Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 January	22 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Pre-Thanksgiving snowstorm

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

This appears to be a non-notable weather event with no lasting impact. This snowstorm only lasted 2 days. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How long it lasted has nothing to do with anything. The October '11 snowstorm lasted two days. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This 2 day weather event has no lasting or notable impact. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SL93. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article even points out its non-notability - school closings (not unusual), at least one power outage (not unusual), and the rest of the impacts are negligible. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article argues against its own notability. This is the entirety of the article's "Impact" section:

"The heavy snowfall resulted in school delays and closings across the region on November 22. There was at least one power outage as a result of the heavy snow in Ohio, but otherwise the impacts were negligible." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No solid opinion, but I'd be interested in deletion for one simple reason — I grew up in the area of Ohio where the deepest snowfall fell, but I have no memory of it. If the locals don't remember a weather event, it's not likely to be something that will get sufficient extended coverage to warrant an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete of course. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. If keep, rename to geographically-clear name. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly keep, plus nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Roads in Singapore

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

Declined Prod. Prod Reason was "Unreferenced and Uncited Article of non-encyclopedic nature". Objection was "has general references so PROD rationale is faulty". This is a WP:POINTY decline as the only external links are to top level landing pages of map sites. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it took me a couple minutes to find one of the streets on the list, there seems to be precedence for including streets in Singapore (Category:Roads in Singapore has far more articles than I expected). In the US, it's standard practice to merge together similar road articles that probably wouldn't be notable on their own into lists. I see this as being no different. Now we just need to work to improve the parts of the list. –Fredddie ™ 23:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this article can be improved by turning general references into specific ones with some general editing and expansion. Deletion isn't the cure here. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. Article has had plenty of time to be improved prior to my coming across it in it's sub-stub format with no way to demonstrate it's notability. Hasteur (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A month is plenty of time? WP:NORUSH. –Fredddie ™ 01:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this less article-worthy than the Allegheny County belt system? Both articles cover what seem to be substantial transportation networks (having used the Allegheny County system, I know that it's important), and given the nature of Singapore compared to the nature of metro Pittsburgh, I strongly suspect that the Singaporean system is a better article candidate than the Allegheny County system. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and reference. Clearly encyclopedic. A quick Wikipedia search for 'Singapore roads' returns dozens of articles on streets in the city-state. (Note: This is not an 'other stuff' rationale). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kudpung. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Note: Since the community has a fascination with this I am withdrawing the nomination but expect those claiming "It can be improved" to follow through with their rationales. I'll go ahead and tag up the page as appropriate, but sincerely doubt there is scholarly work about Ring Roads in Singapore to justify it's inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category and/or delete. No evidence or reference that the ring roads of Singapore are notable. It may be that some individual ring roads in Singapore are notable; if they are, they should be in a category. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tricomplex number

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

Seems to be the original research of one person, Silviu Olariu, and I can find no evidence that this mathematical construction has attracted any outside notice. I can't find any sources that cover this except Wikipedia and its mirrors, and a bunch of things written by Olariu. Therefore this subject does not pass our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this does not appear to pass the usual notability standards. I also have no idea how the second reference, by Kantor and Solodovnikov, is supposed to be related to the topic, and I would appreciate any info about that. The topic overall seems to be the everyday sort of valid but unremarkable mathematics research which is not sufficiently notable to have an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak). I think I found a paper not by Olariu, but there is another subject, since deleted, where the author had multiple pseudonyms, and there were no papers not by at least one of the pseudonyms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. From the definition it looks like trying to make hypercomplex numbers out of the cube roots of unity, and then banging up against the obvious constraints on such numbers. I.e. something surely tried by everyone since Hamilton and rejected every time. Hard to believe someone in 2002 thought it was something new.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unlikely that no one thought of it before, but mathematically it makes sense, and there is no reason to "reject" this algebra any more than any other algebra of hypercomplex numbers. The only serious problem is an encyclopedic one: lack of notability. --Lambiam 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neologism and primary research by a single author with no secondary sources. The source is a textbook but unlike the usual case with textbooks this seems to be original research by the author and should be treated as an example rather than as a noteworthy concept. There is a "tricomplex number" system mentioned in Multicomplex number but this seems to entirely different; for one thing the other system has dimension 8 over the reals while this system has dimension 3.--RDBury (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the five hits on Google scholar, one is to Oliaru's book, one is to an unpublished preprint also by Oliaru, and the other three are using the term in a different meaning (as in multicomplex number). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for those with access, the Math. Reviews review of the book is worth a quick read; it's MR1922267. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One quote from that review: "tricomplex numbers introduced on p. 19 are, in fact, of the form u = x + hy + h²z with h³ = 1, and this is also known." The reviewer cites no literature specifically in support of the plausible statement that "this is also known". --Lambiam 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I noted above the same stood out to me; these are just the cube roots of unity. I too have no references. I know the history of quaternions where Hamilton tried to find a way to extend ℂ using triplets before the insight that four elements were needed, and subsequent results that non-trivial number systems and algebras always have 2ⁿ. I am sure along the way such triplets were rediscovered and rejected many times. Being obscure and of little use such will be difficult to find, unless you know what it was called previously.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not quite the same thing. It would be if h is a (standard) complex number, in which case i + j = h + h² is a real number, namely −1, but i + j = −1 is not a valid identity in Olariu's algebra of tricomplex numbers. What is true, is that the algebra is isomorphic to the quotient ring ℝ[X] / (X³ − 1) of the polynomial ring ℝ[X], as pointed out before by Michael Hardy on the article's talk page. --Lambiam 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which makes it isomorphic to $\mathbb {R} \oplus \mathbb {C}$ , as noted in the original prod. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What is the isomorphism? I don't see how to get this to work for multiplication. Note that in the tricomplex ring every coordinate interacts with every other coordinate, while in the direct sum of rings there is no cross-component interaction. --Lambiam 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A review in Mathematical Reviews constitutes a secondary source. Meets notability criterion. Publisher is a noted source of quality mathematics. Innovative and unusual development explained by isolation of author. The algebra of tricomplex numbers is subalgebra of 3 x 3 real matrices, an algebra relatively undeveloped in the literature, hence scarce secondary sources.Rgdboer (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- that's an extraordinarily flattering interpretation of the review, which does not reflect its actual content. The reviewer points out that there is relevant existing literature which the author seems unaware of, that the book is unclear in its definitions and terminology and full of shoddy methodology, and that much of the stuff it "introduces" is well-known. In other words, the review is a run-of-the-mill dismissal of a distinctly amateurish work. To claim that this review justifies presenting Olariu's theories in an encyclopedia, as though they're mathematically credible, is to misrepresent the entire review. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Reviews aims for broad coverage, and so inclusion in MR is not in any way an indication of notability. There are many, many valid topics in math that appear in quality journals (for example, most papers in Annals of Mathematics) that do not meet our notability criteria. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When somebody other Olariu actually cites this, get back to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This algebra is isomorphic to ℂ ⊕ ℝ – it is almost evident from Tricomplex number#Trisector line and nodal plane, although precautious authors did not state this explicitly. Not notable enough and I see no target for a redirect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howse Williams Bowers

