Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:04, 4 February 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 February >

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani field hockey players

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

Unsourced and mistitled. This is not a list of Pakistani field hockey players worldwide, it is a list of players for the Pakistani national field hockey team. It is also unsourced, and both the ELs (now removed) are dead. The notable players have articles and are listed in Pakistan Hockey Federation, and the rest can't even be substantiated. MSJapan (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i'hv checked & update this list earlier. the main source on the web of this article was the official web page of Pakistan Hockey Federation somehow the site is down now may be due to some technical reasons..... but its a official web site & also the main source of many other articles related to Pakistan field Hockey i think we need to wait for it. i guess this article need to improve & also need some good sources only rather than deletion. puting the tag of AfD is not a solution. anyway i'hv added 2 more ref. & i'hv returnd the official web page link also. & yeah the title should be more specific like "List of Pakistan's Internetional Field Hockey Players" etc... Keep or Merge it with Pakistan Hockey Federation or other related article. Peace Out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crown Prince (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Endless, useless list of "players" segregated for no other reason than supposed place of birth/national origin/locale theoretically played. Invites endless lists of "Vegetarian field hockey players", "Field hockey players from the Bronx with nipple piercings", "Exploding Whales who once played field hockey", etc, etc.. Sources appear to be just lists themselves and fail WP:SOURCES, with Pakistan_Hockey_Federation linking back to Wikipedia itself Ren99 wha? 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy doesn't hold. Sportspeople are routinely classified by their nationality, but not by their dietary habits or body ornamentation, or even by a combination of biological order and mode of destruction. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post some links to proof of citizenship so there's something to attest to (passport or birth certificate should do ok, otherwise everything pretty much links back to Wikipedia - aka - here and is of little value for sourcing). I got a dozen Aleutian Exploding Whales & Globsters wanna get in on the lists before there's a rush for the goal line... Ren99 wha? 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This needs a rename as these are limited to members of the national team. Each should, I presume, qualify individually under notability guidelines, making this a useful navigational device and marker for future articles to be created. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on, people, we are talking about the Pakistan team here. Seriously, WP needs to be careful, as an international encyclopedia, to avoid overt cultural bias, and maintain consistency in its guidelines. The criteria for notability in other sports is much lower than this, so we can assume notability and it is a valid and relevant list. --AJHingston (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete, this list has no encyclopedic value, a category suffices, its content is not easily verifiable, it is full of red links, even though this doesnt prove notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Someone above said that the only source is down, how funny it is, in wikipedia we need a multitude of source to back the facts that are told in the actual article. If not so, someone needs to archive the sources to prevent such issues, but even though the notability factor is ridiculously limited in here because there is no way to verify it as there is no third party coverage for the names in this list. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Oxygen

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

Independent band that has put out two albums. Only claim to notability is they opened for some larger bands a few times.

News search returns a single hit for a tour announcement. Web search turns up some blogs that do not appear to meet WP:RS Ridernyc (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A single that charted satisfies WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.32.91.1 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only passes WP:BAND if it is verifiable. Unless you can verify that chart position, it can't pass the guideline. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might be a case where WP:USUAL applies, as the band is early in its career. If they have songs that chart later on, and sources that confirm this, then an article might be appropriate. But relying on one of their singles being on charts doesn't work when there is no source that shows that single on the charts. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I'm having problems locating a source verifying that "Take it to the limit" charted, (all their previous charts appear to be locked behind a paywall), their newest single, "American Dream", is currently sitting at #48 on the Mediabase Active Rock chart, which means it's in rotation on Clear Channel stations, satisfying BAND 11 and 2 in one shot. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find! Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the chart success found by Grandmartin11, which satisfies WP:BAND. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials. Redirect and salt origional ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lee (referee)

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

Non-notable person NE Ent 18:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability beyond "he's a referee" not established. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Edit: Not opposed to redirect. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials - I'm not aware of any guideline for referees (perhaps there should be one?), and this one doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, and is also a vandalism magnet to boot. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials. Regardless of outcome - keep, delete or redirect - I would also suggest edit protection be added. Reso lute 19:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reso lute 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Officials in major professional sports have generally been considered notable. WP:NHOCKEY substitutes the word coaches for players. I would assume the same for officials. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. It does substitute "coached"/"managed" for "players" for coach/manager notability, but it does not mention referees or officials at all - quite likely deliberately. NHL referees simply don't rise to the level of recognition of a MLB ump or a NFL ref; aside from the WP:BLP1E cases of "The Ref is Blind", they're pretty much invisible, and this is a clear WP:GNG failure as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If referee/official is not substituted for player it would appear to be an oversight more than deliberate. If you look at the other sports, association football, rugby union and rugby league all specifically mention referees, while baseball and cricket use umpire and American football uses the term figure. At the Wikiproject rugby we assume that any referee that has reffed a professional game is notable (and don't have too much trouble finding sources to back it up). If nothing else the wording of WP:NHOCKEY should probably be changed. AIRcorn (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This gets back into the "presumed notable" aspect of SNGs. And the problem here is that I can't find any in-depth coverage of Lee. Most on-ice officials similarly lack coverage. It is far easier to assume coverage for a player than it is an official. On that basis, I wouldn't necessarily support the argument that the SNG should treat officials equal to players. Reso lute 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, NHL officials are not equivalent to baseball umpires or football/soccer/football/rugby/football officials. The zebras on the ice are essentially anonymous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My take on SNG is that it is a aid for those of us that don't know enough about a subject. For example if I come across a ice hockey player with poor sourcing, but see that he has played for a professional team I would know that sources do probably exist and not bother nominating it for deletion (not that I do that much anyway). However once a debate is started I do think that GNG should be satisfied exclusive of the SNG. That was partly why I just marked my above comment as a comment.

A google news search brings up lots of small mentions.[1] Maybe not enough to completely satisfy GNG, but still more than a lot of other debates I have seen here (the earliest ones go back ten years so he has obviously been around a while). There are probably reliable non-news ice hockey sites that mention him too (sorry not my sport so I don't know where to look, plus its not helped as there is a player with the same name). Also looking at the List of NHL on-ice officials most officials have an article so a positive WP:otherstuffexists argument could apply. Either way I am not saying this should be kept, it just doesn't seem like an obvious delete.

I am curious as to why there is so little coverage of ice hockey referees and why they are deemed less notable than football, cricket and baseball. Judging by the previous version of the current article they still make controversial calls so must have an impact on the game. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of ways, I would say it is NHL league policy to try and make its on ice officials "invisible". That is, in fact, a specific reason why the league removed each official's name bar and replaced it with a uniform number about 10-12 years ago. There are certainly some very notable referees, such as Kerry Fraser, but for the most part, I think the default position in the NHL is that if you don't know who the referee is, he's doing a good job. That tends to mean that officials only really make the press when they err. The end result for us is a bunch of potential WP:COATRACKs. That, incidentally, is why we are at this AFD. Reso lute 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case maybe a note should be applied to WP:NHOCKEY saying that referees have to satisfy the GNG. Probably the wrong place to be discussing it here anyway, it was just a discrepancy I noticed with the other sports and obviously something other hockey editors thought too (pretty sure DJSasso is a big hockey editor). FWIW I am fine with a redirect if no sources are presented that show significant coverage. AIRcorn (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aircon & DJSasso little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think NHOCKEY needs to be changed at all; it'd beg the question as to how far we needed to go in addressing notability criteria for everyone connected with the sport. Front office executives? Journalists? No, I'm comfortable with on-ice officials relying on the GNG. The John D'Amicos, Don Koharskis and Kerry Frasers of the world would pass, and the rest wouldn't ... much the same as in any other sport, where a handful of officials gain notoriety, and the rest are invisible.
In any event, though, that's a discussion for other venues, not for here. Since NHOCKEY doesn't address on-ice officials, there can be no question about "passing" or "failing" it. I don't see that the subject passes the GNG. Ravenswing 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials and salt the original. KillerChihuahua 18:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Capital idea - changing my !vote above accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't salting prevent creation? Or does it mean full protection in this context? NE Ent 03:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote as well. And I was under that impression about SALT as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While NHL players get a free pass in terms of notability, under our standing special guidelines officials do not. This is a clear GNG fail beyond that. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shahabuddin

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

Does not comply with notability guidelines per WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:PROF. E4024 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first thing I would like to address is that WP:PROF and WP:DIPLOMAT are both notability guidelines, not requirements, this really disregards any arguments using these guidelines since this proves this article isn't in any way violating WP required policy.

If it is to be accepted that these guidelines are in fact requirements I would like to address this article in relation to the WP:DIPLOMAT guideline second. The guideline states that 'Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required.', I have since added the appropriate reference to clarify where the information about Syed Shahabuddin's involvement in the Shah Bano case and his opposition to the Demolition of Babri Masjid. As everyone can see the reference for this opinion is valid, it is from his own website, but isn't from a 'reliable secondary source' this therefore removes any requirement for 'sufficient reliable documentation'. I have mentioned these two cases because I assume they are what the nominator is talking about. Really these aren't even diplomatic events since they were internal crisis within India. There is no indication in the article that Shahabuddin has 'participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance'. Perhaps if the nominator knows of such events he could add them to the article - this would be much more constructive.

Now I will thirdly address the point raised regarding WP:PROF. I have since removed the text describing Shahabuddin as a 'university teacher' since although his website says he was, I can't find any information anywhere else that backs this up . This removes the relevance of WP:PROF.

Finally I would like address this deletion in general. I have quickly looked at the contributions of E4024 and have noticed that this editor has only recently returned to WP after a period of about nine months. While I am in no way questioning this editors knowledge of WP policies, I would suggest that he/she may be a little to eager too make major edits or start processes such as deletion. I am assuming that this deletion was made in good faith but if this editor reads the article I think he/she will find it is a good article and deleting it would be a negative thing for WP. The editor may also like to know that this article was requested officially on WP and has been created due to this request. It is highly demoralizing for myself, and I'm sure many other editors, to create a requested article after extensive research, write it and rewrite it, add structure and references etc. for a fellow editor to then nominate it for deletion. Of course I agree that unsuitable, inappropriate or articles that break WP policy should be deleted but I can't help but feel the reasons for this nomination are minor and actually non-existent. Josh1024 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Josh1024 Since when are you in WP Josh? BTW I saw a note on your TP about you and WP deletion procedure, I mean before you archived it. Best. --E4024 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To E4024 As you can see I have crossed through my comments about you personally in case they have offended you, to be honest I don't understand what your message above means and I can't tell if your being sarcastic or whatever. I have no intention of making a big deal out of this. I wasn't trying to hide anything on my TP there are links to the archives and I will archive my talk page every so often as many people on WP do. This part of WP is for discussion about the proposed deletion of this article, if you want to discuss something further with me please do so on my TP. Thanks, Josh1024 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Parliament of India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sources from the National Informatics Centre state that Shahabuddin was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1979 to 1984 [2] (bottom of the 12th page) and the Lok Sabha from 1985 to 1996 [3]. Funny ^Pika! 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FunnyPika. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former Member of Parliament. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The prevalent opinion, as I am reading it, is that these pages should not continue as they are presently written. Discussions should be initiated on the respective talkpages as to repurposing or spliting them from their current forms. J04n(talk page) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Congregational churches

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

This article can never be what the title promises, because we are never going to accumulate a comprehensive list of all Congregationalist churches, even by state. It's really the agglomeration of US NRHP-listed church buildings along with British buildings similarly listed under their system. Categorization deals with this better; only think of how big List of Roman Catholic churches would be. The creator justified this as "useful" but that suggests that he can have this userfied if he really wants it for his own use. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've added List of Anglican churches because this is even worse, as bad as the RC list for all practical purposes. There are thousands of Episcopal parishes in the US, South America, and Europe; The Church of England only knows how many there are in its domain, and Africa is likewise well-populated with churches. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of maintaining an accurate list of such parishes; parishes close constantly, and in Africa at least new parishes open constantly. We cannot maintain a worldwide directory of parishes, and at least of the US parishes probably no more than a quarter of them could support an article (due to NRHP listing of their buildings). Again, of the creator would like a copy in his userspace for his own purposes, that would be fine. But this article has no hope of recording what is promised, and if people are looking for directories of Anglican parishes, they should consult the various dioceses, not us. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that Lists of Catholic churches does exist and has a quite different form. Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was originally created as the quite impossible List of Catholic churches as well, but after multiple attempts I finally succeeded in getting that corrected to the current "Lists" instead, which is a different approach. Only the US subpage of that lists page is still a Doncram page, and seems overly ambitious (and also taken mainly from the NRHP point of view). Fram (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fram, yes, that was utterly weird of you previously to insist that List of Catholic churches was an invalid topic, and to delete it, and then yourself to create Lists of Catholic churches, rather than moving List of Catholic churches to that name and preserving the edit history. I don't care whether the top level list is named "Lists of ...." or "List of ...", but renaming is to be done by a move (perhaps best after a proper wp:RM Requested move discussion). I don't tremendously care about credit for having created the needed master list article in Wikipedia, but I did contribute something then by noting the need and stepping in to create the master list. It was weird that you deleted the article created and inserted yourself into the role of having credit for that. I thought about asking you to restore the edit history. Actually, here, let me do that: could you please restore the original edit history for the List of Catholic churches list article (i.e. where I created and developed it somewhat) before your edits revising it to have a different form. I never would have disputed that it needed to be split, but deleting the toplevel list was not right, it put you in the role of supplanting the original author and edit history. --doncram 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Doncram, perhaps next time check your facts instead of making incorrect accusations: List of Catholic churches in the United States is the current title where it was moved to, history and all, it wasn't deleted; you edited that page afterwards, so you should have been aware of this. The "lists of" page is totally new, and contains no content you created, so there was hardly any need to have your name in there. You did not create a master list, you created a US list (of sorts) and presented it as a master list, which was rather misleading. Moving the page you created to the "lists of" title would have been ridiculous, as that didn't match the contents of that page at all. I see no reason to change anything here. Fram (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No incorrect accusation made. You did delete the main article, and you did usurp another editor's work in doing so. Again, I don't care terribly to have the fame forever of having identified the need for the main list, but it is utterly weird that you have taken action to remove its history, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright/crediting system for contributions. I do recall that I noticed you moved my work to the United States name. It is a silly technicality to hang your hat on, if you want to say you didn't delete the main article because you deleted it by moving it with nothing to be left behind. Again it would have been fine to call for a split at the article's talk page, or even to just go ahead and implement one, as obviously separate U.S. and British articles would be needed. Please don't make incorrect assertions of incorrect assertions. --do ncr am 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. A similar article of Doncram's is Jails and prisons listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That list has much tighter criteria for inclusion, though -- doesn't strike me as quite as problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about tightening the criteria for the above articles by moving them to List of Congregational church buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places and List of Anglican church buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places? That would involve removing the bit about notable congregations and focusing on buildings. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better: add some non-NRHP-listed ones. That is not an argument for deletion. I did in the past create a few lists of things on the NRHP, for various things, but I came around to seeing that more general lists are usually better (even if largely populated by NRHP-listed items, at their beginning). "List of historic jails and prisons" would be a better, broader list topic, allowing inclusion of jails that are listed merely on local historic registers and allowing historically important but eventually demolished jails. --do ncr am 12:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment from nominator: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4#Congregational churches categories for a related recategorization discussion. I would suggest here that the categories I propose would largely obviate making the NHRP list articles, though I wouldn't necessarily argue against creating them. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Obviously valid Wikipedia topics. See wp:CLT for explanation of how categories, lists, and navigation templates are complementary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches for a recent AFD on another list of churches, which closed Keep. No policy-based argument suggests deletion would be valid. Of course there exist significant Congregational and Anglican churches in the world, and they can be listed, just as Methodist and Presbyterian and other churches can be listed. The NRHP-listed ones in the United States are obviously individidually notable, but there are many other U.S. and non-U.S. churches to be covered; renaming to include NRHP in the title would unnecessarily narrow the topic (and beg the creation of the more general list again immediately). --do ncr am 09:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of the end of 2011, there were 6,736 parishes in the Episcopal Church [4]. I don't intend to list every single one here, and neither do you. Probably less than a quarter of them will ever have article because most parish buildings were built in the 1950s and '60s, and a lot of the older ones have been modified too much to allow for NRHP listing. Add England to this, and the scope of the problem shoots off the scale. The folks at 815 barely keep track of all parishes, and that mostly because the statistical office is obsessive. Mangoe (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia-notable one can eventually be listed. I fully intend to expand the list of U.S. ones to include every one documented to be notable by their being NRHP-listed (but have been delayed by confrontations now in arbitration). Likely eventual length of list is not a reason to delete it. The list will be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other sublists, as other church list-articles were split, and the top-level list will still be needed. --do ncr am 12:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my observation here: this looks more like a worklist for you than anything practical. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As applied to England, there is already a list of CofE cathedrals here as part of a more general list. The current list of Anglican churches in England on the list under discussion only mentions cathedrals and is incomplete. The correct list breaks up the dependencies into two provinces, dependent on either Canterbury or York. I agree with Fram's idea of a structured "hierarchy" or "tree" of lists. That is what happens with Lists of cathedrals in the United Kingdom. In the UK there are too many old churches and chapels to form a list: categories are a much better idea. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, categories and lists are complementary: see wp:CLT for explanation. For one thing, the list can include redlinks of churches known to be notable (e.g. by their being NRHP-listed).

