff, significant incidents/controversies, what famous writers have said about it, etc, to write an article on it. Published reviews of individual issues would also be very useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 6 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunn Leyna

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

Article has no reliable source citations and seems to have little reason to exists on its own. MrX 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 30 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) 01:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasmaDragon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Florence Littauer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Plus

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

Unknown book by non notable author, it's not even original research, and it seems it has no mainstream press coverage or citation from academic psychologists OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a book and a psychological theory have relevance. This book is used by many sales forces for training their salespeople. Cisco Systems is one of them. It also covers many other things people need to know about people.

The previous commenter seems to have a grudge to bear, calling a book and it's author names, "unknown book by non notable author" does not constitute a legitimate criticism. I found the book useful, why is the critic so harsh without citing any useful facts for his argument for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.52.59 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone or something "non notable" is not a harsh criticism within WP. Notability is necessary for inclusion. Being a useful book does not suffice that. I have no doubt that psychological theories have relevance, but writing training material based on a psychological theory, no matter which, doesn't make a book notable. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Littauer (the author) has three bestselling books in this series, that still rank well on Amazon.com 20 years after first being published. This is not "un-notable". She has also been a speaker for over 25 years. She is not unknown, nor is her work unknown. A simple google search will pull up many references to her work. Many fortune 500 companies and many churches recommend or require reading her books. The more you criticize her, the more I have to do research, and the more that research shows how valuable she has been for over 25 years.

What is the real issue here? It certainly isn't the work's value. 75.128.52.59 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that her work might be valuable for some people, I just don't think it's notable according to Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals. Working for 25 years might be notable on a personal level, working for Fortune 500 companies might be interesting on a personal level, but I don't think that's of encyclopedic value. BTW, are you connected to the author? You both seem to be based on California.OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: the comments on the talk page of this article should also be taken into consideration for deleting it. I'm still of the opinion it has to be deleted long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 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} 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First things first, that article is a mess. The entire thing was written to where it honestly came across as a promotional page for the book. Much of the article was more written in the tone of someone's personal opinion of the book and how it pertains to other systems, which made it read like original research. I removed a good deal of that. If I can find things to back up the viewpoints I'll re-add it, but I want to discourage adding it back as it was because it wasn't encyclopedically or neutrally written. I'm going to try to find sources and I do think that this could be notable, but I want to stress that just because a book is useful or its author might be notable doesn't automatically guarantee that the book is notable. Being heavily used or having a well-known author merely means that it is more likely that sources exist. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article. We have to show independent and reliable sources to show that the book is notable. The only downfall with the book is that since it was written back in 1995 there might not be as many sources on the internet as there would be for a self-help book that was written recently. But again, being a notable speaker or author does not extend notability to the book. Most authors aren't so notable that all of their works are considered notable by extension. To get to that level you have to be along the lines of Shakespeare, Sigmund Freud, and the like. Littaeur is popular and I have heard of her, but I can safely say she doesn't fit within those guidelines. I would also like to request that our IP guest refrain from insinuating that this AfD nomination means that the nominator has a grudge against the book or just wants to delete stuff. That won't accomplish anything and the nominator has a valid point. The article was unsourced and currently doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Whether I'll be able to find enough stuff to show it does has yet to be seen, but currently there was enough reason to suggest it for AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florence Littauer. Here's the thing: I can see where the book is popular but unfortunately that popularity didn't translate into a ton of reliable sources that would show notability for the book. Most of the sources are merchant sites, primary sources (stuff by the publisher, Littauer, or someone associated with her), and non-usable blog or forum mentions of the book. However I can see where Littauer herself would probably be notable enough to merit an entry. What I propose is that the book's title be used to redirect to an article about the author, which I'll try to work on and create. If I can find enough about the author via RS to show that she's notable then I'll add it to the mainspace and this book can be redirected to the author's page. If by some chance I can't, this will just have to be deleted due to a lack of sources. I've found only two sources that are usable, the rest being more about the author or just being a routine listing of one of her seminars or appearances.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've created an article for Littauer. There's more than enough to show notability for her, but everything that I've found for her book has it as more of a brief mention while they focus predominantly on her and her history. I've merged pertinent data into the article and showed that it is one of the things she's best known for, but I don't see where the book itself needs an article. Everything is merged, so the only thing left here is to redirect. Before I boldly redirect, I want to verify that this would be a good option for everyone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recently created page about Littauer seems to me as a further reason to delete the article about the book. It there's something to be say about the latter, it can be said in the former. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The page about the book itself can be deleted, with the title used as a redirect to her article since redirects are cheap and everything in the current article that's worth saying about the book has already been put in the article about the author. The redirect would help keep the book's article from being re-written because it'd redirect to the author's page for anyone that's searching for it. I think I'm going to go ahead at this point and just redirect the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:18, 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 no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmbank