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

Appears to be an unimportant, typical law firm. Contest prod. Whenaxis about | talk 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Whenaxis about | talk 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Whenaxis about | talk 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand-new law firm hasn't had a chance to become notable yet. Of the five sources, #s 1-3 are about the firm's founding this month, and #s 4 and 5 (from last month) are just about the principals having left their previous firm. When the firm does something noteworthy, then it'll be time to have an article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barring a merger of notable firms or a major event that would be known by tons of people outside the legal community, such a new law firm cannot be notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Though the firm is new it means a big change for HK legal situation. So many people leaving Reed Smith shows a vote of no confidence. HWB is now probably the second largest independent (very important for law firms) in HK following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_%28law_firm%29. This size firm at startup is quite a large number in HK (it's all relative right?). The new firm has taken the medico-legal practice of Reed Smith with them according to ads in local mags but waiting for references on those.Tinkerhk (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, the whole article seems like a self promoting propaganda, plus given the new date for this law firm, WP:RECENT applies as well. T@ναταΓ (discuss–?) 07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Jordan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Each entry provides a couple of non-independent references, and that's it. Both fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Possibly speediable under A7--all that is claimed is that they played soccer at a non-notable level. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wehrhahn

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

Promotional article for an actor/producer of questionable notability. IMDB page lists many roles, but most are either uncredited or background parts. Google news search on "Michael Wehrhahn" shows only two results, neither relevant to this person. Standard search on the name shows only primary sources, social media, and sales links - no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Twenty years spent as an extra or just above ≠ notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend experience

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

Un-referenced article, full of original research. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note in the 5 years since the original AFD, no references have been found to give notability to this article. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unreferenced and containing OR are not reasons for deletion. There are plenty of sources covering this, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A lot of references are avaliable. GFE has coverage in Encyclopedia of prostitution and sex work. Here is one more reference --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I'm seeing literally thousands of results in searches of WP:RS secondary and independent sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad every knows about all the sources, and yet five years after the original AFD, no-one has still bothered to add any to the article. We shouldn't keep unless editors cite their sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep After reviewing the sources and the recent edits, I'd like to withdraw this AFD. Do I just close it or does someone else take care of that? GimliDotNet (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Mandelbaum

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

He has done nothing after the show and has failed notability and BLP1E. There's no sources (reliable and third-party) for this article. ApprenticeFan ^work 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clear case of WP:BLP1E, and a pretty weak 1E at that. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject. Vincelord (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hobbes Goodyear. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't a relevant person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersport (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mizo Hlakungpui Mual

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

Barely comprehensible, largely ungrammatical and severely unencyclopedic article about a non-notable monument apparently situated in a village in India (at least, that's what I figured out the article is meant to be about; it's difficult to ascertain.) No independent coverage, no indication of notability. No sourcing. Was created by new contributor with evident promotional interest in the topic, who also removed a PROD tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ah, but sources do not have to be in English, and articles must be verifiable (sources must exist out there) but not necessarily referenced. RS exist, see below. And we must take extreme care not to disadvantage those for whom English is not their first language. Poor writing is NOT cause for deletion (and an improper reason for coming to AfD); it merely requires tagging and editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Government of Mizoram press release on Silver Jubilee of Hlakungpui Mual, 6 April 2011, by K. Laldingliani Mis and Ipro Champai. --- this source is impeccably reliable and independent, and establishes beyond doubt the foundation, existence and jubilee of the site.