As was already done for various other denominations' list-articles, this list will obviously be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other geographic area sublists. The top-level lists, here "List of Congregational churches", are still needed. There's no reason suggested in any of the above discussion that is supportive of eliminating the top-level list. --do ncr am 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about Anglican churches here, i.e. Church of England. The trouble is that in England there are a huge number of Anglican churches or chapels that are listed. If the list was restricted to Anglican churches in the United States listed on the NRHP that would seem reasonable. But it would seem reasonable to exclude England. The category and sub-categories are already complicated enough, e.g. Category:Church of England churches, which is organized partially by county and partially by period. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. ~~congregational~~ Anglican (corrected) churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. This seems not to be AFD-relevant. Could you comment at ~~Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section~~ please, instead? --do ncr am 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already said in the post above (two weeks ago) that I was talking about List of Anglican churches. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, sorry. I am copying your comments instead to Talk:List of Anglican churches#U.K. section. Do let's please continue there, instead of here. --do ncr am 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were specific to this deletion discussion and the general scope of lists. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being the subject of extensive documentation and scholarship such as The First Congregational Churches. The claims that categories are a superior way of managing such information are both false and contrary to the guideline WP:CLN which states explicitly that, "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". Whether and how large lists are split and organised as a hierarchy is a matter of ordinary editing so that the edit history is preserved. Deletion is quite inappropriate and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is over the assumption that accurate lists, of manageable size, which people intend to maintain, can and will be created. I think all four of these points are in question. As far as the Anglican case is concerned, we can only maintain accurate lists by copying the diocesan lists and monitoring the latter to catch all the changes that occur, not to mention scraping up data elsewhere about parishes that are now closed. Whether such lists can be obtained for all dioceses is quite dubious. And the Anglicans are one of the better cases because ECUSA at least is compulsive about good records-keeping. I do not think we can or will maintain an accurate directory of Anglican parishes worldwide, and that's what we're promising to do here. And I don't think that appeals to eventualism are meaningful, because I don't think that eventually a comprehensive and accurate list will be completed. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-conformist churches are, by definition, fractious rather than uniform. An exhaustive and perfect directory of the sort you envisage is therefore impossible. This is unimportant because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory and our disclaimers make it clear that we do not pretend to perfection or 100% reliability. This is why we are able to have lists of other items for which there is a long tail of uncertain size such as list of numbers, list of rivers, list of minor planets, &c. We implicitly concentrate upon the more notable examples and don't worry much about lesser ones. Warden (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one, repurpose the other. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of Congregational churches. My comments here are largely a repetition of comments I made on the article talk page back in December.

In essence, this is an indiscriminate list, in that it is not based on a clear religious categorization of local churches, but is largely a list of historic church buildings with "congregational" in the names listed in historic registers. ::Congregationalism is not a well-defined religious group. Congregationalism has taken diverse forms theologically, with the result that not all churches that define themselves as "congregational" are affiliated with the same religious tradition (or even similar traditions). For example, several decades ago in the United States, the majority of Congregational churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ, so they are no longer considered to be Congregational churches. While the UCC is a very liberal mainstream Protestant denomination, some conservative churches in the U.S. still call themselves "congregational". The article Congregational churches lists two other denominational groups (besides the UCC) active in the U.S.: "the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches; and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, an evangelical group". According to that same article, most Congregational churches in Canada affiliated with the United Church of Canada in the 1920s, but some churches rejected that denomination as too liberal and split off to become Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, described as "an evangelical, Protestant, Christian denomination". Because of this diversity, the population of "Congregational churches" potentially included in this list lacks the denominational unity expected of a list of (for example) Roman Catholic churches.

Furthermore, it appears that the scope of the list, as it currently exists, is largely defined as churches that include "congregational" in their names, which is not a particularly meaningful definition. I stated on the article talk page that it wasn't obvious to me what the scope of this list was supposed to be and asked "Am I correct in inferring that it includes any church that once used or currently uses 'congregational' in its name, regardless of theology, but does not include other churches that belong to Congregationalist denominations, but do not have the word 'congregational' in the article name?" The list creator's reply indicated to me that he didn't know much about Congregationalism ("Since the organized Congregational church merged into the United Church of Christ, there may be no current Congregational churches--I am not sure--or there may continue to exist some current Congregational churches somewhere"). He also said "The scope of the list as intended by me is to list all notable current and former Congregational churches" and acknowledged that was started as a list of churches with "congregational" in their names ("Obviously, in the U.S., churches listed on the National Register of Historic Places and having 'Congregational' in their name are likely to be Congregational churches, and I have been proceeding to list those first. It may turn out that a few of these were not in fact Congregational and a correction will have to be made. This is no big deal to make small corrections, it is part of the list-building and categorizing process.").

Human knowledge is not enhanced by the publication of a list of churches of diverse denominations that have "Congregational" in their names, particularly when the list may include churches of diverse religious affiliations and does not include other churches that were at one time Congregational but do not have that word in their names. Delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose List of Anglican churches as several articles. In principle, the scope of this article ought to be better defined than for the Congregational list, but the attempt to list all Anglican churches in the world on one page -- and the inclusion of many list entries for which the list provides no solid information (such as the 34 entries for churches named "Christ Episcopal Church") -- has created a meaningless hodgepodge. Some of the country-specific lists may be worth retaining, so I'm suggesting that the page be converted into multiple pages, each one clearly defined by geography and specific "Anglican" affiliation. I mention affiliation because the various split-off groups of continuing Anglicanism are still "Anglican" but are distinctly separate from mainstream Anglicanism. I suggest that the new individual lists be built in user space until they have meaningful content. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Both of these denominational groups are associated with characteristic (and contrasting) approaches to the design and decoration of church buildings. (See, for example, this leaflet.) Their denomination-specific approaches to ecclesiastical architecture are potentially interesting and important topics for encyclopedia articles (and do not appear to be covered in existing articles such as Church architecture and Sacred architecture). Articles about denominational architectural style could and should discuss illustrative examples of individual churches, and might include embedded lists of churches. Indiscriminate lists of individual churches are not, however, a meaningful contribution to the topic of ecclesiastical architecture. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck does that mean, "repurpose"? This is an AFD discussion. There is no argument here for deletion of the topic, which is obviously valid. --do ncr am 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These lists are better organised geographically, as has been done with the United Kingdom - e.g. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling. For the United States, list by State, then split by county as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Mjroots notes, there are some impressive lists of UK lists of places of worship in wikipedia. A similar approach might be interesting for some parts of the United States, but there also could be merit in "by denomination" articles or lists. I think that the religious diversity of the United States creates some denomination-specific patterns that also form potential article topics. I just don't see that these lists have that kind of merit. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have nothing to do with the topic of the AFD, whether the world-wide main list is a valid topic. Obviously the world-level list needs to exist. Splits by geography obviously also will be needed, but discussion should be at the Talk page of the article, and such comments are not AFD-relevant. --do ncr am 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Congregational Church Buildings on National Register of Historic Places and purge out UK and otehr unrelated material. That list is based on a robust criterion for inclusion. Since the amalgamation leadign to United Reformed Church in UK, the only congregational churches are a few that stood out of that merger. A List of Listed United Reformed Church Buildings in the United Kingdom might be a legitiamte article, and could be included in a parent category, since many would have been Congregational Churches before the merger, but the UK content in the list shows no sign of having any such criterion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. Congregational/United Reformed churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. The 7 U.K. ones currently listed in the article are all those in a category of U.K. congregational churches. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --do ncr am 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears to me that there are similar issues for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. In all three of these countries, Congregationalism has been an important religious tradition historically (tracing to the English Puritans), but the majority of what were once Congregational churches have joined with other denominations to form a new "United" denomination that is not strictly Congregational. Specifically, these are the United Reformed Church in the UK, the United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Christ in the US. In all of these countries, some Congregational congregations did not join the "United" denomination and are now affiliated with the Congregational Federation (in the UK), Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (in the US), or Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (in the US). Also, some new churches have joined these last four denominations (which I have collected called "Congregational Christian", a term that may be inaccurate) since the United churches were created. In the US, and apparently (based on this list) also in the UK, many former Congregational churches have retained the word "Congregational" in their names after joining the new "United" denomination. A problem with this list is that it lumps all of these different churches together in a single category, ignoring the fact that most of the individual churches are no longer Congregational. This is wrong -- or, at best, misleading. (The list also is very incomplete, in that it omits many current or former Congregational churches that have articles, but that's not the subject of this comment.) There might be merit in creating lists of churches by denominational affiliation, but such lists should be carefully researched and documented to avoid offending the sensibilities of living people who belong to these churches by misrepresenting their religious affiliation. There might also be merit in listing church buildings that were built as Congregational churches (regardless of the current use of the building), for reasons that I outlined above, but such a list should not be misrepresented as a list of churches by denomination. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete Again, it is obvious that there have been a number of Congregational churches notable for being Congregational and for their building's architecture or for characteristics of their congregations or their ministers or whatever. These can and should be listed. The list-topic is valid. So what if there should also be a list of United Reform ones, etc. Yes it is not yet a comprehensive list. None of these are reasons to delete the topic, which is obviously valid. This is tiresome. --do ncr am 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Such a woefully incomplete list, as either of these is, is unuseful to people who come here for reference purposes, and if filled out to be comprehensive, would be unuseful because of its size both to people who come here for reference purposes and to people who want to list everything. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, what deletion reason do you suggest? You acknowledge that the topic is useful, but the implementation of the list is incomplete... Okay, so we accept the list-topic. The current version is incomplete, so we should expand the list, yes. We have to start somewhere. And we are doing so, for the U.S. section, by a starter list of the NRHP-listed ones, which are all surely Wikipedia-notable. --do ncr am 22:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polymodality

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years, no references, seems to be a definition. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even an accurate definition. The term is usually used in relation to music, not anatomy. See Wiktionary and Google search. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. It's strange how rubbish like this surves for so long Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as author, make the page a redirect to Stimulus_modality#Polymodality (or disambiguation, if it's a music concept too). Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Play the Immutable Truth

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references, and a Google search reveals nothing more than stuff that would appear on a Google search for any album, just iTunes entries and stuff like that.^King Jakob _C2 02:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely evades CSD, and notability isn't asserted or implied in any way. —Rutebega (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets none of the 12 criteria for WP:BAND. Literally nothing to rely on. Barada wha? 05:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Artemis_Fowl_(series)#Film_adaptation. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl The Movie

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor User:96.49.23.5, who offered no rationale. On the merits, I see an article started in 2010 that, at one point, read thus: "We are a group of artists, and voice actors, and animators that are creating a full color 2d animated movie, based on the book Artemis Fowl." The project is listed variously as a studio film, a fan film, and something in-between. The author also notes (correctly, I imagine) that the group does not even have the rights to the property. There are no sources available in any format that I can access, nor is there evidence of media coverage in print or elsewhere that might not be available online. In short, I do not see the case for notability here. Per WP:USUAL, if such a film came into being and was covered in reliable sources, and then was released in such a manner as to satisfy the requirements of WP:NFILM, you might have a case for an article. But, at present, there is nothing here to suggest that the project meets our guidelines for notability, either for films or in general. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has made the case and I concur. Reading the article makes it clear that this topic isn't notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non existent unsourced unlicensed project. Information about bona fide professional efforts to develop the film rights for Artemis Fowl is already located at Artemis Fowl (series)#Film adaptation; Google and GNews show a few sources for those development activities (which have nothing to do with the ones described in the article we're discussing here) but not enough to support a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Artemis_Fowl_(series)#Film_adaptation. Fan movies are almost never notable. Rare exceptions do come about every now and then, but this is not one of those exceptions. What little I can find about a film adaptation tends to talk about the official versions. I've found nothing to suggest that this fan adaptation is or will be notable. If/when it actually gets made and gains coverage, I have no problem with it being recreated. I just recommend that when that point comes, the original creators seek assistance from someone in WP:FILM to show them what constitutes a reliable source. To be completely honest, I rather doubt that this will get made. There are a lot of red flags here, such as the team refusing to give their names, using the Wikipedia page at one point to beg for donations, and the team assuming that all they have to do for rights is to e-mail the author. Those don't automatically mean that the film can't become notable or get created, but as someone who has watched many such fan movies get proposed, then crash and burn, it's a pretty good sign that this will never get made. However since this is a rather generic title, we can use this as a redirect to the actual mainstream film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect, as it is a reasonable search term for whatever official adaptation comes along. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and so vague that is essentially not sourceable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Dean