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

Hard to guess from the essay presented as an article, but the Filmbank is a sub-section of the Dutch organization EYE, http://www.eyefilm.nl/, a filmmuseum in Amsterdam. From what I can gather, the Filmbank is a kind of repository of films viewable on the internet; there's an online shop as well. Searching for "Filmbank" is hard since there's a number of organizations with that name but I can find no evidence that this particular one received any coverage. In addition to the essay-like quality of the article (an essay on experimental film), it seems to serve as a repository for links related to experimental film and movie houses in Dutchland. Not a notable club. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:29, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep This is an odd one, as it is effectively an article on the entire history of Experimental film in the Netherlands but has been given the over-specific title relating to one initiative. I would agree with Drmies that there is no evidence that Filmbank itself merits an article here, however if we look on the actual article content, it is an asset of value for Wikipedia. So I would propose the article be kept but renamed to a title such as "Experimental film in the Netherlands". Were it not at AfD, I'd be bold and make that change, but I'm aware that retitling during process causes problems for the closing admin tools, so I've instead noted that suggestion on the article and talk page. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 30 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) 01:56, 6 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 Paula Modersohn-Becker. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Becker House

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Paula Modersohn-Becker may be notable, the fact she lived here doesn't make this house notable on its own, and there is nothing else to suggest this building is notable. Also the single source provided is about a street being named after Becker and only mentions the house as a possible location for a commemorative plaque Jac16888 ^Talk 15:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The house is opened as a private museum for the public. I think this is important enough. If I find more sources, I'll expand the article. --House1630 (talk) 17:31, 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, Courcelles 04:22, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paula Modersohn-Becker. If it's a museum devoted to her, it certainly deserves some coverage there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting any more of your time and that of your fellow editors, please read WP:ATA before commenting further. EEng (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a new museum. The article is easily long enough to stand on its own, & can then be sorted into Museum categories etc. The German WP is pretty strict, and has had much the same article since 2007. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting any more of your time and that of your fellow editors, please read WP:ATA before commenting further. EEng (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge There are no more than three sentences in the article that belong in the encyclopedia under any heading -- and they belong in the P M-B article. EEng (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge while I don't think this discussion is wasting anyone's time, I agree that a merge to Paula Modersohn-Becker makes sense. It's possible the museum will become notable and can be spun out at that point StarM 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zweihänder (game)

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

Unremarkable not-yet-published game. No claims or indications of notability, no reliable sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Previously G11 speedied at ZWEIHÄNDER. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't have a whole lot of coverage - I'm struggling to find any reliable sources. Maybe worth recreating once the game comes out, if it gets some coverage at that point.CaSJer (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, I couldn't find any suitable independent sources for this game. It all seems to be self-promotional in nature. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am likewise unable to find much in the way of reliable sources on this yet-to-be-released game. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice for recreation if and when it ever become notable. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 6 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wafi Sattar

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

Person definitely appears non-notable (BLP PROD was removed after references to IMDb, an unreliable source, were added. Per policy I can place the BLP PROD tag it back, but this will get rid of the article quicker anyways). Searching on Google Books and News for "Wafi Sattar" turned up nothing, and although a Google News archives search turned up articles, they did not appear to establish notability. Repeating the same searches in Bengali using the name given in the article (search term "ওয়াফি আযিয সাওার") yielded absolutely nothing. With no reliable sources to establish notability, Mr. Sattar clearly fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for people. CtP (t • c) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Name is found majorly in non-rs.[3][4] The 2 minor G-news hits from 2007 are not enough to meet WP:GNG and the article contains unverifiable information, making it a failed WP:BLP. The article is at best, Way TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion of how the article can be improved can and should be discussed on its talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High throughput satellite

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

I do not believe the concept has sufficient long-term notability to justify an article - it is just an industry buzzword which will probably be forgotten as satellite capacities continue to rise.