Hlakungpui Silver Jubilee Celebration Shows detailed planning for the event.

Video: Silver Jubilee of Mizo Poet's Square 6-7 April 2011. (Does not establish notability but shows event and the site. )

Keep. If knew nothing more than Future Perfect did when making this nomination, I would have agreed heartily, but I'm convinced by the governmental and other sources found by Chiswick Chap. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First In Math

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

Non-notable web site. The site exists but no indication that it's notable from various searches, not helped by the article's complete lack of sources. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article can be greatly improved, at least enough so that the reader can find out what it's about. See my comments on the article's talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced/advert. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Ssebandeke

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Article is also completely unreferenced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no references article is not notable. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as per nom. Gsingh (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Foreman

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gsingh (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been going for a month and a half, which really shouldn't have happened. No consensus is by definition the result. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extè

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

Non-notable fashion company. The first result for "extè" on Google is their website which is down, the second is the article page on Wikipedia. Jean ^(t·c) 23:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's certainly not an open and shut delete. What the first or second Google search is is irrelevant to WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Does it have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, with some regional/national/international coverage? See [Google news archive], especially if you can read Italian, which I can only Google translate into semi Gibberish. There are false hits since it is also part of "exte-nsion" or "exte-rior" in hyphenated text. What do the followinge say? [6], [7], [8], [9],[10], [11]. In English, at Google Books I find [12] (not sure if this is an article or an advert). "Flash Art" had what appears from the snippet to be substantial coverage in 1997: [13]. "Travel & leisure: Volume 31" had some coverage of unknown extent as shown by the search page snippet "Among the hot names in the downstairs section, leased to fashion- forward clothing retailer Don Gil, are labels such as Hugo (by German designer Hugo Boss), O&G leans, Exte, and— of course— Helmut Lang. " Edison (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

[14] looks like the only article from a proper newspaper, but it would appear to be more about the new CEO of the company and how she plans to "re-launch" Extè. I can't say with certainty because access to the article is limited. [15] is a local newspaper article with little coverage; it's about how the group that owned Exté was in financial trouble, and the article talks about how they were planning to recover. But if you go on their website there's no mention of Exté, and the Exté website is empty and still says "copyright 2010". [16], [17],[18] and [19] all look like small fashion blogs, some read like adverts. One blog is even called Pubblicità Italia which literally means advertisement Italy. About the results you found in Google Books: [20] would appear to be an advertisement. Perhaps a fashion expert could comment on the notability of the other publications. Jean ^(t·c) 09:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 81 News Hits in La Repubblica news archive are definitely enough to support a claim of notability.--Cavarrone (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are over 200 GNews about the subject... [21] - Cavarrone (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Not properly transcluded. Fixed. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lewis (police)

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

A non-notable person. Got interviewed for something. The subject of the interview may be significant, the he interviewee is a generic nobody WP:1E. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a guy getting arrested is not encyclopedic. (Full disclosure: I am the anon IP {{prod}}:er of the article, having not to bothered log in.) Captain Hindsight (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Occupy participant who got a bit of press because he was a retired police captain. His 15 minutes are up. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has gained notice in the national and international media while participating in the Occupy protests. In addition to coverage by CBS, MSNBC, The Atlantic, Philadelphia Inquirer, the UK's Daily Mail, etc., his notability comes from being a former police captain in a major US police department (Philadelphia PD is the size of NYPD) who is sympathising with and participating in the protests. The novelty involves his decision to protest in full uniform, which has caused waves in the police community. It is POV when editors judge this to be a case of a person as having their 15 minutes of fame and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, when in fact national media outlets are following his actions and reporting on him in two separate Occupy events occuring two months apart. The biographical article is therefore not a case of journalism involving breaking news. All of the information is reliably sourced. Finally, the decision to write an article on this subject was made only after the second separate event involving this subject was reported in the media. Plankto (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — textbook example of the BLP1E policy. This person would never be covered in a professional general encyclopedia, even if they had limitless pages, money, and time for writing. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP1E policy is focused on the question if a separate article is necessary or not. As such, it seems to give a guideline on whether to take the time to write a separate article, not so much to delete an existing one. Now that we have one, what is the hurry to delete it, especially as the Occupy protests are not yet over? Moreover, it is a question if this particular policy guideline is being interpreted correctly in this particular instance. Specifically, the policy says "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." This was my impression when his mention occurred in the second event. It is OK to question his merit as a former Police Captain in a national PD as his merit for WP lies outside of his contribution in that capacity. He has become something of a poster boy for an establishment Occupy protester. It is a secondary feature that he also seems to have riled the police establishment by using his uniform in the protests. His main claim to notability is tied to his significance as something of an establishment figure in the Occupy protests -- a national event of considerable significance.Plankto (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I add some NEW INFORMATION (recent news) concerning Lewis as a figure of importance in the Occupy movement.