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

Cricketer who fails WP:CRIN as has not played at first-class, List A or Twenty20 level. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PM's XI game in which he played was against a National Team (West Indies) falls within required definition of 'major cricket'. The definition uses the word "includes' not 'exclusive to' first-class, List A or Twenty20, then adds: "Historically, major cricket includes first-class, List A, single wicket and other forms in which players and/or teams of a recognised high standard are taking part." The current West Indies may not be the highest ever standard team from that country but the team they selected for teh PM's match was close to their highest standard fro that form of the game. Other measures of notability- Subsequent reported praise in national papers by former Test captain Ponting. Significant presence in national media after the game. Is captain of the Premier Team in ACT. Has scored second highest run total in ACT cricket history.121.127.197.101 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the deprodder, I've been thinking over this one for a couple of days, because it isn't clear either way. I don't really think the "other forms" comment is really meant for modern "exhibition games", which is what the PM's XI is. And hence, by the WP:CRIN guideline, he isn't notable. But he's from Canberra. They simply don't have any CRIN-compliant "major cricket" played there any more. The Canberra Comets, which Dean captains, play in the 2nd level Futures League, and that is the highest level of cricket he can play in, without moving. Every other player in that league, if they perform well, could represent their state at List-A or First-Class level. If he lived anywhere else in the world, he'd easily be good enough to play in the ICC World Cup Qualifiers or equivalent. Sure, he could move to Sydney or anywhere else in Australia, but there isn't much money at the lower end of the cricketing tree, so without knowing his family/work situation, this may or may not be possible (I admit this lack of knowledge about him outside of cricket could be considered part of a delete argument). So, he's been selected in a national representative (but not a "major cricket" game, performed very well in it and received a lot of coverage for it. Is that enough for WP:GNG, or is that just WP:BLP1E? He's been 12th man for the PMs XI before, back in 2008, and he's been a supplementary player for the Perth Scorchers and the Melbourne Renegades, but didn't get a game. After all that, I think this is a Weak Keep, based on the WP:GNG coverage of his 5,000 runs, 51 for the PM XI and 300 in a day, ruling out BLP1E. Hopefully, he will get a chance next year with a BBL team and clear the CRIN hurdle, but as CRIN says, it is "merely rules of thumb" and "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is very famous in the sport and notable! Calqwatch (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So famous in the sport that he hasn't progessed to first-class level. There is precedent for deleting Prime Minister's XI/non-List A Canberra players here and here. Yes, playing for Canberra is the highest level of cricket in Canberra, but you could then compare it to Grade Cricket, we don't permit articles on grade cricketers. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRIN and because of the above mentioned precedents. Jevansen (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The PM's XI match is used by the Australian selection panel as a testing ground for future test and Australian one day players. The game is always against national sides. It qualifies as "major cricket" as per the definition.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Veres

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

MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the article's only source is a link to his fight record. Lacks significant coverage and the only other claim to notability is coming in 6th in the state in high school wrestling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtemp (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hasn't won any major tournaments, and lacks coverage Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage, fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remains one fight shy needed to meet WP:NMMA. It also appears he has not fought since 2008 and is presumably retired making the likeliness of another top-tier fight almost none. No WP:SIGCOV other than WP:ROUTINE to warrant a standalone article outside WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 05:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha (disambiguation)

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

No need for a separate disambiguation page where it is common and permissible to list names of persons sharing a given name on the page for the given name. bd2412 T 16:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Given name articles are separate from articles about other subjects with the same title. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other subjects. Every single "Tabitha" listed on the page is a given name. Per MOS:DABNAME, "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages". Since there are no meanings for Tabitha other than as a given name, there is no reason to have a page like this one, that does not to conform to the standards of this encyclopedia. bd2412 T 20:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any unique entries to Tabitha and delete. I couldn't find any guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, but one of their few former featured articles, Yuan (surname), includes a list of people. There's no need for so much duplication, and the only non-name entity is handled by a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an ambiguous TV series that I added to the dab when I removed all of the name holders who weren't referred to by the single name. The remaining characters can be added to the given name article and the TV series added to Tabitha as a hatnote, though, so the disambiguation page might still be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC
Delete: no need for a dab page where there are no non-given-name articles to list, except the one TV series which is handled in a hatnote. PamD 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why relist? There's been no objection to merge & delete, so I'm not sure how the consensus is unclear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Nevermind. I see the stealth oppose now. I've bulled+bolded it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PamD. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-given name (the TV series) is disambiguated in its title. Miniapolis 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Herlihy

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

Non-notable, self-published, writer, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Can't find coverage of or citation to his works. That aside, there's not enough out there on this person in reliable sources to build an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, self-published writer who fails WP:AUTHOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. US exile Non-notable, self-published writer, a Bostonian who received a degree from Columbia, a Catholic/Islam convert, has taught English as a second language in oil rich Arabian Gulf states along with thousands of equally qualified teachers--some of whom have self published books in their field and not used Wikipedia as a book wholesaler. Wikipedia which is not Amazon.com. I agree with (Qworty) on all accounts, especially that it seems to be pure WP:PROMO. 4 February 21:20 UTC —Preceding comment added 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, etc. Looks like pure WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the above posters on this. There's no there there. DreamGuy (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several searches in Google News and Books are not yielding coverage about this subject. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Mkdw ^talk 07:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire glass

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

Lacks notability (WP:GNG) and seems to be an advertisement (WP:NOTADVERTISING). Srsrox (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although notability is borderline, this is a product made by several companies, and the article seems neutral, so I don't consider it advertising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say it just about passes WP:GNG, search engine results return some secondary coverage and the topic is not particularly obscure or unknown. The article doesn't appear to resemble an advertisement in its current form. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added three references to the article and took out a non-neutral phrase. The resulting article has secondary, independent, and in-depth references from wisegeek (marginal in-depth), Glass on Web, and the Illinois State Journal Register newspaper. The reference from woodlanddirect is a primary reference from a retailer of of fire glass, but has some useful information. The eHow reference seems like a useful secondary reference, but eHow is blacklisted from Wikipedia, so is probably not considered reliable. From this, it looks like there are multiple secondary reliable sources and the topic modestly passes general notability guidelines WP:GNG. At this point the article doesn't look all that promotional to me and the woodlanddirect source could be dropped if that is a concern. Notability, along with no major advertising/promotional problems lead me to recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Mark viking's sourced improvements. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No real bearing on its noteworthiness, but I did just come to Wikipedia looking for information on this stuff, and it would have been a shame if it wasn't there. Sowelu (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking.--Staberinde (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've removed the eHow reference. That is not a reliable source. The other sources (aside from the vendor site) demonstrate notability, and searches with other terms turns up some more minor coverage like this. The substantial soruces int he article in conjunction with the more minor mentions is sufficient to clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on Richard Genellefor delete the rest. Secret ^account 06:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bollner

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

Contested Proposed deletion saying this individual fails WP:NACTOR, which is true being that he only acted once, did not contribute to the entertainment world in any way nor win any awards or recognition for his acting, lacks a significant fan base, and the accounting firm he is now running does not look notable either. The editor who removed the PROD gave an extremely weak rationale for doing that. To say that a one-time actor is notable just because the film he/she acted in was super popular violates WP:NOTINHERITED and the idea of people having "possible interest" in what these former child actors did after quitting is pure WP:FANCRUFT. Neither circumstance affects our guidelines for determining whether or not an actor is notable to have an article here. I am nominating the following related pages because both are also one-time actors who fail WP:NACTOR as they lack a significant fan base, made no contributions to the acting industry in any way, and PROD templates for both articles were removed without providing a reason.

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

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

Genelle's only notable role was Ernie in Power Rangers while Jung only had two minor roles before her untimely death (the sentence at the start of the article saying she was "best known for her role in the soap opera TV Novel: Dear Love" is a complete overstatement). While her suicide was tragic, it fails WP:EVENT being that it had no constant, long-term or worldwide coverage and not likely impact in the entertainment world in a significant way. Any media attention basically died down within days of her death. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - so are you proposing to selectively merge the content on Bollner and other Wonka child actors into the film article and redirect Michael Bollner? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - No, there is really no point in that. The notability of each child actor is not the same. Julie Dawn Cole and Denise Nickerson have done numerous other notable film roles while Peter Ostrum has made other contributions that merit an article. Paris Themmen, however, seems to not be very notable either, but I won't nominate him for AfD until after I learn more about him. As for your question on my talk page, I don't see the problem with bundling these actors because they have two things in common: 1) They all fail WP:NACTOR in every way, 2) A proposed deletion template was removed either without a reason, or very weak one. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to separate a bundled AfD once it has been created, so if at least one of the article is not deleted after the AfD closes, I will simply renominate it/them for deletion at a later time unless notability can be established. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a way. Just pull the AfD tags from Genelle and Ayul. Neither of them are going to pass AfD - Ayul has literally 100s of Korean print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't be bundling three unrelated actors into one nomination. That being said:

Delete Bollner. Fails NACTOR with a minor role in a major film, and there's nothing else.

Weak keep Genelle. I'm not familiar with the Power Rangers, but a longtime supporting role in a popular series seems (barely) sufficient for me.

Delete Ayul. Fails NACTOR and her suicide hasn't, as far as I can tell, had any long lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Delete Bollner. but save ref to bottom of Wonka film article.

Weak keep Richard Genelle. inevitable, popular series

Keep Jung Ayul significant discussion and heart-wringing in Korean press (see Korean article), some of refs on the more serious/permanent side. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bollner - as per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I greatly dislike bundled BLP AFDs, specially as in this case we have three different individuals who share nothing but that they acted. That said...

Article #1: Redirect Michael Bollner to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, the film for which he received any sort of sourcable recognition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article #2: Weak Keep Richard Genellefor his multiple notable projects. Yes... in all of them he played "Ernie"... but he is verifiable as having been 123 episodes total in two different Power Rangers series, and verifiable as having taken his character to two different Power Rangers films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article #3: Delete Jung Ayul as being a "newbie actress" who did not really give herself a chance to build a career that would meet WP:ENT. Her press coverage is for her untimely demise and we are not a memorial. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) confirmed sock puppeteer[reply]
- Which one... or all three? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of em. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well... Bollner had a role in one quite notable film. Even if failing WP:ENT and not being notable enough for a separate article, there is enough sourcability of that role to merit sending readers to the one place where it makes sense to have his name mentioned. And Genelle has enough in notable productions to meet WP:ENT. Thank you for responding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes . MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworks-uary

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

A promotional article for "That Guy With The Glasses" and his reviews -- and I don't see the encyclopedic value in a list of summaries of one person's movie reviews. ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic and promotional. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete No evidence (or likelihood) of outside coverage of this series. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous a speedy A7 after the article was submitted by User:Ashlark two days ago. Now it is back, equally unreferenced, equally non-notable. No reason to revise previous opinion that it fails WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the article creator's comments on Talk:Dreamworks-uary. These draw attention to another article as precedent: Disneycember. That is equally lacking in references to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's not good either. Shall we add that in to this AFD? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes It does contain things reviewed by Doug Walker of The Nostalgia Critic fame, and his other videos are lumped in with his.MadManAmeica (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Disney-cember: It's important to NC fans. Maybe rename the page to something along the lines of "NC Animated Reviews".- Just Phil 03:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE (or merge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacNighttt (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances in the UEFA Women's Championship

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

Contested PROD. Article consists entirely of sports statistics. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed article for deletion is simply a mirror to National team appearances in the UEFA European Football Championship. While I understand that Wikipedia is not a sport almanac, statistics pages for well-established, highly prestigious competitions like these are common.

I am okay with deleting the proposed article IF AND ONLY IF equal treatment is given to similar articles (e.g. the men's EURO page linked already, National team appearances in the FIFA Women's World Cup, National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, etc.) CyMoahk (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I should've said explicitly: my vote is to keep, unless similar articles are also deleted. CyMoahk (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address something: I think this article was identified because, at the time, it had only one article linking to it (the main article for the competition). While I haven't checked through every article in the "what links here" for the three other competitions I referenced above, I'm fairly certain that the only reason they have so many articles linking to them is that they appear in the templates for their respective competitions, something I didn't do when I first created the nominated article. I don't know if that affects the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. CyMoahk (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reasons for deletion. Keep all. Othervise delete all. NickSt (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gosh I hate saying this, but Wiki doesn't do: "If A,B,C; Then X,Y,Z". We gave up on Basic programming long ago. Though it seems a wonderful argument to hold that "if we have this, then we have to have that...and if we don't have this, then we need to delete all that"...but it just doesn't hold water in a true conversation. You gotta pick your fights one-by-one or find another approach. Let the landslide of disagreement begin... Barada wha? 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and the fact that this subject has not been covered in any significant detail by reliable, third-party publications. I suggest some of the keepers read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Snowman. This pretty clearly falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the page is just stats and boxes of colour, which is as clear a violation of WP:NOTSTATS as you can get. C 679 07:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear Stat Attack. Besides, isn't all this information available in other articles and has just been combined here in a series of tables, the selection of whch seems to be entirely arbitrary and therefore unencyclopaedic. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Madigan

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA, only one fight for the UFC. LlamaAl (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria at WP:NMMA and lacks any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject remains two fights shy of the three required to meet WP:NMMA. His last being in 2009, making the likeliness of another two top-tier fights very low. No WP:SIGCOV other than WP:ROUTINE to warrant a standalone article outside WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Lee (fighter)

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:V, WP:NOR. Subject does not meet WP:NMMA with only two fights for top tier MMA promotions. LlamaAl (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject remains one fight shy of the three required to meet WP:NMMA. His last fight was in 2008, and appears retired. No WP:SIGCOV other than WP:ROUTINE to warrant a standalone article outside WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 05:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about an MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA and whose only source is his record (hardly significant coverage). Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA with two top-tier fights. Fails WP:GNG with no references. Luchuslu (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Chopra

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

Lots of breathless praise, but no sources. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Reliable sources and references have been added. Please review your opinionYUVRAJ CHOPRA (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my opinion has not changed. Most of your "references" are just names of institutions. The others (to The Tribune, for example) are only in-passing mentions and don't add anything to notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I spot a COI violation as well. Delete. Osarius - Want a chat? 11:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find singificant coverage in reliable sources. A search for "Kapil Chopra" turns up many individuals. The most prominent appears to be a bunsinessman heading up the Oberoi group. There are results for somebody by that name involved in the arts (e.g. [5]), but the description of him does not match that of the subject of the Wikipedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - US exile clearly a wiki promotional page, probably thrown up to bolster a CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.95.210 (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfest

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

Non-notable festival sponsored by non-notable band. Bereft of sources. Notability questioned since March 2009.GrapedApe (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources appear to be scant, and the topic appears to fail WP:GNG. Sources found from this search appear to only provide passing mentions about the festival, upon review. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found mostly trivial mentions, plus a few local write-ups like this; not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Gong show 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only similar things to Gongshow. Fails WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 11:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am only finding WP:ROUTINE coverage for what you would expect for a local music festival. Nothing that brings it close to the reliable and independent coverage needed for a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 07:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Malawi-related articles