The article could be merged - and indeed I have already proposed this, but having re-read the article it seems to have OR problems, and be somewhat lacking in third-party content and references, so there isn't much that could actually be merged, and the author's WP:OWN issues would complicate the merger process, so deletion may be a better option. W. D. Graham 06:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I - in line with countless sources on the Internet(e.g. this) - believe HTS - which by the way are not a concept but reality with about a dozen satellites in orbit - will have sufficient long-term notability. It is not a buzzword and despite WDGraham still hasn't understood it, HTS is not about capacity only, but about the range of applications which in contrast to traditional satellites are focussed on point-to-point services (broadband access for consumers) rather than broadcasting. WDGraham's proposal to merge this article with Fixed Service Satellite is as if someone proposed to merge the article about TV with that about cinemas. Also I consider it appropriate to categorize all HTS and therefore have already created a corresponing category which should also have a main article, which is another reason why this separate article about HTS is justified. --Cvdr (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WDGraham's argument of my alleged ownership of the article and the resulting need to delete it is far from reaasonable. If all articles that have been started by a single author would be deleted just because nobody else has contributed to it for two three days, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to develop. AlsoWDGraham did not make any good attempt to communicate with me, obviously hasn't read the article or at least hasn't understood it and out of his limited understanding litter it up with senseless "citation required" tags. --Cvdr (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be deleted because you are the only author. I considered it to be a borderline case between merger and deletion, and my initial inclination was to cleanup and merge. Your abject refusal to cite disputed statements (and claiming that I was "vandalising" the article by requesting citations) led me to decide that it was not worth my effort since you were being protective of your work, which is why I suggested that deletion would be better than a merger. I did attempt discussion, you ignored it. This is not a case of misunderstanding, or not reading the article: no matter how well an article is written, all statements must be sourced. If you do find sources, then it might be possible to merge this into FSS or another appropriate article, or keep it if notability can be demonstrated. I still don't think this is notable enough to warrant an article, and we can always recreate it in a few years if I am wrong. --W. D. Graham 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains far more citations than most other articles. I've explained to you that High Throughput Satellites are definied by a couple of criteria which are all listed in the article, so anybody can simply check that the listed satellites match these criteria by a click on the link to the corresponding article. In such evident cases it is not necessary to provide citations. Also you required citations for satellites like the ViaSat-1 being a HTS although the text above mentions it as such including a citation. If you start correcting articles you are obliged to do this throughly which you obviously didn't as you haven't read or understood at least parts of the short. Instead you have put in question every single word. This represents a form of vandalism. --Cvdr (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are two good reasons why not to merge this article with Fixed Service Satellite:

HTS mostly operate on the Ka band while according to the FSS article "FSSs operate in either the C band (from 3.7 to 4.2 GHz) or the FSS Ku bands (from 11.45 to 11.7 and 12.5 to 12.75 GHz in Europe, and 11.7 to 12.2 GHz in the United States)."
Further according to the paragraph FSS and the rest of the world the term FSS refers to satellites with a lower transmission power than so-called DBS-class satellites. Could you provide a citation which confirms that HTS' power output level corresponds to that of FSS?

--Cvdr (talk) 19:35, 22 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} 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – This article has been expanded considerably since it's very recent creation on 19 July 2012. Conversely, Fixed Service Satellite is rather static, with no significant improvements recently. Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 30 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) 01:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Communications satellite. No need for a seperate article at this time, and it smells promotional in its current state. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by article's references. Merge may improve organization of satellite topics but we discussion deletion here, not merges. WP:OWN and other disputes between editors also don't belong here. Try WP:RFC. --Kvng (talk) 04:01, 14 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 6-passenger sedans

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

This is listcruft; that a sedan can carry six passengers is not a defining characteristic for a list or category. The old-school Wikipedians among us may recognize this page's long-banned creator; he was known for creating lists of questionable usefulness. szyslak (t) 02:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over-specific list. Fair enough to have a list of sedans, or a list of minivans/people carriers, or whatever, but this list has too many problems (cars with multiple versions, cars with 3 rows of seats which are currently excluded, cars where it may not even be possible to distinguish how many seats there are, questions over whether the driver counts as a passenger, etc). If other people think this is really useful, I'm willing to change my vote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 30 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) 01:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3-3 seating but not 2-2-2 seating? I'm offended! :P But seriously this seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very arbitrary and random definition of what can sit six. Warren (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. I love lists, but this makes no sense. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:55, 9 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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG/WP:BAND j⚛e decker ^talk 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academy 23