PressTV on January 10, 2012: "Retired Philadelphia police captain Ray Lewis is there -- and he's feeling the repercussions of his involvement in the protest movement. Lewis says that he's received two letters from police and union officials -- both threatening the pension he's worked decades for -- and all -- just for his choice to get involved in the protest."[22]
Voice of America news on January 17, 2012: "Lewis is well known in Occupy circles for his support of the movement."[23] and [24]
The Nation on January 17, 2012: "Retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis, a mainstay at Occupy events, arrived in what appeared to be his Philadelphia police uniform. Capitol Police stopped him, and seemed to have a problem with Lewis entering the protest as a uniformed officer. Occupiers immediately noticed the detention, and a few mic-checks later hundreds of people fled the Assembly and surrounded the Capitol Police and Lewis."[25]
Campus-Progress on January 20, 2012: "Retired Philadelphia police captain and Occupy activist Ray Lewis was detained on suspicion of impersonating a police officer, which caused protesters to swarm outside their designated area and push for his freedom."[26]
Right Now I/O Breaking News on January 23, 2012: Photo journal with six photos of Ray Lewis. [27]

Clearly, he has acquired a significant role there.Plankto (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is still an example of someone being known for just one event. Let's wait until he gets sustained coverage for other things or from sources years from now. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the importance of the subject to the events is questioned. However, his involvement in the Occupy protests stretches from mid November 2011 to the present time as documented in numerous RS. The event itself has national significance and the protests have even focused on his presence. Is it for editors to judge the importance of the subject? Is it not enough that he is covered with numerous RS. The suggested notability criteria for a WP biography therefore appears a wee steep.Plankto (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept it needs to be Ray Lewis (ex-policeman), Ray Lewis (protester) or similar, since he wasn't a policemen during the events leading to notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all the articles he is described as Retired Philadelphia Police Captain or Retired Police Captain.Plankto (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brooklyn Thrill Killers#Film. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Thrill Killers (film)

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

I found nothing to show notability. This film fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Brooklyn Thrill Killers, which it looks like the time article is actually about. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brooklyn Thrill Killers#Film where it is now mentioned and sourced. Film does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NF for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route 66 (company)

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

Zero refs. Appears non-notable, and tagged as such for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Tinton5 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep – Per reviews in respected, reliable sources, also mentions in other reliable sources, which qualify this stub article:~~

*Lim, Andrew (February 28, 2006). "Route 66 Mobile 7: Use your mobile for satellite navigation". CNET (UK). Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

*Catanzariti, Ross (May 10, 2007). "330 Auto Navigation". PC World (Australia). Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

*Noordhuis, Maaike (February 18, 2011). "TomTom Falls 11% on 'Broadly Flat' Earnings Forecast". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

*Virki, Tarmo (September 15, 2010). "HTC unveils new smartphones, pushes into services". Reuters. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

~~This article would benefit from more sourcing. Adding rescue tag to it.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote to keep, per WP:PRODUCT, ..."Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revisiting the discussion and reconsidering. Goodvac (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the tagging of the article for rescue, even though I nominated it, because I think that if articles are in fact notable they should be kept. I'm of course more than a little confused, therefore, that you followed your above comment and tagging by nominating the tag itself for deletion ... which nomination has resulted in the deletion of the tag that you added to this article. Anyway, perhaps that is the law of unintended consequences. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The templates for discussion nomination regarding the rescue template was procedural, per ongoing qualms about the template, to obtain community consensus about its existence. The community's consensus was to delete it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also, this nomination for deletion seems to possibly be based upon a lack of references that were in the article, rather than upon a search for them, per WP:BEFORE. If this is the case, please consider searching for sources prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NA. To clarify, I did seek to find substantial RS coverage, and was unable to. The absence of substantial non-trivial independent RS coverage -- rather than the absence of such coverage in the article -- is as you say the key point, though it is noteworthy that the article itself failed to supply any such refs either, as that is the first place many of us look for support of the inherent claim to notability made when an article creator seeks to create the article. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, and likewise, best to you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company fails WP:CORP. The sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) do not constitute significant coverage.
- "Route 66 Mobile 7: Use your mobile for satellite navigation" from CNET is a review of one of Route 66's products. The article provides no information about the company itself. WP:PRODUCT states, "[A] specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." (my bolding) Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
- "330 Auto Navigation" from PC World is the same as the CNET source—focus is on the product, not the company.
- "TomTom Falls 11% on 'Broadly Flat' Earnings Forecast" from Bloomberg Businessweek is a passing mention:
  The Dutch company said Feb. 14 that navigation company Route 66 started a mapping and navigation application for Google Inc.'s Android handset system using TomTom's maps.
  This article provides no significant coverage of Route 66.
- "HTC unveils new smartphones, pushes into services" from Reuters is another passing mention:
  HTC's mapping offering, built together with navigation software firm Route 66, enables ...
  No significant coverage.