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

This old list article seems to be trying to replicate the job of a Category. In addition there are literally hundreds of unverifiable redlinks. Simply inappropriate and of little use, as far as I can see. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline of Malawi and add whatever content is in the first one to the second one, minus the massive amount of redlinks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary article list, superseded by Category:Malawi. Don't see a point in redirecting because the title is not a phrase commonly used to search with. Funny ^Pika! 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it's probably not a lot of use in article space given that it is mostly redlinks and Outline of Malawi serves this purpose better. However can things like this be moved into project sub-pages as there seems to be a lot that might be of use to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi? Keresaspa (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I noted on the talk page nearly five years ago, all the entries have articles in the Historical Dictionary of Malawi, so there's at least one usable source for every redlink. Looking at Lists of country-related topics, I can't really tell what the current fashion is for this kind of list. Deleting redlinks seems a little head-in-the-sand about how many articles are still missing... Stan (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Sionk (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've strike'd out my redirect !vote pending resolution on how to handle this given the comments above. I recognize that if those titles came from a reliable source there is value in keeping them around. The question would be how, exactly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipeida namespace under an appropriate WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Development. KTC (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. I didn't realise these 'non-article' lists existed. There is at least one editor who is slowly working through some of the Malawi redlinks and creating solid articles, so moving the list to Wikipedia namespace would be of benefit. As the nominator, I'll happily withdraw my AfD on this basis. Sionk (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've retracted my delete vote based on the above comments. I'll not stand in the way of someone who'll create articles from the list. Funny ^Pika! 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've boldly copied this to Wikipedia namespace, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles, per the rationale of User:KTC and others above. This would promote the creation of articles on Wikipedia. I have also placed a link and information on the project's main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi#Articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles, per my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you copy and paste move the page instead of doing a proper move? KTC (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian cricket league

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

Non-notable cricket competition. Unreferenced and fails WP:CRIN. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - to quote a comment from the previous AfD "since it's a "national, first level league" in a major team sport." In terms of sources, [6] still exists from that previous AfD. Just because the league has only 4 teams does not mean it is not a national, first level league (even if those teams are all Talinn-based). In fact, it's possible that 7 teams compete in this league:[7] (if you discount the bit that appears to have been pulled from the Wiki article). Mention of the league is also present here:[8][9]. Note these are all (bar the one pulled from the previous AfD) English-language sources; it's quite possible, indeed probable, that there will be more coverage in Estonian sources, but I do not understand the language. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom / WP:SNOW. The subject has verified writing credit for a notable song and thus passes WP:COMPOSER. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 01:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catt Gravitt

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

Seemingly an WP:AUTOBIO created by an WP:SPA with the same name as the article. Only a couple of the sources actually mention the subject at all and most of the article consists of unverified claims the subject has writing credit for a whole bunch of songs. Those sources that do mention the subject are the subject's bio published by her record label and a bio from an artists' rights organisation of which the subject seems to be a member. Having searched, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Stalwart111 11:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following response to this AFD was posted to my TP rather than here, so I'm moving it here. Stalwart111 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - Hi....forgive me as I am new to the wikipedia community and learning as I go so I am trying to learn proper communication protocol etc.

I was HIRED by Catt Gravitt to make a personal wikipedia page for her to aid her in her career.

I was advised to take out phrases that sounded too personal or persuasive and have done this to the best of my ability.

ALL of my information has been APPROVED by Mrs. Gravitt as correct, and the sources and references to legitimate companies and websites are cited as I believe they should be.

I will review the page again, but every detail of her career, recognitions and awards, and songwriting information is factual and listing all of her credentials is important and necessary in developing new working relationships in the business as you can imagine.

If this page is deleted, my payment is in jeopardy because I was hired to do a job, and whoever nominated my page is causing my payment to be pending.

Please help me understand why you think my article doesn't meet wikipedia standards because it has ALREADY been approved.

It looks very unprofessional for Mrs. Gravitt to have a songwriter page with a note saying the information may not be valid or legitimate, and I need to get this fixed asap.

Thanks for your help, and for understanding my frustrations with the deletion nomination.

Catt Gravitt (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here. Stalwart111 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who cares if Catt Gravitt herself wrote the article? A quick google search clearly vouches for her notability and the article adds value to the Wikipedia project. If there's anything biased or not written from a neutral point of view in the article...then correct those specific deficiencies. Throwing the baby out with the bath water shows complete disregard for other people's time and effort. --Xerographica (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effort is almost certainly assured when a conflict is involved but it is not, unfortunately, an inclusion justification. But as always, if you have any reliable sources that confer notability, feel free to post them here for consideration. Stalwart111 00:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here she is in a Country Music Television article...1. That alone sufficiently establishes her notability within her field. --Xerographica (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we ordinarily require multiple reliable sources and one paragraph wouldn't normally be considered "significant coverage", but it's certainly a very good start. A couple more like that and we'd be there, as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Billboard.com...she has a number one single. Being covered by CMT...and having a number one hit song...is way more than she truly needs to warrant having her own Wikipedia entry. --Xerographica (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where it says she had... "one title on Billboard's Hot Country Songs every week during the eligibility period..." but that's not the same as a "number one single", unless I'm missing a line in there somewhere. Stalwart111 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article does have proper supporting WP:RS. WP:PAY does not mandate article deletion. "[T]ransparency and neutrality are key." It looks like contributor is working to properly declare COI and willingness/eagerness to comply with WP:FIVE. And it looks like Gravitt meets notability standards. (X – if it's not already there, you otta add the CMT article to her article.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Contributor has posted a COI declaration on her talk page and the Gravitt talk page has a {{Connected contributor}} banner. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Delete arguments fail to advance their position beyond WP:TOOLITTLE. Twice relisted. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India Channel Study

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

Very minimal content Hz.tiang (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy G11 that was placed; perhaps it is the #1 education website and sources can be found for that. if it they can be, it might be notable. There's 7 days for someone to findthem. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is, as claimed, the leading Indian educational website in terms of Alexa rankings. Getting much in the way of Internet sources presents the usual problem that educational material, on the Internet, has very limited availability in English in India. Therefore, we must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem seems to be with lack of editor attention to the article, not the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Minimal content is not a reason to delete. MarioNovi (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ithaka (musician). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers And The Color Of Paint

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

As written in the article itself:

The original pressing of Flowers And The Color Of Paint was only 1500 copies and although a song, Escape from The City Of Angels made it into a Hollywood movie, there was never an official soundtrack.

While the musician that wrote the music might possibly be notable, the album itself appears to fail any number of notability criteria. (My internet access is misbehaving: might have to edit this for specificity and clarifications) Shirt58 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Ithaka (musician) as a plausible search term. Unless I'm missing something, this does not even begin to meet WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The size of the initial pressing is irrelevant; the lack of reviews or other significant coverage indicates it's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems sensible if people think its a plausible search term. Not seeing enough for a standalone article, though. Stalwart111 11:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ghost-riding. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ride It

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

Has received nowhere near enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article (just one source), and did not appear on any major music chart - surely fails WP:NSONGS and WP:N. The album that it was released as a single from is up for deletion as well, so I suggest a delete instead of a redirect. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Ghost-riding or Mistah F.A.B.. The article may only have a single cite, but there are plenty more out there. Google News archive finds 80 hits. Granted, the news stories are primarily in the context of the ghost-riding fad. It's place on official charts was stunted through its being withdrawn in the wake of outcry over the dangerous ghost-riding association and objections from the Ghostbusters copyright/trademark owners; however, it surely had a large popular appeal--there are millions of Youtube hits across multiple video versions, and last.fm records 600,000+ listens. Multiple reliable sources have noted its musical/popular success--"his breakout single" (Allmusic), "F.A.B.'s stupidly great single" (Pitchfork), "a modern masterpiece" (Harvard Crimson), "irresistibly catchy" (sportsillustrated.cnn.com). There is not really that much material here, though, so I think that it could be comfortably accommodated in either target article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hobbes This phenomenon was very much like a meme, or an Internet fad like planking or tebowing, and this song was central to the phenomenon's wider popularity. I don't think it has independent notability, but I think it would best be merged with the Ghostriding article. Cdtew (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Moyer

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

Not notable but assertion is there. Ariconte (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage rises to the level of interesting but ultimately not notable. There is the local coverage and some appearances on TV. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Five minutes of fame for some juggling stunts is not notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_My-HiME_anime_characters. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Greer

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

I don't see why this character is of encyclopedic importance. It's completely in-universe, has only primary sources, and seem entirely non-notable. We are not an anime fansite, at least we're not supposed to be. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters. I don't see where this character is independently notable of the series itself. A redirect is appropriate in this instance.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters, ~~the info on the character page just has a brief mention of the character, more detailed info without going too far would be helpful~~ - Edit: I have gone ahead and made the merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A character that has not received enough real world coverage. Also has no independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Chaos (webzine)

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

Non-notable web zine, can find no coverage to establish notability in independent sources. This issue has been raised as far back as 2007 on the talk page and there are still no reference to establish notability of the publication. Ridernyc (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition every single edit of substance to this article has been performed by a SPA whose sole purpose is to add spam for this webzine. Only about 50 edits since article was created in 2005 and every single non cleanup or maintenance edit performed by an SPA spam account. Not sure how this is still here. Ridernyc (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – As it stands, the article is overly reliant on sourcing to its own website (which is a reliable source for itself, but does not help with WP:N notability). I was able to add a few more sources however. The 'zine is somewhat notable as one of the first webzines dedicated to extreme metal music, which I've sourced to Billboard. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of the topic that is the subject of the article about the periodical being discussed. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik & Cirt. Argolin (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DataStax

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

Non-notable software firm. Of sources listed, only two are reliable, the rest are either self-published or wikis/open-editing sites. Extensive editing by COI editor (employee). The two sources are not sufficient to satisfy either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Google pulled up a lot of press releases, but not much press that I could find. GregJackP Boomer! 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The bylined article from InformationWeek plus the two bylined articles from The Register are decent discussions of the company. On the face of it, enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH: my only reservation is whether they are discussing the transient context of the firm as a start-up. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DataStax has been the subject of articles in computer periodicals (e.g. http://www.eweek.com/database/apache-cassandra-based-datastax-community-edition-1.2-launches/), (e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/datastax_enterprise_cassandra_2_0/). DataStax is considered to be one of four significant independent commercial players in the NoSQL market (see http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/01/15/4545144/research-and-markets-global-nosql.html) (or see 451group.com/information_management/2012/05/30/a-different-perspective-on-nosql-vendor-traction/), and the others -- Basho (company) and 10gen and Couchbase -- are in Wikipedia. The venture-capital funding ($38.7 million) is confirmed by Crunchbase www.crunchbase.com/company/datastax. The customer list can be at least partly confirmed by the customers themselves (e.g. for Netflix see http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.html). The COI issue, if it exists, could be solved by removing a particular editor's contributions rather than deleting the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Crunchbase link cited is open to editing by anyone, and is not reliable (in the same manner as IMDb is not reliable). I don't have a problem withdrawing the nom if sufficient reliable sources are found, I didn't find them when I looked (or I missed them in all the fluff). GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any or all of the 182,000 hits that I find by googling for DataStax Venture Capital could be for false fronts, copiers of press releases, or user-editable places. Perhaps one alternative is to look up the venture-capital companies' web sites and see whether they mention DataStax, e.g. http://lsvp.com/company/datastax/ or http://www.meritechcapital.com/investments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article today to (I hope) take care of the worst issues.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Good source coverage of DataStax as subject of articles, periodicals and news coverage (forbes, wsj, reuters and zdnet). Tendency for strong keep, even.Editor400 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sockpuppet vote. See here. MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rewrite by Peter Gulutzan has significantly improved the article. Of the sources quoted in the article, including those added since nomination, the Dr. Dobbs article, Network World article, ZDnet article, and Eweek article are secondary sources, in depth about the topic, and are from reliable sources. The Jaxenter article and Forbes article might be RS, but I cannot tell if they are news stories or blog entries; both are reliable publishers. Given the multiple reliable sources in the article, it looks like this topic passes general notability guidelines. There are a few remaining peacock words in the article, but I don't find it strongly promotional; this is a minor, surmountable problem. Given the notability and the now minor problems, this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Club

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

Fails WP:CLUB -- no verifiable coverage. Also, notability isn't derived from notable members per WP:NOTINHERITED. —Waldhorn (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In an effort to generate interest in this discussion, I have lightly canvassed recent contributors to Organ Club and Pipe Organ who are both active editors and appear to have an interest in the topic. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A society claiming to be worldwide and having operated for over 85 years may well be notable, but I would want to see some content in the article indicating its significance, in the field of organ music before deciding. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unsure; I need to do more research before deciding. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree per User:Peterkingiron --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a brief look at sources online finds lots of information at Google Books and Google Scholar. Il also found a good source on The Organ Club Jubilee Fund. They are also listed on the definitive list of such groups. So I think it's at least marginally notable, but may need more editing. FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine was a member of the American Guild of Organists. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost certain to meet WP:GNG; just needs more work finding references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is basically a single line about the club (sourced from their material), a long list of non-notable members and a large section advertising for membership. So it fails on several counts. I can't see any evidence of significant indpendent sources about the Club. If any come to light the article can easily be recreated with content appropriate for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The various listings mention above do no more than prove that the group exists, which we can tell from its website anyway. Secondary references beyond directories are conspicuously lacking and are heavily masked, if they exist, by all the other Organ Clubs out there. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Yongliang

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

Contested PROD (PROD was not by me). Huge mess. May be notable, but as it stands article is not salvageable, in my opinion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if those dot points are all legit it suggests a widely shown artist who may very well be notable given the galleries listed, per WP:ARTIST. But nom is dead right - article is a horrible mess. WP:TNT? Stalwart111 11:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've started trying to (a) tidy the article (though it remains far from well-formatted) and (b) add references to reliable press and museum coverage. The latter is the matter at issue here: the subject is plainly exhibiting widely and I think the level of international coverage is just about enough to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep At least this work of is in the permanent collection of the British Museum, and there is descriptive information at that RS link sufficient for an article. Rewriting will of course be needed, as for most articles submitted here about contemporary artists. (this is especially true since much of the page may be a loose paraphrase from outside sources.) DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I "fixed" it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and per the notability that Sven's improvements have made obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It feels weird to see an edit marked (-8,931)‎ described as an improvement... Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:CREATIVE following the clean up. Mkdw ^talk 07:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leela (2013 film)

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

per WP:NOTFILM Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many bluenames, but "shooting of the film is planned to start in the mid of 2013" which goes against WP:NFF. I'm not a huge fan of WP:NFF, but articles like this are usually deleted. jonkerz ♠talk 12:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy. I did find sources and edited the article a little, but ultimately all I was able to find was some talk about casting issues and that although filming is set to begin this month, the final script hasn't been completed and that much of the film's progress depends on that. It's a shame that we don't have an article for the short story, as I found some talk to suggest that it is considered to be quite notable in India. But until that article gets created and until principal photography begins, this should be incubated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Userfy. Has coverage, but not enough to be an exception to WP:NFF. Until its time comes, it can be written of in the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. It's simply too soon. The script hasn't even been written... BOVINEBOY2008 15:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie O'Yang