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN band fails WP:MUSIC. The only references are two reviews in zines. I'm unable to find anything in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 14 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) 11:19, 22 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} 02:41, 30 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) 01:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. Zaldax (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet notability. Further I think a triple re-listing is abuse of the system. This should be considered an uncontested deletion prod at a minimum Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 6 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 soft delete. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Release Tuesday

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

This website seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. "New Release Tuesday" is a concept that seems quite common to sites offering content downloads (commercial or other) and reviews, this site just made it the name of the site. Nothing special seems to stand out that makes this site notable. BenTels (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 30 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) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindeteves-Jacoberg Limited

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

Fails WP:CORP. This is the only source approaching significant independent coverage that I can find. Company reports are useless for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the Drives & Controls magazine: http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=383, http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=1843 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin of locksley (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~The article is a mess - in particular the references are improperly listed and not independent.~~ However there is quite a bit of coverage at Google News Archive. I added a couple of references to the article, including the fact that it is listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange; WP:LISTED suggests that we will probably find sufficient coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 30 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} 02:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did a rewrite for style and coherence, so the article looks a lot better now. Granted, writing style is not a reason to keep or delete, but still it is easier to evaluate an article that is properly written. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Steven Pressfield. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Warrior Ethos

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

There are no independent sources cited in the article and I can find no evidence of any sources that would get this through the notability guideline for books. A claim has been made on the talk page that criterion 5 is met, but I'm afraid that the author, Steven Pressfield, although he may be an accomplished author, comes nowhere close to the eminence envisaged by that clause. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Steven Pressfield. He has written some notable books, but this isn't one of them. I could find no reviews or other coverage about this book. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. If there is a redirect page, maybe it should be retitled as The Warrior Ethos (book), without a redirect from The Warrior Ethos. In my search for coverage about this book I found that the phrase "warrior ethos" is commonly and generically used in the military community. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 29 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} 02:38, 30 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) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loso's Way 2: Rise to Power

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

There has been no sourced content added since 2011. There is not enough information released (or current information) to keep this article alive. Delete (or redirect to Fabolous) per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS (with a bit of WP:TOOSOON). SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 07:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With no confirmed tracklisting or release date, I agree with nom that this upcoming album doesn't warrant an individual article at this time. That said, could the brief, reliably-sourced paragraph be merged into the "2010-present" section of the main Fabolous article? Gongshow ^Talk 08:12, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this was certainly a case of WP:TOOSOON way back when originally created, however now it appears that ti's beginning to get coverage again - so might be worth holding off? Two from 2012-07-09: MTV, SOHH and from April this year: Hip hop DX. Nik thestoned 12:50, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 30 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) 01:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - I agree that doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUMS and is probably WP:TOOSOON. New sources stated above by Nikthestoned seem to imply that the album will be released soon later this year but for now just incubate it. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Greenlee

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

Article provides too little information to be considered a bio, only cites a page of where he may be employed and a 1998 resume hosted at CNN. Grammarxxx (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are plenty of news and book references to Greenlee in his capacity as mayor and councilman of Boulder, his ownership of a radio station, his failed bid for Congress, and even somethings in association with JonBenet Ramsey; however, it appears that all of this brings him up to the line of notability but not over it. I find subjects like this difficult in that I'm not sure this passes the spirit of WP:GNG. I also tend to be quite tolerant of articles of former mayors, or mention of them in the various articles about cities and towns. Location (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into an article on Greenlee Family Foundation. Without the expansion of the Greenlee Family Foundation section (which I just added a brief to the article in question), I would vote to delete this article. Bob Greenlee is more notable when he is the head of a Foundation. Expand of the Foundation info or redo the article based on the Foundation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the former mayor and longtime city council member of Boulder, Colorado, a college town of almost 100,000 residents, he meets WP:POLITICIAN which allows articles on "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". As Location points out, Greenlee has received that kind of coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage, even if what was in the article was a bit limited. A long time mayor of a fairly large city, a noteworthy Congressional candidate, and an owner/board member of some fairly large corporations seems like he meets notability. I've added some sources since the existing page was a big sparse, but that was a problem with the writeup, not the subject PantsB (talk) 06:23, 6 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 Consensus not to Keep, no consensus whether to delete or merge.. I am willing to assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (DUI)