I have conducted a search at Google News Archive with the terms "Route 66" "navigation", the results of which are either reports of announcements from the company or articles about the company's products. Delete as failing WP:CORP because of the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed to Weak Keep - there are clearly several substantial reviews of Route 66 products, for example the PC World (Australia) and this one in ComputerActive Magazine. The products seem to have been noticed, globally, over an extended period. WP:CORP seems to accept both coverage of the company and/or the products (similarly to a filmmaker or artist being notable on the back of a notable creation). Obviously, these sources need to be incorporated into the stub, rather than dumped in a list at the bottom... Sionk (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of a company's products do not make a company notable. Where does it say at WP:CORP that coverage of products justifies an article about the company? WP:PRODUCT (a subsection of WP:CORP) specifically states that companies do not inherit notability from their products. Goodvac (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A company is notable based on what it does or has created. Just like a writer is notable if there are reviews for their bestselling novels. Dream Focus 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the discussion above? "WP:PRODUCT (a subsection of WP:CORP) specifically states that companies do not inherit notability from their products." Goodvac (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comments by Goodvac, I would agree the subject is very borderline and have changed my 'vote'. However, common sense is recommended for interpreting WP guidelines. Though the coverage is not in-depth about the company, there is unarguably coverage in multiple, non-related sources. It could add up to significant coverage and therefore 'notability' in my view. Evidently the person that relisted this debate is in two minds as well! Sionk (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's borderline. The guideline clearly states that coverage of products does not contribute to the company's notability. The only information about the company in those sources is:
  - "navigation company Route 66"
  - "navigation software firm Route 66"
  - Route 66 released a number of navigation-related products. [28] [29]

Ultimately, all that can be drawn from those sources is that Route 66 develops navigation products. This is not significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, the guideline does not clearly state that at all. The guideline says "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." It is quite an ambivalent statement. It definitely does not say "coverage of products does not contribute to the company's notability". Sionk (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see where we differ. Let me put it this way: the reviews of Route 66's products make the products notable. The guideline states, "an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result". This is a case of inherited notability—just because the products have significant coverage (thus are notable) doesn't mean the company is notable. Goodvac (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point by Goodvac.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 2. Snotbot t • c » 06:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Only one reference covers the company, others are focused on other companies and mention this one in passing if at all. RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company seems notable enough that there are a few articles written about it, like this: "Route 66 Launches Mobile 7 for Windows Mobile Smartphones" Wireless News, 8 April 2005, 173 words, (English)Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For those who assert that this company is notable because of passing mentions (and one slightly more fleshed-out techblog review of one of the products offered by the company, rather than "this phone has an app made by Route 66"), why is it that the article doesn't even identify in what country the company is headquartered? Why is it that the bolded introduction of the article doesn't match the name of the company (it is the name of the company's Dutch offices)? What are the products offered by the company, and why are they notable? As several other editors have noted, there is no coverage of the company (at all, anywhere), and precious little about its products. One might be able to construct a WP:N-compliant article about the product reviewed by CNET and Geekzone (which appears to be the same product), but I don't see anything about the company in those two sources, or in the other citations dumped onto the article. Horologium (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete some refs but very slight with nothing that I can see about the company; searching turns up nothing better. A tech company that's been around 20 years without receiving any significant coverage is definitely non-notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liken (series)

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

No evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes... the article lacks reliable sources. Shame on its author. In searches I do find the series spoken of in such as Deseret News Portsmouth Daily Times so it's not completely unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "shameful" author here. [30] is the actual website for the series. Their other site is [31] and the company is lightstone studios. It is real and Shame on you for proposing deletion. Super^Gilligan 06:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official series website and the production company's website do nothing to establish notability per the applicable guideline. We do not doubt the series exists, but for inclusion herein we need significant coverage in reliable sources. See WP:GNG and WP:RS. I found some few mentions above which might be used as citations within the articcle. To be determined as notable, we need more than mentions. Come forward with commentary and reviews of the series and the tide could turn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try deleting articles with no sources what so ever. According to your link to WP:GNG, It needs significant coverage and I have found all the coverage necessary as well as links being contributed, Thanks others, It also needs reliability and the main web site has more reliability than you will have in your lifetime, People have added to the sources I put there, I am not affiliated in any way with Liken so I am independent of the subject, and it does give a presumption that the article is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. So back off, have you even looked at the article since you first proposed it's deletion? I doubt it. Super^Gilligan Out. 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'significant coverage' also has to be 'independent of the subject' to establish Wikipedia notability. We are simply looking for major independent coverage of Liken (for example newpaper articles ) that does not have a vested interest in promoting the subject. Sionk (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also THIS comprehensive article in a Utah newspaper. I can't comment on whether to keep the article because the Deseret news article link (above) is unreachable and the Portsmouth Daily Times links to a 1920 newspaper, which seems dubious! Sionk (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a Deseret review, see article, and inserted an 'Intended audience' and a 'Reception' section. Liken clearly has its strengths and weaknesses - see Reception - and while some may sniff at the stuff, other folks appreciate it. I'd remind nom that TV series are generally automatically Notable here, and that we're supposed not to bite Newbie editors on their first stumbling attempts at walking - there were in fact 4 URLs buried in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, as far as I can see, Liken.tv not a television station. As far as I can see Liken is a musical which has been broadcast on a Mormon website (or DVD series), not a national television show. I don't know why its called Liken (series). Maybe someone can explain. Deseret seem to be an online book seller, so their review has a vested interest to sell products, hardly a reliable source. Sionk (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I called it Liken (series) because it is a Musical series and when you "Liken" something it means you compare things to yourselves, I didn't want any confusion if there was a different article for the word liken.Super^Gilligan 01:27 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Deseret Book is the publisher for the LDS church; while they are definitely a book seller, they review external media to recommend those with 'suitable content' (my words). As such, they review many products without carrying them. While this does not seem to be their product, these are available through them. Dru of Id (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 19:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Borderline, but once you strip away the producer "references", you're left with reviews from a small newspaper (30K+ circulation) and "a computer programmer by day", and an advertising blurb. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelle