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

Is this writer sufficiently notable? It looks like she has published only two novels, neither of which seemed to draw much response. I don't think this is quite enough for notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both books are self-published. I can't find the origin of her other identifiable work "Secret of Silk", which seems to have sunk with little trace, or to be only available under a non-English version of the title. The only references I can see in a quick sweep of the article's history are to literary agencies, at neither of which I can find her name. Not unless Pontas have an indexing system that classes her under something other than J, O or Y. I'm open to revision if better evidence of notability can be found. Peridon (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, 'Butterfly' is the book currently being publicised, there's another one also at Amazon, and 'Secret of Life' is the currently disappeared and presumably earliest one. Peridon (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to see where she or her books are notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There were some false hits for an anthropologist by the same name, but nothing specifically for this Julie O'Yang that would show she's notable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although numericaly the opinions to keep exceeded to delete AfD is not a vote. The delete opinions were more policy based. As suggested by AdventurousSquirrel, I would be happy to userfy the article to anyone who wants to work on it without the spectre of AfD hanging over their head. What this means is that the page would be moved into your user-space where it can be edited freely. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla)

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:ORG, relies heavily on self-published sources, search didn't provide significant, reliable, independent coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep that's the only ashram in europe about Sant Mat, home of the only european guru of this path... why remove it? there are books about it and various websites about this place...--GurDass (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the article there are lots of references from various independent sources! --GurDass (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the page is not ok now but it was ok for years and with the help of many wikipedia users and administrators that improved it! --GurDass (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I beg to differ. The page's edit history reveals its major contributors to be you, and other users who seem to be closely connected to the subject matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep why remove this page? the place is known and significant--MarcoG83 (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) is a public place in Italy. Sirio Carrapa is a teacher known by many from Europe to India to South America. When I was preparing to interview him on my inter-faith radio program I used this very page as a resource to help me learn more about this particular teacher and school of philosophy. Why would anyone want to delete this entry, which has been present for many months or years? The spirit of Wikipedia is access to knowledge about many subjects from various points of view, not that of vandalism or censorship by those less sympathetic with one topic or another, or political party or another, or religion or another, etc... Making legitimate entries disappear for less that clear reasons should not be a routine occurrence here, I would hope. Third party arbitration can be useful. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who uses Wikipedia articles like this one to gather information and inform your listeners, you should understand that Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies are of the utmost importance to maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If you want a collection of ideas from self-published sources, you can simply visit the organization's website or subscribe to the "Sant Bani Magazine", which this article uses as references. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the world there are several Sant Bani Ashrams - but it does not mean they are belonging to the same organization. Most of them are independent from each other; belong to different, separatley operating organizations. This Magazin that is mentioned, it is and indepent media from the Sant Bani Association that is running the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla. It is not a self publication, but was published by a totally other organization. So, it is an independent source of information.

Moroever, related to magazins; I have a question to more advanced wikipedia users; there is a Hungarian magazin, that is called LIFE magazin. This magazin was reporting about the existence of the Sant Bani Ashram in its issue July 2012; and published some interviews with Master Sirio. But it is not available as a free of charge digital media. Anyhow; once they even put the photo of Master Sirio on the cover of the magazin. But how could I mark it as independent reference; what is the correct way of it? Could you give me advice? Thanks a lot. This is the link for the covers of the magazin, where it is visible, Master Sirio was on the cover recently, (also talking about the ashram in interview): http://pozitivemberek.hu/kategoriak/49 . D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Sirio Carrapa Most of this material is already in the guru's article, and GHits (particularly GBook hits) seem to make it clear that this ashram is of interest only because of him. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry don't agree... Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) was active before Sirio Carrapa become a master, and will (i hope) be active after... that place has an history also for followers of Ajaib Singh. On italian wikipedia there is no problem for these two pages....--GurDass (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was founded by him in 1979! Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is stated in the "The foundation of the ashram" section of the Sirio Carrapa page, the ashram was founded in 1979 under the tenure of the previous guru, Sant Ajaib Singh, who was guru at that time, and passed on 18 years later, in 1997. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the two entries would be like merging the entries of 'Liberty University', 'Thomas Road Baptist Church', and 'Jerry Falwell'. If someone argued for such a merger in that case, would the motivation be to save space at Wikipedia? Or might we speculate that it's more likely to be for some other reason perhaps such as a value judgement? There is a entry for 'ashram' that might also be good for pro-deleters to thoughtfully consider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashram Santmatradhasoami (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also references at Wikipedia to the Sant Bani School and Sant Bani Ashram in New Hampshire, USA. These have their own histories in connection with Ruhani Satsang and Kirpal Singh, as does Sant Bani Ashram Ribolla. To take away the entry for the one in Italy would be ill-advised. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I find strange to consider removing the page about Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) as this place is an existing public place, known by lots of people around the world, shown on so many photos that it is an existing real place. I know myself that it is not a fake article, since I have been visiting this place personally many times, and meeting there with people arriving from all corners of the world, from UK to USA and Canada, from Mexico to Venezuela; from almost all countries of Europe; and even from India.

Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) is the biggest Surat Shabd Yoga meditation centre; or with other name, Sant Mat ashram in Europe. This place is operating in a fully nonprofit way; making it possible to so many people every year to practice Surat Shabd Yoga there with one of the living great Yoga Masters, Master Sirio. Even about these programs held there, one could find so many documentary photos, proving the real existence of the place, and that a number of people go there to visit it and attend programs from all over the world. Also, there are a number of other (non English language) independent (third party) websites referring to this place; reporting about programs held there, articles written by attendants of the programs etc. I do not fully understand the base of the proposal; and also that upon one proposal the page could be removed. I find this policy very strange and fully agree with Santmatradhasoami, in hoping that this page can remain on the wikipedia, after so many years, giving relevant information to all those about this place who was looking for it. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep this ashram is situated in the Italian landscape of Toskany. It was founded by and for the Indian spiritual master Ajaib Singh, who is a direct successor of Sant Kirpal Singh, former president of the World Conference of Religions and first asian bearer of the orden of Malta. Thus this Ashram is famous for itself and not an advertisement for the european Sant Mat master Sirio, who just had and has his private house there as well. On the contrary, this Ashram provides shelter and information about several other spiritual Masters of different Sant Mat lineages, as I can witness, being a disciple of the mentioned Sant Kirpal Singh and because in this Ashram there are books in its small library for example from Maulana Rumi (Sufi-Master and poet), Baha Ullah, Hafiz, Sawan Singh and Kirpal Singh. Thus this Ashram is unique in Europe and I am sure, there will be many more arguments to keep this Wiki-page separate to the page of Master Sirio Carrapa. (Dr.med.Dietrich Klüber).

Moreover we find similar examples in all fields of life in Wiki: The White House and pages for its presidents, The Vatikan and pages for the present pope, the Kaaba and a page for Mohammed, and last but not least Graceland and its inhabitant Elivs Presley ! So dear Squirrel, page patroller and member of the welcome comittee, please reconsider your task and be fair...Dr.med.Klüber (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While this topic is clearly of great importance to you and your friends here involved in the discussion, unlike the easily recognizable locations with a wealth of coverage in reliable sources, I respectfully submit that this location is of questionable encyclopedic value. If you feel this article should be retained as it is, you can help your case best by familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies, and adding information from reliable sources independent of the subject matter. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would personally never want this page to be deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richamystic (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here you can see an article about the Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla) on the CESNUR website... Cesnur it's the center of studies on new religions, an independent, famous, authoritative source... it's in italian so I was not sure to link to the english page about the ashram, but it is linked in the italian one... GurDass (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian and other non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, so long as they fit the description of reliable sources. Please feel free to add any you find meet such standards. It is necessary to demonstrate significant coverage in such sources. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reference added to the page. I still don't understand why all in a sudded the page become non enciclopedic while in years it was good. Sant Mat in europe is located only here, this place is not the most important Sant Mat place in europe, it's the only one! --GurDass (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe not the only place of Sant Mat in Europe; but definitely it is the biggest center of Surat Shabd Yoga or Sant Mat in Europe. Here is an other reference to "talk" about independent "cover": http://aranyhegy.com/sirio-mester#ashram ; I am going to add to the references. Thanks for letting know not only English language references are accepted. ((Above in a comment I wrote not correctly "greatest centre"; sorry I am non-English, I meant biggest.)) D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I find it strange to first question the relevance of the page; then suggest merging it into an other page. The Sant Bani Ashram itself - the public place - is the property of the Sant Bani Association and not Master Sirio. He has his own property, that is separated from the Sant Bani Ashram; moreover he is not even living on the property of the Ashram. I really agree with Dr.med.Klüber; to my eyes it would be the same thing like proposing merging the wiki page of the Vatikan with that of the present pope and so on... By the way, this is a fully independent site from Sant Bani Ashram: http://aranyhegy.com that is also referring to and telling about the Ashram; it is in Hungarian; but still an independet source of information that is confirming the real existence and usage of the public place in question. There are also other independent websites telling about the Ashram - but in Hungarian. Anyhow; I will collect them then later on and add to the reference list. I did not think of doing it before, as they are in Hungarian. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was looking once, over the internet, for any of the Ashrams located in Europe that propagate teachings of Santmat and was pleased to find this page - it is great to know that there are centres in that part of the world who do so much to preserve & propagate the priceless esoteric wisdom of sants (saints) from all across the globe. Santmat is a completely secular, harmonious, syncretist, non-sectarian and purely spiritual school of thought which is doing so much to spread positive feelings so very essential to bring about real peace in a world that is torn by so much of strife, ill-will, animosity & hatred. All such centres are places are a great relief for the humanity at large and, hence, any attempt to notify or publish information about such places should be strongly encouraged and supported by all well-meaning sections or individuals.

So, personally I consider it a verily unfair and biased idea to delete a page like this, and, therefore, very strongly recommend that the page be kept. - Pravesh K. Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveshksingh (talk • contribs) 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ - Dear All, I was editing the article; also adding one more new reference for the sake of "significant cover"; and adding new - in my opinion - more informative photo montage also. I was pondering over all the pros and kontras of this discussion, and I made these changes in the article about the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla, after understanding (hopefully) why it could have been proposed for deleting or merging. So, please, AdventurousSquirrel and all others taking part in the discussion, go and see the page now, if in your opinion all the information are more understandable now to describe and give information about this public place, called Sant Bani Ashram - Ribolla. If you have any further advice to improve the page, please let me know.

In my opinion the information that is on the page is trustworthy, hopefully detailed and informative enough for everybody who would like to know about this place. I really disagree with merging as well, since the place in a way is independent from Master Sirio Carrapa, SSYoga master, as the public place, Sant Bani Ashram - as written above - is the property of the Sant Bani Association, so I do not see the point in merging the two pages. One is representing a public person; and the other is representing a public place, that has its own history. I myself am the vice-president of the SBA Association, knowing the ashram and its history very well. So, I cannot accept the deleting of the page upon the given reasons, but of course I am ready to edit the content and reference list upon good and useful advices from expert wiki users. My activity is fully nonprofit in it, such as that of anybody for the ashram and the all operation and running of the place. So, please respect the noble purpose behind the case, and instead of propsing for deletion, help to improve the page to those people who were creating it and who may be less knowledgeable in wiki terms then other expert ones. Thanks a lot. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I truly applaud your efforts and thank you for your polite discourse. I understand that this is a subject matter of great importance to you, but must I ask you to please review Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of topics, identifying reliable sources, and also the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest, and let me or another uninvolved party know if you have some specific questions about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. On a side note, although an AfD is not a popular vote, please make sure that you "!vote" only once, as voting more than once can lead to the false impression that you are attempting to unfairly influence the decision making process. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can I know when and who fill finally decide about this page? I really think that there are good reasons (and good sources) to keep it, and I still don't see anybody saying and proofing the opposite (except you, but with no elements to support your opinion). Let's end this story in a way or the other! --GurDass (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the normality or precedent of an entry for a spiritual teacher AND another page about the ashram associated with the same path or philosophy: Jai Gurudev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_gurudev Naam yog Sadhna Mandir ('mandir' is another term for ashram): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naam_yog_Sadhna_Mandir No, deletion is not always the answer. In this case it seems unreasonable to assume no improvements can be forthcoming. The default position should always be to seek to improve articles. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the three of you talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. But in the end, Jai Gurudev is sourced from newspaper articles and the like, not from his books or those of his supporters. You do the same, and this article can stay. The more words you pour over us, the more it is obvious that you cannot do this thing. You have to do research in secondary sources like everyone else; I would like to think that, as adherents, you might have a better idea where to find them, but if you cannot produce them, then we shall be forced to conclude that the ashram isn't notable (which is to say, nobody outside its own little world cares about it), and the article will be deleted. Quit wasting our time by going on at length with WP:WALL's of text which don't address the core problem. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for your anger here dude. One person has made some additions to the page in question and says he will add more. In good faith let's see if this happens. About this page for discussion it says: "You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome." "Please share your thoughts on the matter." We have been doing just that. OK, and if I feel to need to make other comments.... I will. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked in the page the center for studies on new religions. That alone is surely enough. So now we can remove this discussion and the page can remain. --GurDass (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I linked the reference of the Hungarian Golden Mountain Association - that is a fully independent organization with more hundred followers. Still some users talk about "talking". So, what is the point in that we are editing and trying to improve the page - upon your useful advice, if you do not even take them into consideration or check it up? Of course, again you may say i keep talking. But I do not feel to get relevant helping attitude feedback on the improvements that we made on the page. Could you please do? So, there are the new references from the center for studies on new religions; the Golden Mountain Association... Thanks a lot for your help. Maybe we are not notable in using the wikipedia yet (as being beginners); but it does not mean the entry that we made is also not. We highly appreciate your helpful positive attitude in improving the available content on WP. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one week passed. So? --GurDass (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one week passed or not - I think the article about the Sant Bani Ashram improved a lot. So I must acknowledge, for this reason this discussion around the topic was for good reason, thanks for all those taking part in it. Moreover, I, myslef understood, that we have to add more independent cover to show the notability and significance of the entry. So by now some more independent references were added; and in a short time - after understanding the motivation behind the proposal of deletion - I am sure more relevant, significant references will be available. Anyhow, I would kindly ask other more expert users, to be more patient - in their communication as well - with other less expert ones. Definitely, the Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla is not a global multinational organization - and it never wants to become one. But still, it is the biggest center of Surat Shabd Yoga in Europe, and more hundred people know about it and in the chores of time a growing number of people go to visit it every year to attend programs there, so I would never say the place as a public place is not notable. So, after adding new references, I would suggest to close this discussion, and with good faith, remove the proposal for deletion from the article, as according to the standars of WP the article could be accepted very well, and let us see if by time it keeps improving, as I am sure, it will, since everything has a starting point in life. Thank you. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for a final decision on this deletion. I really think there is no element to delete this page. It is well sourced with links taken from newspapers, indepentent sant mat websites and the Center for Studies on New Religions also talks about this place. That is a not-common place, free and non-profit. A week is passed and nobody except for the user that originally asked for deletion agreed with him... --GurDass (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The majority of the keep votes are formatted in the same unusual way. Not that I'm paranoid or anything but... most have little to no contributions outside this article and/or this deletion discussion. I think it's fair to suspect either WP:SOCK or WP:MEATSOCK - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see the notability of the subject, sourcing issues also Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting: While the effort of our new users should be applauded their connection to the subject can not be overlooked. Would like to see an assessment of the recently submitted sources/external links before this discussion is closed. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J04n; could you please explain to me what it does mean? D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply that I would like folks without an association with the subject to comment on the sources provided. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree, the article has external and reliable sources, and this is a fact: magazines, books with ISBN, CESNUR... this is a fact and can't be contested. So this deletion process is based on opinions or facts? I have hundreds of edits on both english and italian wikipedia since years.GurDass (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable CORP or ORG, stablishing a book with ISBN is not a reason to sustain verifiability or notability, as all of theses seem to be primary sources, all of them seem material produced by the company itself. Wikipedia is not a directory for every single SPA/Yoga center in the world. Also search does not prove its basic statement biggest functioning Yoga center in Europe. A search for the book with the respective ISBN also do not bring any result as per Special:BookSources/8888282556. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