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

This article seems to be little more than a dictionary definition. It does not include any encyclopedic content and I don't see how the topic could warrant more elaboration. It should be moved to Wiktionary and deleted here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - it is a close call.. Source indicates its existence and it seems notable. We need more input I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIC. The encyclopedic topic to be discussed is California's drunk driving statutes, which are presumably covered at Drunk driving and California vehicle code. That deuce is used as a nickname for these laws or violators of them is word meaning and usage – dictionary content. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - While California Vehicle Code 502 has been replaced and supplemented, the jargon with peace officers and the general public, in California and other states due to crime dramas, still refer drunk or intoxicated drving as a 'deuce' even when they mean DWI. It is a term that should be at best referenced in another article like Driving under the influence. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has more and different information than a dictionary entry. --Froshirt (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Driving under the influence. It's just a local nickname for the offence in one state. NtheP (talk) 11:24, 4 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. Boston transmitter (Lincolnshire), a properly formatted link, will be redirected as proposed The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston transmitter lincolnshire

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

Non notable transmitter, with lack of independent sources. Tinton5 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WP is not a directory" of transmitters. The system of which this transmitter is a part probably has an article where it could be mentioned. Borock (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The reason is simple "low-power", which measn its is only of quite local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say this is NN and should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Absolute Radio#Broadcast where most of the relevant content in this article is already mentioned.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yasni

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

Article was written by a person paid by the company. Article is, therefore not surprisingly, biased. There are no reliable and independent sources. NoCultureIcons (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 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) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The single ref in the article is poor, but there is also a Zeit article discussing Yasni in both headline and article, albeit in a context with competing aggregators such as 123people and Spock (website), which may be indicative of some local notability. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There might be enough references to write a good and independet article, however this is rather a press release than an article. --Doc z (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, although there may be additional sources in German available that I can't read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment First of all, this is a website seen and sometimes used by Wikipedia editors while researching notability. Next, as per WP:BEFORE step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." I clicked on one link in the German Wikipedia and found this ref. I think that the course of this discussion would be different had the sources on the German Wikipedia been mentioned in the nomination. I've also tried to track down the claim that there is a paid editor involved. The fact that the claim is unsourced should be a red flag. There is discussion on the German Wikipedia, both on the talk page of the creator and the talk page of the German article, which even with Google translate remains unclear to me what it means. At a minimum, the editor alleged to have written a biased article should get an invitation on his/her German Wikipedia talk page to this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to research the German Wikipedia has yielded these sources:

ref1 In this article about "people search engines" Yasni gets the most attention. Yasni is mentioned in the subtitle, the lead picture is of Yasni, and the article has many embedded links that refer to Yasni. These links include the following.

ref2 The initial paragraph cites an incident with Yasni privacy concerns, the second paragraph cites a negotiation with Yasni about personal data, and the third paragraph has Time Online (Zeit Online) asking questions to Yasni.

ref3 2007 news story about Yasni.

ref4 The page won't translate in Google translate, but I was able to copy and paste the text to get the translation. There is only one or two sentences about Yasni, but it is an in-depth technical comment.

ref5 German legal analysis of yasni and 123people

Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here was the confirmation that the author is working for the company. The German article was completely rewritten. Originally it was almost the same content as the English, Spanish and Portugese article - in all cases the article was written by the company. --Doc z (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, which also shows that the nominator is an involved party on the German Wikipedia. I propose that WP:V WP:BURDEN be applied immediately such that the article is as follows. The two sentences in the lead are retained and the one sentence that has a citation is retained, with the six references I've listed in this AfD added in an "Additional references" section. The external link is retained, the categories are retained, the logo in the infobox is retained, and the AfD notice is retained. I request that an editor agree. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gave Yasni a test run on "Johnny Prill" for WP:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (2nd nomination) and found two references. I expect to use it again. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahana (song)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. Same content can be accommodated in the parent article - Vivvt^Talk 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As can be seen here, lot of sources are available which provide info on the song. As Sivaji was a landmark film, some of the songs received lots of attention, hence they are notable enough to have articles. Secret of success (talk) 15:16, 22 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) 19:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS in that the single must generate its own notability and that it is not inherited from the prominence of the movie it is from. It's simple release or use by an artist of prominence is also not inherited. Ren99 (talk) 11:22, 29 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) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning provided by Ren99. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A song must be independently notable. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Ibo

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

I do not think that what is asserted is notable. I recognize we have difficulty finding sources in this area, but I find it hard to imagine sourcing which would be sufficient to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lack of sources is irrelevant. --Merbabu (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no indication this article meeat WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 7 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.