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Not only hasn't been commercially released, it apparently hasn't even been seen yet (may not even be finished; per IMDb), as its first appearance is scheduled to be a film festival. This per one single source, a press release (from the festival); no other evidence of notability. Google shows me no reviews, no awards, no wide distribution. All of its actors and even its director are apperantly so lacking in notability themselves that they rate only redlinks on WP. The author hints that I should try Google, but doesn't reveal what one should Google for to get better results, and hasn't provided any further proof of notability themselves. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film has been selected to compete for the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, one of the big three film festivals in the calendar. Of course it hasn't been "commercially released" - as it will premire at the festival! Nominator claims that IMDB hasn't got the film as completed, seemingly unaware that IMDB is essentially a Wiki, which relies on volunteers to update the data. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NF and WP:GNG. With respects to the nominator, "commercial release" does not neccessarily equate to notability and conversely, a lack of "commercial release" does not neccessarily equate to non-notability. Any article not using available sources is a call for improvement, not deletion, as topic notability is dependent upon sources being available, and NOT upon such sources being used in an article. What we do have is a completed film which is and has been receiving coverage in multiple sources, and one set for its debut in less than a month. Sources exist for this topic... THAT's how we determine notability and improvability. The nominator's other worries are based upon non-mandated "attributes" that are set to encourage searches for sources, and NOT upon applicable guideline or policy. And with respects to the nominator's google-foo... sources were easily available to meet WP:GNG... and had he looked beyond the unreliable source upon which he based his erroneous argument that this completed film was not yet completed, he might not have nominated this in the first place. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music Radio Creative

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

Promotional article for a company of questionable notability. Google news search on company name shows no results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, directory listsings, sales links, and social media, but no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam created by the "key people". Does not meet WP:CORP, lacks any coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Blackpool F.C. players. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Blackpool F.C. players

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

Notability is assumed in all Wikipedia articles and arbitrarily assigning it to some players is WP:OR. There is already List of Blackpool F.C. players, so this is furthermore redundant. PROD was denied with "Rmv prod - such lists exist for many clubs, has refs" but I don't see any other "Lists of notable X" at Special:Allpages/List_of_notable nor in Category:Lists of association football players by club. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that we don't need two lists here, but the formatting here is good, and would certainly improve List of Blackpool F.C. players if added there - it's a good example of how lists can be improved to go beyond duplicating categories by adding content beyond a simple list of article links. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic is notable and the nominator has not provided a valid rationale. I would suggest a rename & re-jig, to match something like the featured list List of Gillingham F.C. players (which, by the way, has spin-off articles at List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances) and List of Gillingham F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). For the Blackpool player lists, I would suggest that this article becomes List of Blackpool F.C. players and a new article at List of Blackpool F.C. players (fewer than 50 appearances) is created. Giant Snowman 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would need some well-defined criteria for inclusion, otherwise it's just one person's opinion of who is 'most' notable. There are players currently listed here who made only a small number of appearances for the club.--Michig (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well take, for example, my team's equivalent list, which gives inclusion criteria of "former players who have made 50 or more appearances in the Football League"; there is a run-off article which gives inclusion criteria of "players who have made fewer than 50 appearances." The actual figure for Blackpool can be discussed, but that is a good start. Giant Snowman 19:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article became List of Blackpool F.C. players, what would happen to the article that already exists under that title......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to a new title, as per the Bradford or Gillingham examples already discussed on here. Giant Snowman 20:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as List of Blackpool F.C. players with 100+ appearances], and remove those with less than 100. Title is POV, criteria are POV (in terms of making them notable, not in terms of meeting criteria). Why do Eardley's international appearances make him more notable as a Blackpool player? If someone eligible for a minor Caribbean team played for Blackpool reserves, but got a brief run out as a sub once, this would make him a notable Blackpool player according to this. Rimmel Daniel is not a notable Gillingham player (never got anywhere near the first team squad), but he did did represent Grenada while on their books. Is a player who played was mainly in the reserves, but stayed around because he was cheap, really notable, even if his occasional appearances reach 100? Is a player with 100 appearances more notable than one with 99? Kevin McE (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of Blackpool F.C. players into this, and then rename to List of Blackpool F.C. players. The other article has the correct title, this has the correct content. —WFC— 06:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ there are many articles like this covering only notable players. Not every single player ever to have played. Until today I didnt realise the full list was prefered. A wider discussion is required. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge following clarifiction by struaway on project page. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ Rename/ Merge into "List of Blackpool F.C. players". But the content should not be deleted. I'm currently working on "List of Sheffield United F.C. players" and we're only including players with at least 100 appearances. There shouldn't be a need for an article to list ever single player as it is covered by "Category:Sheffield United F.C. players". The same should apply to Blackpool and arguably all clubs make it the norm. So this article should be renamed "List of Blackpool F.C. players" and a list of all Blackpool players will be covered by "Category:Blackpool F.C. players". IJA (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a List of X F.C. players for over 100 appearances (or whatever figure is suitable for that team) and a second List of X F.C. players with under 100 appearances for everyone else is a good method IMO. Giant Snowman 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename to List of Blackpool F.C. players, per WFC. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, the arbitrary nature of the article is an issue, but then articles of +/- 100 appearances are in existence and, indeed, recommended as an alternative? Merge/redirect into List of Blackpool F.C. players. Note that the category only contains created articles; whereas the list contains "all" players, pulled from several sources, which is useful for cross-referencing. - Dudesleeper talk 23:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Traya