these links are not produced by the "company" (there is no company!):

http://www.cesnur.org/religioni_italia/r/radhasoami_02.htm http://aranyhegy.com/sirio-mester#ashram http://www.abc-of-meditation.com/view-refer.asp?id=12839&ReturnPage=%2Ftps%2Fpresentation-preview-short-retreatcenter.asp%3FTP_ID%3D12839 --GurDass (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is true. The Sant Bani Ashram is owned and directed by a fully nonprofit association that has no payed employers and nobody is earning any profit through its operation. D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and nobody claimed this is the biggest yoga center in europe, this is the only Surat Shabd Yoga place in europe with a living Guru of this specific path/faith! --GurDass (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is true, I must agree with GurDass concerning this: "Also search does not prove its basic statement biggest functioning Yoga center in Europe" - I am sorry, but nobody claimed it. There are many types of yoga in the world. there are basic groups, or lets say types of yoga, like hatha-yoga, bhakti yoga etc... And those have many ramifications, different Yoga traditions grew out from these base elements. Surat Shabd Yoga or Sant Mat is one of these traditions that has so many followers around the world; more hundred thousands of people who gather around living Masters. Sant Bani Ashram is not a yoga center in the way as any westerner would think after hearing the word 'yoga'. It is not a place like yoga centers in the cities where people go to have kind of training. This public place is a place where regular mediation retreats are organizad, that includes certain kind of elements, but not physical training for what peopel pay. With other words we could say, it is a nonprofit place (not like any yoga center where people do physical practice; here it is not done) that could be cathegorized as recreational center, meditation center, pilgrimage (of Sant Mat), health center, Ayurvedic center, personal develeopment center and so on. These are all included. And about telling it is the biggest: its land is 17 hectars big, that has 4 main builidings (inculding separated man and woman dormitory with several independent bathrooms), a meditation hall: indoor and ourdoor as well; an artificial lake; its own solar panel system and piped water system, electricity and so on and so forth - though it is really located in the nature. I have never heard about a bigger public place like this in Europe used for the purpose. As far as my knowledge goes, it is a fact - and nobody every proved the opposite - that Sant Bani Ashram in Ribolla is the biggest public place in Europe where Sant Mat is practiced. Moreover, as I wrote, it is not a simple "yoga center", but a public place that is running in a fully nonprofit way with the noble purpose of bringing peace and improvement in the quality of life for those visiting it. Actually, probably that is one reason why nobody cared of "significant cover" before, because it is fully running in a nonprofit way. So I really find it strange to kind of attack the page about this public place like this - as I wrote before, that from now on, care is going to be taken of this aspect also - mean "significant, independent cover". Moreover there are a number of publications (but not all in English) reporting about the Ashram and the spiritual work done here, but unfortunatelly a big number of them is not digital media; and also it takes some more time to collect everything in a well arranged way. As I wrote once before Sant Bani Magazin also has nothing in common with this Ashram in Europe. That Magazin is printed in the USA, and lets say it is one of the biggest magazin of Sant Mat, like a professional media of the case. I hope I expressed myself well enough in English. So, it is also a fully independet source of information, this Ashram itself has nothing to do with the magazin - has no effect on what is printed or written there; so if they reported on the Ashram, it means they - like professional media of the case - found it notable, significant and relevant. Sant Bani - means the teachings of the Saints or the voice of the Saints and many public places wear this name where Sant Mat or Surat Shabd Yoga is practiced - though they are fully independent from each other, belonging to totally different, separate, independent organizations or persons. So, again thank you for your poinitngs out, but also, I would like to ask to remove the deletion proposal, as the article was edited and shaped; and also independent references were marked, and as was said, will be added as well. So, more references will be add by and by; but seeing the good efforts of the editors of the page, please remove the proposal for deletion. I must say, there are some wikipedia articles that are even less supproted by references, and they do not have such a detailed description, but nobody ever questions their relevancy or notability. I wonder why. Thanks for your help.D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A comment to our two wall-of-texting extremely involved respondents: first, it's blatantly obvious that one of you has a very close and direct relationship with the ashram, given that you are providing us with images from the ashram's website which you claim to have taken yourself. I have to believe that the other has a similar if not as obvious connection. Second, your attitude towards the place is plainly promotional: you want it to be documented here because it's important to you, and you want it documented in a way that you think would attract others to it. Most people write about things here that they love, but to be successful they (and you) need to write about them in some other fashion besides as lovers. Third, running on and on and burying us in words is not the way to positively influence people here; neither are threats/demands of process. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way of putting it. But it was written, it was a wall of discussion. So what is a discussion, if not discussing the topic. Then I find it strange to be blamed of trying to go into a discussion to better understand the case. And on the other hand, I would think that is how WP improves and groves, that people, who has knowledge of a given topic, they create a descriptive article, documented with pictures and supported with references, independent as well. So again, I find it strange to be instead of thanked to make an article, that gives information about a public place, and again working a lot with it, in trying to improve according WP standards, to again be blamed, because of being linked to it in any way. I wonder, who else could write better on a public place but that, who likes it, so, for this reason studied it, visited it... As you also wrote Mangoe: Most people write about things here that they love. That is how information is created all over the internet; and if somebody knows eg a public place better, the information may be more reliable and relevant. I do not think that tha article is trying to convince anybody about anything - but it is a descreption, telling about the present conditions and details of the place, telling the history of its foundation, reason, development, purpose etc. So, please, then instead of only referring to it, let me know which is the part exactly that you think is not descriptive, but propaganda. In my editings I really tried to focus on the facts - but since we are all different - maybe to others it does not seem like. Anyhow, to conclude, I do not take your proposals at all as being opponents, but I really take it as a useful help, and I am very glad that the description of this public place did improve. As I wrote before, I, myself understood what was meant under "significant cover" - and be sure, by and by, -as soon as possible- it will be listed under the article. So, thanks for your helping cooperation.D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I love the subject of the page and I'm involved with it. But this does not mean that I can also talk on the subject in an enciclopedic way. The sources are provided, I listed some links some comments ago and I can repeat them:

CESNUR page, not affiliated with the subject, super partes organization

another website that refers to the place, not affiliated to it

same here

To this we can add lots of numbers of "Sant Bani Magazines" printed in america by another association that refers to this and this only place as the only place in italy about Surat Shabd Yoga (Ajaib Singh branch).

So these are external sources, not involved with the subject and not in control by me, the owner association of the place.

These are facts. If you find some part of the article that is not in good form, we can improve it. But the place remains relevant as the only Sant Mat ashram with the only Sant Mat Guru in europe, that is also one of the EIGHT Guru all over the world on this branc as you can see on Kirpal_Singh#Legacy_and_succession. This place is unique as Vatican or Kaaba. The numbers are different, but not the relevance for adherents of this path/faith (also called Radhasoami ). --GurDass (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: I nominated this for deletion because IMO it doesn't meet the requirements of a mainspace article, but the argument could be made that it is a good candidate article to userfy rather than delete. I still am not convinced that there are enough reliable sources that exist on this topic to make it possible to save as a standalone article, but there are clearly a few new editors involved here who are undeniably committed to improving/saving the article. If such an action were indeed to take place, however, I would again encourage the new editors to really make an effort to familiarize themselves with: WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:COI (including the COI guide. It looks like they might not be exactly the same as they are on English Wikipedia, but please note that these documents should exist in several languages in the interlanguage links along the side of the page to make them easily accessible to users most comfortable with languages other than English. (Nominator) AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VeryFirstTo

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

fails WP:CORP. sources provided merely confirm existence. nothing in gnews [10]. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search turns up: Their own website; their Twitter account info; their very own pinterest.com info; them on YouTube; and their Facebook info. And they have created their own "VeryFirst To" award(s) - there seems to have been a bit of coverage online from the likes of: Frost Magazine and The Citizens of Fashion - but the first is an online snipet of their "award" show with links to Facebook/etc, and the second is their own .com site it seems. I also found ibtimes, but can't verify it's reliability - maybe someone from the UK can attest to it if possible. There was this quote; "is an online business, which enables individuals to be the first to know about, and have, newly launching luxury products and experiences." making me wonder over speculation. And also this quote; "The site is aimed at ûber consumers' who are distinguished by their desire to be the first to have the latest products and experiences, and their willingness to pay many times over the normal price." that seems an even more speculative and impractical business ideal. And then this; "Access to the site is through free or paid-for membership, the latter of which provides access to exclusive privileges." that sounds of pricing/promotion. I see a couple more reasons than that above...but we have some WP:SELFPUB (toss in all Twitter, YouTube, pinterest.com & "VeryFirstTo" awards, etc) & WP:SELFPROMOTE too. Big issues with sourcing...runs afoul of WP:SOURCES...seems like they created all the "buzz" themselves. Ren99 ^wha? 10:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ray J. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raydiation 2

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

Raydiation is an album that is coming out in the future with no indication of when. I propose deletion of the page and then redirection into Ray J per the normal consensus for these types of albums. Thebirdlover (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ray J, if there are enough content to start an article about its production, composition and background, but there ain't enough material for such. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I was reading over this and was curious to notice; "is the upcoming fifth studio album by American R&B recording artist Ray J. It is the fourth album by Ray J to feature production from Darkchild....The first single, "One Thing Leads to Another", which features Pitbull, was released on October 12, 2010. A video for the single hasn't been released as of yet. The second single, "Last Wish", was released on October 19, 2010. A video for the single was released on December 1, 2010. Couple years slow in the coming I guess, so may as well send it to Ray J's place... Ren99 ^wha? 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as SEO spam. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way to earn driving license

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

Article was proposed for deletion per PROD but contested by the article's creator. WP:NOTHOWTO. ~satellizer~~talk~ 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology of Ohio University

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

This topic isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article as it's just a (largely unsourced) list of plants and animals in a tiny geographic location ElKevbo (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be original research by an editor whose work here thusfar is devoted to Ohio University. This does not seem to be a notable topic separate from the ecology of that region of Ohio. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH, unless soembody can find a good source that states firmly that the main campus is a microclimate. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' if there are sources and any form of protection then I'd say keep - a number of habitats over a fairly small area (although I imagine it's much larger than some protected areas) with protection of any kind would make an excellent topic for an article. You might want to talk to some of the folks at WP:Protected areas perhaps? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Drift Trike

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

Prod removed without explanation by article author. Seems to have been written by an author with a serious conflict of interest in an effort to promote a particular product. Could not find a single reliable source to suggest that the product or company or activity is notable. Stalwart111 04:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: reference 1 is the company's own website, reference 2 is an association page that doesn't mention the subject at all and reference 3 is an advertisement/vlog that includes some people using the subject product but doesn't explain what they are, the history, etc - certainly not "significant coverage" as would ordinarily be required. Stalwart111 05:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article seems spamish, and flooded with self published content, wikipedia is not a blog or an adsense site, also the neutrality of the article is already compromised. The notability is the most intriguing factor, even though it is my preliminary opinion, even though a quick search brings no reliable sources which would sustain its maintenance (and prove that the subject is in fact notable) on WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Hi

What kind of information do you need for this article to be deemed as fit for Wiki?

This is a product that we created and such all images bare our Logo's (which i have now taken down). The main information for electric trikes are on Blogs, Forums and our website. A well known company (Audi) has used an Electric Trike in its video, we have images of an electric trike on a Track, being built from the ground up and given a detailed description on how they are used and built.

I spent a good amount of time making it as detailed as possible and in comparison to Drift Trikes Wiki Page it seems much more informative.

If you could take the time to inform me of what information you need to see to believe an Electric Drift Trike is a real thing and how i explained the functionality is true, i would greatly appreciate it.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrikeDrifters (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a couple of messages at your talk page with some of the policies and guidelines you should have a read of. But basically, the stuff at WP:N is a good place to start. Then WP:RS with regard to blogs and forums as sources. It being a real thing is not automatic justification for an article here, as existence does not equal notability. Stalwart111 07:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kokology. J04n(talk page) 13:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cube (game)

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

No evidence found for notability outside of a few mentions in blogs. a13ean (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The game is not notable, its author however Annie Gottlieb is pretty notable though, because she received media coverage about her work on the book which dictates the game. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article can be redirected to a more suitable article, than I'm all for it. If not than delete. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Of the two references, one is primary and the other doesn't mention the game. I could find no reliable secondary sources for the game and no reliable reviews of the book. The topic is verifiable, but not notable enough for a standalone article. A merge to an Annie Gottlieb article would make sense, but I didn't find an article on her. This game is a type of Kokology game, so it would make sense to merge to that article and provide a reference to the book; this article is already in the See also section of the Kokology article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. Eye snore 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinocaeruleus cavugnathidae

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

Eye snore 01:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 4. Snotbot t • c » 01:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fast forward

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

Dicdef, unsourced since at least 2009. No way could this be a legit article. No notability. Nothing encyclopedic, no viable way to flesh it out. "Rewind" and "Pause" don't have articles, why should "fast forward"? Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP isn't a dictionary - there is no basis for an article here Delete ---- _nonsense ferret 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)~~ I'm withdrawing my vote so as not to get in the way of consensus building, and I don't feel strongly enough to dissent. However, looking at the article I do feel that what is being described are particular features of different recording devices, and I can't help thinking that it would be better to have the material there, but no biggie I'm sure someone will link it in somehow ---- _nonsense ferret 23:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move Fast forward (disambiguation) to replace it. --Geniac (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Article looks much better now. --Geniac (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Fast forward (disambiguation) to replace it, leaving a note about this usage at the top. JIP | Talk 04:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fast forward (disambiguation) is fine. No need for this article. BigJim707 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move as stated above, there is real no need for this article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no way this could be a legit nomination because the nominator, as usual, hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, spending less than a minute to use Twinkle to create the nomination in a knee-jerk fashion. The concept here is a substantial one which can cover the original tape deck design and mechanism; the reimplementation in newer types of media and players; and the general use of the concept as a metaphor or analogy which resulted in appearing in dozens of books titles. I have made a start on developing the topic. More anon. Warden (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Warden, please do not be offensive and assume good faith, the article is not redeemable, it is not going to grow beyond a stub level, there isn't much value to add to the article as the information is purely technical, a mention and its meaning in the desambig page is enough. Even though fast forward is a diffused mechanism, there is no real reason for keeping its own article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a concept, not just a word, and the article has potential for expansion. There are enough uses as a metaphor to justify a rather substantial article. DGG (at NYPL) 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
Keep I added a couple of paragraphs on fast-forwarding in digital video and three peer-reviewed publications verifying the added prose. I don't understand the nom's assertion that this topic is not encyclopedic. I suppose as a user, pushing or clicking a fast-forward button seems trivial, but from engineering, algorithmic and psychological points of view, the fast-forward process is not simple. Warden added a nice contribution to the mechanical aspect and I added material on digital considerations. For AfD, the article now includes multiple in-depth reliable sources in the form of peer-reviewed papers, demonstrating notability of the topic. While the article could still use work, the remaining problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Notability of the topic and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is certainly something that can be developed, and Mark viking's edits in particular have demonstrated both that it's notable and that it's more complex than the simple definition some may have assumed it to be.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable subject even if obscure to many, an encyclopedic treatment can include the technology and any advancements that came from this. Insomesia (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Battle of Chaliyam and redirect to Vettathunad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chalium

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

Cut down article originally wholly copied from Vettathunad and attempt to raise an obscure, non-notable skirmish at a fort to a battle standing. There was no "Battle of Chalium". GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC) GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There seems to be a spelling error in the article title; it's Chaliyam not Chalium. There are five books that discuss "Battle of Chaliyam" as can be seen here. Salih (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good catch, Salih! There are even more references when one looks farther afield, for example, searching for "fall of Chaliyam". In so far as these books are secondary references, and at least to a non-historian like me seem reliable, the topic is above notability threshold and would suggest that the article be kept. Mark viking (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still remains that the article is practically a word for word copy of part of two sections of the Vettathunad article that deal with the fall of the Chalium/Chalyum Fort: Battles at Chalium Fort and Smoothiris' second attempt (1571). As a minor event in the Portuguese–Indian conflict, does it not serve Wikipedia better to remain as a sub-heading in the article as it is already, albeit poorly, written? I will look at the references as noted above by Salih as to the use of the term "Battle of Chalyium." Maybe the western history book bias is at play here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going back and forth between the Islamic calendar and the western calendar takes some doing. If I have it right, there was apparently another "battle of Chalium" 19–20 years after the 1571 event. Also, the targeted Wikipedia article also mentions a "battle of Chalium" which took place 1538–1540 (maybe actually a siege of some sort?), which I am finding impossible to source. So, my next question is, IF there was a "Battle of Chalium", which one of these three is it? And why is there no consensus by the eastern historians as to which one is it in the few works extent that mention Chalium? Food for thought. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct the spelling error and redirect to Vettathunad, this seems to be the most logical decision until there is more info added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of consensus, I would support a move and redirect as well, as this preserves the history of the current page for a future article. It is outright deletion that I think is unwarranted. --Mark viking (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom, I could support Move & Redirect. It is already a word-for-word content fork of Vettathunad, so the merge would both make sense and be relatively simple. In which case, I would happily withdraw the proposal for deletion. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players of Middle Eastern descent

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

Uncited for four years. Same problem as other ethnic ice hockey players. Overly broad category (which should really go with the Asian list). Only three are of actual Middle Eastern descent only, and none are citizens of those countries. Therefore, this is a spurious intersection of data. MSJapan (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no intrinsic notability to being a hockey player with random ancestry. Especially in a North American (especially Canadian) dominated sport where our very culture is built on immigration. The simple truth is most of these players are viewed as being "Canadian" or "American", not "Lebanese-Canadian". Reso lute 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. Ice Hockey is a White-dominated sport and it is very rare to see any NHL players of Middle Eastern descent. Marc87 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? (Also a smidge of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perhaps.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because a perceived group of "White" players exists, doesn't mean a list of "Middle Eastern" players needs to exist to augment it...per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Segragating by ethnicity shouldn't be the prerogative, we are all of the "human" race :) Ren99 ^wha? 05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the connection between Persian and Arab players? Why do we lump the middle east together and exclude Jewish players? It just seems all arbitrary to me and the scope is all out of wack. If the scope was defined to just Lebanese, for example, then I'd be okay with it.--Львівське (говорити) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Malik Shabazz, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Terzian

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

The sources in the article either don't pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or don't provide significant coverage of the subject, and I couldn't find anything online, so I don't think the subject passes WP:BASIC. Also, I don't think that the competition win and the TV appearances are enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Mr.Stradivarius's conclusion.
The article is being continuously updated/corrected/edited and more external references are being added which also refer to the TV music competition "Pêle Mêle" which served to discover lebanese talents, that's where Gary Terzian won the first prize in 1968. Indirectly answering Mr.Stradivarius's concerns, the competition was not just a TV appearance. It was a national competition equivalent to the American Idol at that time. This and other information along with the references that have been added in the article, satisfy the requirements of articles 8, 9 and 12 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, articles 2 and 6 of the Criteria for composers and lyricists and articles 1 and 4 for composers and performers outside mass media traditions.
It should be taken into consideration that the article refers to history from the sixties and seventies where there was no internet and global communication networks. The geographical context of the events has also it's particularities. It is normal that the references or sources cannot be as exhaustive and precise as for recent musical events.
I strongly suggest to keep the article on Gary Terzian and remove it from from the list of articles being considered for deletion.Silk road star (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk road star: As you are even a more newcomer here than myself I feel I can tell you this: If you created an article which looks like not so necessary to others maybe you should just stay away and see what other people think. I am not saying that you don't have a right to defend your work; without doubt you do. Perhaps because I am an old-fashioned guy I believe one should try to listen to others' opinions first to be able to make a sound decision and have a more complete idea, especially on his/her own deeds. This comment does not include any POV for or against the article. Best. --E4024 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief search for proper sources came out blank, apart from self-published stuff. The article is way too self-promotional. If the author likes, maybe an admin would be kind enough to move it back into his userspace for him/her to fix up. ~dee^(talk?) 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which source came out blank so that it can be corrected. I checked the sources. They don't come out blank. Silk road star (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed a search and ultimately I was unable to show where Terzian passes WP:MUSBIO. I couldn't find any news reports, book mentions, or the like that would show that he is ultimately notable. Of the sources on the article, none are usable to show notability. He seems to somewhat prolific while alive, but being busy isn't notability in and of itself. There is mention of him winning an award on a TV show, but not every award is so overwhelmingly notable that it'd give notability in and of itself. There is mention of one of his songs getting played once on New Year's Day, but that's not national rotation. It was played once. To qualify for this level of notability for musicians, it'd have to be in rotation along the lines of "Call Me Maybe" or similar. Since Silk road star is new, I'm giving a rundown of the sources:

The first three sources are for a book that doesn't appear to be of the type of source that Wikipedia would consider usable in showing notability. Not every book published is usable as a reliable source.
Links 4 and 5 go to SoundCloud. Anyone can upload things to SoundCloud, so this wouldn't show notability. Even if the clips were uploaded by the people who owned the rights to the performances, helping to coordinate performances or recordings does not guarantee notability. Coverage of Terzian performing in these roles would show notability, but this coverage doesn't exist.
This link, like many of the other links on the article, goes to YouTube. It looks like a random posting of one of his recordings on YT. That's not usable as a reliable source or even as a link in general because of how dubious the copyright is in this circumstance. FYI, never link to anything that isn't posted by the person who owns the rights to it.
[11] This doesn't even mention Terzian. Even if it did, this wouldn't show notability.
There are links to merchant sites such as Amazon for albums that Terzian put out or otherwise contributed to. Making albums does not guarantee notability. Merchant sites are unusable as reliable sources in any context. The albums exist, but existing is not notability.

There are multiple links to pages that do not mention Terzian at all and are about people or things he worked with. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by him working with, around, or being otherwise associated with notable people, places, or things.

One of the links is to a blog. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source unless the blog was written by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject. Less than 1% of bloggers have this level of reliability.

This is pretty much the summary of the sources in a nutshell. None of them are usable and to be honest, it doesn't help that the entire article is written in a very promotional and non-neutral tone. The guy just isn't notable. Most musicians fall under the radar when it comes to mainstream attention. I have no problem with this getting userfied, but I would encourage the editor to solicit help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking back at this after original discussions on the article talk page, it does now have page references to the Shamelikian Boghos book which is likely to be closest to something that may be a reliable source. But overall, all I am seeing is a memorial biography of someone who was clearly a working musician, in hotels, as a sideman, in a couple of bands with other people who went on to prominent careers. It is well short on the convincing sources which are really needed, not least for the credibility of Wikipedia if it is to carry articles describing someone as a genius in the very first line. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The biography is yet incomplete but correct for what is already in the article, as I spent a lot of time and energy interviewing people, contacting people overseas who new the subject who is a worthy composer and musician, in order to gather information about him. In view of his historical and geographical circumstances, as I am actually realizing, the subject does not have his due coverage on the internet and it is impossible for me to find enough verifiable sources for the time being on the internet for each statement, as required by wikipedia, although this can change in the future as is the case for example with the recently published book by Boghos Shahmelikian.

Some of the criticism written above by several members can be technically contested but still it will not make it a full-proof article. I will not go through it. So, I am asking for a speedy deletion, a withdrawal of the article because it cannot be further developed for the time being. If there is a possibility of keeping the article I will continue working on it. I am the main contributor of the article. Thanks Silk road star (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leon County Schools#Middle schools. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:NOTBURO The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Creek Middle School

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

Middle schools are usually not notable, no indication that this is an exception. If the promotional content is removed, the article would be only one sentence and an infobox. The article has a history of promotional edits (some of them probably copied from somewhere) and vandalism. Peter James (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon County Schools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cullen328. --Man way 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon County Schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Olde English Bulldogge. Without prejudice to merger to a more general article. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge

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

Not mentioned anywhere in google books or google scholar. Other results are for breeders or user-contributed sites TKK ^{bark !} 03:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep from author: The article is about a notable breed, as sourced in the footnotes, but the unusual spelling with "Olde Tyme" limits searches about the Dorset bulldogs. I have added a source, today, from Google Books to the article, but found spelled as "Dorset Old Thyme..." not quite matching the archaic spelling. The subject of niche breeds of bulldogs is limited, although there are hundreds of dog-breed webpages which do mention the Dorsets. Hence, I advise to keep. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Google Books isn't the sole arbiter of knowledge, but nor is one website reprinting the breeder's own photos adequate sourcing. A breed developed "in the late 1980s", yet one of the two books cited as refs was published before this, in 1985? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bulldog. If I remember correctly, this breed was criticised for over-inbreeding, producing some highly undesirable characteristics. The stated intention (as I understand it) is to change the breed characteristics gradually so that breeders will get rid of the unhealthy ones. The name is ludicrous since it is reverting to pre-Johnson spelling. Victorian and modern spelling are similar. Has this breed been recognised by the Kennel Club? I presume not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, I don't think any of these points can have any relevance to this issue. A ludicrous ye olde worlde spelling for an inbred freak is no bar, per WP:ENGVAR, and I doubt if the Kennel Club carries much weight either. However is any adequate attention being paid by any RS bodies? That's all we need, but I'm not even finding that much. There's the breeder's own coverage and blog/forum discussion of it, but nothing RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge to bulldog or delete -- certainly do not keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge to a suitable "Restored bulldog" article, as distinct from Bulldog in general. I'm convinced that the efforts to recreate an "original" bulldog are notable, and sufficiently distinct from Bulldog, just not that every single breeder's own efforts in this direction are adequately distinct. A possible target might be Olde English Bulldogge, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to say if this one is itself the most substantial. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge to a "Restored bulldog" (or similarly-titled) article. There are numerous projects similar to this which, if they aren't notable enough to have their own article like the Olde English Bulldogge, are certainly notable enough to have a section in a larger work. --TKK ^{bark !} 02:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prabalsagar incident

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

The article is a person who is not notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) scope and all the mention of him are related to one event of stabbing which made news and hence fall within scope of WP:1E and therefore should be speedily deleted. Half of the article is on news of his stabbing and reactions over the country. one section mentions about a monk who initiated him, etc. There is no mention of the person (Prabalsagar)'s personal contributions to Jainism or society as a whole or any other achievements that may suffice him to have an article on Wikipedia. However, after speedy deletion was declined, the creator has changed the article name to Prabalsagar incident from Prabalsagar, even then I am not satisfied and nominate this article for AfD debate. Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There has been a lot of related newspaper reports. I have seen them in English, Hindi and Gujarati language newspapers.Malaiya (talk)
Keep. This article is about an incident involving a particular individual, there is no original research in this article, there are no dubious/contentious claims, the article is well referenced and there are plenty of sources. Also, as per WP:1E, since the individual is notable for a particular incident and is only associated with that incident in the source coverage, this article was adequately renamed Prabalsagar incident.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Even after 48 hours of renaming the article from Prbalsagar to Prabalsagar incident, the article remains in form of Biography only. Also incident of any attack, especially on a leader of any religious sect are always condemnable and as such the press coverage. But it is for Wikipaedia community to decide that did the event cause any noteworthy change to the ground reality to make the event notable so as to have an article in itself. For example the Steve Bartman incident caused one club to lose a major baseball championship. Please see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT for what I want to emphasis. The keep votes of article creator and a major contributor have not understood the wiki guidelines of creating an article that is what I feel. - Jethwarp (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the initial concern was that the article looked as if it was not about the person, but about the incident, that's why I changed the name. Now it looks like a biography? I've made further changes, let me know what you think. Isn't this the kind of stuff you discuss on talk pages. I'm not sure what's your idea of noteworthy change, half the article is about stuff that happened after the incident.