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

This is a classic WP:BLP1E article -- outside of the one event the person has no notability. I would not even suggest a redirect, as it is appleimac.com that has some notability, not the person. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tempest in a teapot. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an open-and-shut case. No notability whatsoever. Even if the single event were of interest, it would fall foul of WP:BLP1E. But it isn't even that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't relevant Thundersport (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademark_dispute_over_appleimac.com. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, no minimal claim of significance. Full text: Martel Communication was founded in Wichita, Kansas. Martel offered discounted long distance service in the USA. Martel service is offered to home and small business consumers from all states in the US. Headquarters are located near Chicago in Lake in the Hills, Illinois. Martel shut down operation in 2009. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martel Communication

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

Fails WP:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Cursory web search finds nothing at all of note. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it qualifies for A7, which doesn't depend on lack of sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of domain names seized by DHS

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cites to only one source, essentially copying their list into our article. The source describes itself as a news source, but it's unclear how reliable the source is. The article seems to be a WP:COATRACK (see sentence about Internet censorshiip). Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've censored that sentence. --Lambiam 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NLIST is only applicable to people. I would give it a chance to satisfy WP:GNG as it already has one source. --Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NLIST ("Note that the guidance in this section is particularly applicable to people but applies to lists in general, not only lists of people.").

Comment. The name of the article has been changed to reflect that the 131 domains seized were on one day. Shall we keep lists for each day? Shall we keep a master list of all the names seized and cite sources for all of them?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike what the broad title suggests, these are only the seizures of one specific day, November 25, 2011, just in time before the online shopping wave of Cyber Monday; they are by no means the only domain names seized by Homeland Security, and this specific event has no encyclopedic significance whatsoever. --Lambiam 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V – reference is not a reliable source – and also per #8 in WP:NOTDICT. A list of things worth collecting, but not in an encyclopedia. – Pnm (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is scope for an article on the seizures, and a list like this could form part of that, but not a standalone list based on this reference. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Southern African Development Community. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Southern African Development Community

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

Unsourced, there's almost no content here, so what little there is could be merged with the main article. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Southern African Development Community#Flag to the extent that there is anything here which is not already covered in that article. If nothing is worth merging, then just redirect to there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The flag is probably notable enough for an article, but readers are better served having the info in the article on the organization itself. Borock (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern African Development Community#Flag as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Wars

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge and/or redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Elves in the Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent coverage by independent third party sources. Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Elves in the Forgotten Realms might be a redirect target if it didn't have the same problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Elves in the Forgotten Realms. Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as compromise. Lack of sources would support deletion but perhaps there's some good information in here to enhance the main Elf article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All. Michig (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jackson (English footballer)

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

The three players above do not meet the guidelines for footballer notability, having not played in a fully professional league - their only appearances are for the semi-professional team Barrow A.F.C., in the not-fully-professional Football Conference. None of them appear to otherwise meet the general notability guidelines. Pretty Green (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - None of the three have played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. All three fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The author keeps persisting in creating articles on non-notable footballers despite have had the notability guidelines spelt out in to him in black & white. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WayForward Technologies. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voldi Way

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

No indication of WP:notability. Bit part actor and businessman. Only reference is to imdb where he appears to have had 3 bit bits. No sources for business career. Google searches reveal nothing significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Could go either way on this, the guy did create a notable game company (WayForward Technologies) but that's the company, not the person. Cutting that out, there's little to go on regarding Way as a notable person outside of that but I feel if there's any way to keep it it'll be on his videogame career, not on his paltry acting credits. tutterMouse (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that the article was de-prodded by User:Voldiway as that user's first (and only at the time of this writing) edit. The article creator works for the company (WayForward Technologies) created by the article's subject. So, there's certainly a conflict-of-interest problem here. I agree with TuttleMouse otherwise, a very weak keep flavored with a feeling that he might not turn out notable after all (if sources are found). -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WayForward Technologies since Voldi Way himself seems to get very little personal coverage independent of his company. The only other possibility would be a redirect to The Changeling (film) but I don't think that is a good idea since he is not mentioned in that article and I think the company he founded would be a more relevant article than a single film he appeared in.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WayForward Technologies. The company is notable, he is not. --Ifnord (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WayForward Technologies. Can't find any sources about him personally, but his company does indeed seem notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others' comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Raj