The Keep vote, besides the one from me, is from an editor who has not touched the concerned article, I'm not sure how you concluded that the voter is a major contributor. I thought we assumed good faith around here, the Keep vote is from editors who haven't understood guidelines? Not cool.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither the individual or the "incident" is notable. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. this is just a standard tragic violent event that happens all the time. no indication of wide spread impact that would lift it beyond local bloody headline of the day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 27. Snotbot t • c » 05:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think as has been commented above this particular incident is the subject of news coverage only and as such is not suitable for an article on its own within the terms of the notability guidelines (WP:NOTNEWS) - there are some comments that the incident has arisen as the result of a long-term dispute or conflict, in which case it may be there could or should be an article to which this could be merged - the notability of that article would of course need to be established. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) - ammended as i forgot to vote ---- _nonsense ferret 02:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (WP:NOTNEWS) is not applicable here. Try and understand why this policy exists. This policy exists to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a first hand news haven or from becoming a blog about the happenings in the life of a celebrity. And this article is not the primary source of information for the said events and is definitely not a celebrity blog. Check out my earlier comments above for WP:1E and the subsequent changes and how that policy is more applicable here.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - this is highly applicable here. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" - and this enduring notability cannot readily be established from contemporaneous news coverage - encyclopedias take the long view, and we have to establish whether this single event really carried with it the level of significance to be notable in itself. I find that it does not and this event was not notable in of itself, its significance is only that it was a small part of a wider conflict/tension. There are a great many events that happen, many of them are newsworthy and are written about endlessly in the newspapers whom have a unquenchable appetite for things to write about. Few newsworthy events turn out to have a level of significance that renders them encyclopedic on their own merits. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the person nor the event is notable enough to be covered/mentioned in any encyclopedia.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is very subjective. Wikipedia strives to be less focussed on the majority/American happenings and tries to be inclusive. For example, most of Wikipedia's featured articles are of absolutely no interest to a lot of people. Had there been no sources, it would've been a different story. But there are sources.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Official reason is copyvio but I would also throw in blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Guarini

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

Despite what appears to be an impressive article t seems to me that most of it is puffery and that the gentleman is not as notable as he believes he is - always a drawback to creating articles on one's self, discovering that one may well not be notable after all. The references do not seem to me to pass WP:RS and I do not believe that this is a truly notable musician. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

week keep - Guarini is notable musician in Italy (I'm Italian), but I can see the puffery too. The proposed bio is just a cut&paste from Guarini's personal web-site and the proposed article is rising even more confusion because is pointing to the wrong Goblin page; actually, Goblin rock band is pretty much famous in Europe and Guarini is a former member of the present line-up. I think that the page is worth keeping, but only if it undergoes a deep editing from a NPOV. Toffanin (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the copyright violation. I have now fagged the article for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright violation. There shoudl be no obstacle to re-creation assuming notability can be established and verified. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Imrich

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

In conducting WP:BEFORE I see quite a few sources in Polish though it would also appear most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage for art shows (art reviews, interviews, etc.) Nothing I would feel comfortable as a stand out artist. ~~I think this is a case for having an article on the Polish Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia until this person gains attention in the anglophone world.~~ I noticed on the Polish Wikipedia the article has been deleted several times over. Mkdw ^talk 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Notability is notability, no matter the language of the sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but my argument remains that most of the coverage is routine for their artwork exhibitions and the article has been deleted several times at the Polish Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 21:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article shows a brief coverage of the article from a degree show exhibition in late 2012, plus a longer piece on a return-to-figuration discerned in that show, mentioning the subject as an example. But this is WP:TOOSOON/not enough to demonstrate that he meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, need to search name in genitive case - sources will come up searching for declined forms "Martina Imricha" etc. The mention in the two Polish sources shouldn't be the only ones. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive declension produced a substantial bio entry in Slovakian confirming dob and pob and training. I haven't searched using instrumental and locative declensions of the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide some sources for the article? Otherwise the general consensus remains delete. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to message In ictu oculi, above, for those new sources he/she found. In the absence of that, I don't know that we have enough here to keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm dumb - he already added them. Still awful thin, though. Put me at a very Weak Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing any assertion of notability under WP:CREATIVE or an assertion that the coverage isn't WP:Run of the mill. Having sources does not mean they are notable. They must have WP:SIGCOV to meet the baseline GNG but WP:CREATIVE has additional advice as well. Mkdw ^talk 21:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep, been 15 days since nomination. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Kiran Adivi

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

Article has been listed as failing notability guidelines for over three years. Cannot locate any reliable sources.Retrolord (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: a director, who has made two movies and both of them are covered in Wikipedia, is surely notable. No need of further proof.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "both of them are covered in Wikipedia", you're implying that because the films each have an article, he would be notable then this isn't always the case. There are filmmakers who only made a few films and never achieved notability for themselves. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "both of them are covered in Wikipedia" I meant that WP has a page on both: Villagelo Vinayakudu and Vinayakudu (film). Next time you file an Afd, please check "what links here" for the page. You can make it for yourself in cases such as this one, whether notability can be challenged or not.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now - I'll refrain from actually voting until I hear from other users but it seems he won a Nandi Award for the debut film which may suggest notability, with Google News providing some links here (I know galatta.com is blacklisted but I don't know if Super Good Movies is reliable, probably not). However, I found an interview here and a brief mention here. Although there doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage about the award that I can find, it seems it did happen. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SwisterTwister's comment. These links are good enough in my opinion to prove some notability. Lyk4 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ST. —Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Music Lesson Center

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

Non-notable music school (although the term "school" is stretching it). This was PRODed in 2008, but the PROD was removed by the article's creator. This organization/business is basically a center giving private music lessons. It is not a music conservatory with full time students or a full time faculty. It has no powers to award degrees or even diplomas. Despite extensive searching, I can find no coverage at all about the school apart from directory listings and the school's own pages. Nothing in Highbeam Research to which I have a subscription. Nothing in Google News (apart from a very brief announcement of a local artist who was exhibiting her paintings there). Nothing in Google Books. The founder (Elliot Page) is not notable either. All I could find were brief mentions in local press reviews of a band he was in before he founded the center. The only two "faculty" members listed in the article who are remotely notable (Daniel Bennett and Elena Zoubareva) apparently no longer teach there [12], and the fact that they did is not mentioned in their WP articles nor is it supported by any other sources. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond the nom's extensive comments, heck ... I'm a musician who was associated on and off with one of the music schools in the area for over thirty years, and I've never heard of this outfit. I also note the sheer dishonest puffery involved -- the school's website claims "We're happy to be featured as Boston's top music school on CBS," but the link goes to a blogger on the Channel 5 (the local CBS affiliate)'s website, which reports a list of seven schools and teachers recommended to her by the fans on her Facebook page. Ravenswing 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school doesn't inherit any notoriety for having previously had instructors of "remote" notability, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED once they had moved on, and the school has not accomplished anything notable in it's own right outside of any consideration to those absent persons. Taking that the local musician posting above has never heard of them, and the primary reference source is Facebook (non-notable, non-reliable), and a blog (non-reliable), there is basically nothing here to evaluate, reference, or retain. Яεñ99 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very good analysis above, I've also had a look for any coverage and can find not a sausage ---- _nonsense ferret 00:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sonti Venkata Ramanayya

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

Unsourced biography and contested PROD. The only sources I can find are passing mentions so I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. However this is Indian history, so I'm not sure I'd be able to find them anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I have found much the same: a few references to him as someone else's teacher, but not enough to write a meaningful bio. In particular, it's telling that nothing I saw gives any dates. As a side note, if the article is kept, it would need to be moved to Sonti Venkata Ramanayya given that Sri is an honorific. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound International

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 13. Snotbot t • c » 12:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The magazine existed, as this Billboard article confirms, but I could find no other coverage and no indication that an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ IncubateSources are our lifeblood, and our ability to judge them is aided by reading our own articles. The magazine is recognized by the world library system at Worldcat. If notability were really a problem, which doesn't appear to be the case, then the material could be merged. ~~Nominator is on~~ Nomination is part of a deletion spree, and did not report here the "What Links Here", and also might have considered the times that "Link House Publications" appears in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess to being quite confused by your argument - you are saying because there may be articles which rely on this journal that it should have its own article? As far as I can see from your link, there is only one article which cites this and I should probably be thinking about nominating that article for deletion after a bit more research. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see two articles and several Wikiprojects linking to this magazine. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to prepare the community for a proposal to remove material from the encyclopedia, nominations are requested at WP:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE) to follow a number of steps which provide information to AfD participants. One of these steps is to check the "What Links Here". No one has reported here on why these links exist. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a magazine is not coupled to topics that use the magazine as a reliable source, so if an article that uses Sound International as a reliable source is deleted, this in no way is a reason to remove material about the magazine. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any evidence of notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a merge or redirect target? Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that a merge/redirect would be preferable to outright deletion, but I couldn't find anything that looked like a suitable target. Link House Publications would be a good choice but it doesn't exist. Do you have any other suggestions? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that there is a Wikiproject attempting to get articles on publishers, but I don't recall where that is. What about incubation, until the right people can get involved? I've changed my !vote to incubate. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The major contributor to this article, Relen, has not been contacted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soundz

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ ~~deletion spree~~ unquestionable disruption. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One_Woman_Army#Recording for now as it seems he has received the most attention for this. I didn't find anything reliable for working with Pitbull but I did find this which mentions working with Ciara. At this time, it seems he is best known for working with Ciara's 2013 album. After multiple detailed searches, I found this interview from 2010 and Justin Bieber mentions here, here and here. I attempted to search for reliable sources on Kelly Rowland but only found that interview I mentioned earlier which repeatedly mentions her and I found this and this for Gail Scott. I also found this to confirm his work with Chantel. It seems he only worked with Usher for one album in 2008 but there isn't much in-depth coverage about this aside from brief mentions ("he has worked with stars such as Usher..."). I searched with some of the artists he worked with in the beginning but found nothing substantial. In addition to the thatgrapejuice.net interview, I found other entries from that website that briefly mention him here, here, here and here (all for Ciara). He is starting to receive more attention but I think he isn't notable yet and, as mentioned, he is really best known for Ciara at this time despite briefly working with Justin Bieber (which he did not receive in-depth coverage from). SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Even though notability is not inherit, Soundz has a comprehensive work with several major and minor musical artists, the article is unsourced, but if you search for example, there are not only mentions ^{1 23}, but his collaboration with a multitude of artists is which makes him notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Soundz also was involved into a controversy in which he claimed singer Beyonce pays for musical credits. ^(a)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management and Engineering

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

The page to be deleted because it now does not contain authenticate resources and I cannot undo the edit. Greencottonmouth123 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Greencottonmouth123 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 20. Snotbot t • c » 05:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should already be well covered by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Most of this article is copyvio. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies what can be reliably sourced. No justification for outright deletion. Also see WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. P. Rajendran

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

Contested PROD, where article creator noted on my talk page that he is a notable person in India. Article has not really shown how the subject fulfills WP:GNG. Subject appears to be of regional importance at best as the organisation he is chairman of apears to be a regional body in India. The only source provided is a primary one from the newspaper that the article subject is / was deputy editor of. I am sure this individual has done good work in their field, it is just that this field appears to be local and there is little wider reporting of his activities. At best I would suggest a redirect to Kerala Press Academy but there appears little other than a name that could be added to that article. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. P. Rajendran is a notable person in India. Kerala press academy is not a press agency where as it is government organization. Agreed he is the editor of the news agency from which one of the reference added. But also note the citation is news article form a reputed daily newspaper circulated. One more reference is there which is secondary source of reference. --atnair (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One secondary source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that a state-wide position in a state with a population of 33 million can be decribed as "local". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's 2.7% of the total population of the country, I would count that as local in the grand scheme of things. I think you're going to have to go some way to show that someone who is head of a body that is seems to be a quango type organisation that represents less than 3% of the country's population passes GNG without a lot more sourcing. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think 33million is very less will you nominate to delete the page of Brian Lacy who is the administrator of Cocos Island which has a population of mere 550 people.--atnair (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is a nonsense argument, total irrelevance - WP:OTHERSTUFF (not sure why I never signed my comment) ---- _nonsense ferret 02:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. --atnair (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the argument seems to be suggested above that because the kerala press academy is a sort of school for journalists that was set up as a joint venture, one of whose partners is the keralan government that it is automatically notable and someone in an important position then they are notable too. I think this analysis is wrong on a number of counts - even a state school is not automatically notable whatever state it is in, reference to substantial independent sources is required - and in addition, notability is not inherited so if the kpc can be shown to be notable, notability needs to be separately established for this subject WP:NOTINHERITED. (nor this one) ---- _nonsense ferret 02:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: N.P. Rajendran is an award-winning editor of Mathrubhumiand a Malayalam-language journalist. The citations in the article sufficiently establish his notability for winning awards.Crtew (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD debate should be relisted under news as he is a journalist and editor.Crtew (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improved references. atnair (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements for creative professionals. An award-winning major journalist. The only reason the subject is up for an AfD if because he is not well-known in the Western world (but that's not a valid reason to delete the article).--SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources found ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denver and the Mile High Orchestra

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I can't find any WP:RSs to support notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found coverage in reliable sources very easy to find, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], plus a review in Jazz Times. --Michig (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Gene93ks~~ Michig's sources seem to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided; Cerebellum, are you sure you didn't mean User:Michig? ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so; sorry about that :) --Cerebellum (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

System76

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

Fails WP:ORG. The only reliable coverage that is not from the company itself appears to be lists that merely include System76 among other Linux OEMs or otherwise trivial coverage (see for example [24], [25], and [26]). This is not sufficient for notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known Linux PC OEM with plenty of coverage available. You might describe any of the sources as "trivial". What is your criteria for dismissing references? --JBrown23 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two links are cited to omgubuntu.co.uk, which does not appear to be a reliable source (although, to be fair, I couldn't find any WP:RSN discussion on this site). The second link is borderline trivial coverage as well (a brief description of a System76 computer in a list of Linux computers). The third source (which I pulled up from a Google news search) is unquestionably reliable, but the coverage of System76 is clearly trivial ("Over the course of 2012, in fact, we saw machines from not just specialty makers ZaReason, System76, and ThinkPenguin offer this option, but also Asus, Dell, and more."). I couldn't find any reliable sources with nontrivial coverage of the company in my research, but I would certainly appreciate being pointed to any that do exist. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added what seems to be non-trivial coverage from some well known publishers, including Engadget, PCWorld, and ZDNet. I hope this helps with this effort. Benjaminoakes (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collage (singer)

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

Unreferenced blp. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, had some chart action. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The chart listings seem to be multiple artists conflated, but the #56 Hot 100 peak is this Collage according to one of the Whitburn books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arcadia Unified School District. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills Middle School

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

Non-notable middle school with only one reference. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - School is not notable, and wikipedia is not a directory for every single school on earth. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any verifiable content, merge it to Arcadia Unified School District. (There is one cited reference plus some external links, but I'm not sure they are reliable.) Otherwise delete. The same thing should probably go for First Avenue Middle School. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to school district per cnilep. middle schools are presumed nonnotable, while high schools are presumed notable, in general, here. middle schools do not usually have notable teachers or students at the time, while high schools have notable students (usually in athletics, where their high school career is frequently noted).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Arcadia Unified School District per usual practice for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Arcadia Unified School District per usual practice for non-notable middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. (When are we gonna have an RFC to bring guidelines up to established practice?) Carrite (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have had several in one form or another and in various forums. The problem is that agreement is never reached and all that happens is that vast amounts of time, that would be better spent editing, is burnt up. We have a de facto consensus and better to simply deal with schools as they appear here. Speaking personally I don't have the heart to recycle the arguments for the nth time. TerriersFan (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pakistani field hockey players}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Oxygen}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Lee (referee)}}