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

Reason: The article for the main part is not about the British Raj but rather Indian independence along with a whole load of socialist revisionism. Eighteen months ago I requested that Indian independence apart from the relevant paragraphs be removed along with a whole load of npov socialist revisionism but to no avail.Twobells (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep a clearly notable subject, a content dispute is not a valid reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above- William 15:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There obviously needs to be an article about the British Raj. This one quite appropriately deals with the variety of events and aspects of India during the period of the Raj. Aridd (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject deserves a seperate article. However removing some content as it already exists on some other articles can be done. But most information about how the Raj started, developed and ended, key persons involved, etc. is better here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: A really bad faith nomination! I don't know what else to say. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified keep: I am sympathetic to some of the criticisms of Twobells at Talk:British Raj, but I do not think his or her case would persuade many Wikipedians that deletion is the answer. To me, this article has several faults. One is indeed that in some areas it lacks political objectivity, another that it is seeking to create a country called "British Raj" which never existed. All faults can be discussed and dealt with, including the name of the article. In the mean time, if this article were to be deleted, the unhappy term "British Raj" would need to redirect somewhere, but where? The article has swallowed up real subjects, the names of which now redirect here. I particularly agree with Twobells about the lack of coverage of "administration and the legal system" and have made similar comments myself about the need for an article on the pre-1947 Government of India – of course, it is not possible to deal adequately with such matters and to continue to pretend that there was a country called "British Raj" which included the princely states, because the British did not administer or legislate for the states. I hope a more objective and historical approach will develop over the years ahead. Moonraker (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I told the nominator last week: "In regard to the attempt to delete this article, I think it would be much better to improve the article through normal editing. I can't imagine that the Wikipedia community would support having no article about the British Raj at all." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With an article about such an important topic, the only reason to delete would be the nonexistence of a suitable version anywhere in the history. Is the original version better than nothing? I believe so, and thus without any opinion of the current state of the article, I oppose deletion. By the way, you use "NPOV" in a pejorative manner — are you sure that you mean "neutral point of view"? Finally, I see comments at talk such as one opposing the idea of continuing to <pretend that there was a country called "British Raj">; even if the Raj were a fiction or a hoax, it's gotten enough coverage that we could write an article about the impact of this legal fiction. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Correct that the information about Indian independence belongs to the dedicated articles but this article also has ground for containing that information (though WP:SUMMARY should be followed for that with {{main article}}). If you think some information does not belong to this article, you should move it to the article it should be in instead of asking for a deletion per WP:UGLY. The subject has notability and there are absolutely no grounds for deletion of this - should be closed per WP:SNOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Although, article misses some important sections and points, but deletion is a terrible idea. Agree with Joyson Prabhu about the nomination. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COLOURlovers

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

Disputed prod. Site fails WP:WEB rules for notability. Won no important awards and has not received the requisite press or scholarly recognition via multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a lot of hits. A lot of them are not entirely RS but this looks OK,[32] and there must be others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2012‎

Interesting !vote, you seem to be saying keep on the one had but agreeing with the nominator with the other, in that the sources are not reliable. If a subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources it does not meet any of our inclusion criteria, so should be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article obviously meets WP:WEB, with references in multiple independent, reliable sources – including winning multiple Webby Awards and with coverage from Time magazine in one its yearly "best websites" list. Steven Walling • talk 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, but no. It did NOT win ANY Webby Awards at all. It was merely nominated, which tons of websites get and which does not meet our notability standards. Furthermore, being mentioned in some reliable sources once in a great while is not enough to demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. The coverage must also be non-trivial. A single paragraph as part of a discussion of many websites is trivial. The OregonLive article sounds like a joke or press release. To demonstrate enough notability for an article the site must be the sole topic of multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. This site does not have that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To use your phrase: sorry, but no. Neither WP:WEB nor the GNG say that you thinking a major newspaper article is a joke is a qualification for disregarding reliable published sources. The basic tests of notability and verifiability are whether we have enough sources to make basic factual claims about a subject, and in this case that is clearly true. Thus, the article should be kept. Steven Walling • talk 05:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, fails to meet any of our inclusion guidelines, not notable. Mt king ^(edits) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the main claims to fame here are basically those mentioned in this post on a blog for Oregon-based startups. The Time writeup is one paragraph on a "top 50" list (#40 to be precise). Two nominations for the Webby Awards "Best Community Website" category is not in itself notable given that the site didn't win, and its nomination doesn't seem to have been covered by reliable secondary sources to any significant extent. Apparently it won the WebVisions Web Visionary Award in 2008, though that particular award doesn't have an article here and its website is impossible to navigate and thus even verify. There is one additional possibly notable event, the million dollars in angel investment. However, I don't recall any consensus that Web startups were notable so long as TechCrunch picked up on their funding. I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:WEB. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't just some fly-by-night startup that once got a TechCrunch post. It's a staple of the design community and has been around for years, not to mention being one of the more famous Web companies to come out of Portland. I think the combined sources from the tech press, the regional paper, etc. are enough to pass general notability guidelines. There's a reason the article has been around for quite some time. Steven Walling • talk 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its being a "staple of the design community" or "one of the more famous Web companies to come out of Portland" needs backed up by reliable secondary sources, which still haven't been linked here nor added to the article. You argued nine days ago that it had won two Webby awards when in fact it had only been nominated, so I'm not particularly inclined to take further assertions at face value. The GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not a horde of trivial ones. Neither the subject's having "been around for years" nor the article's having been "around some time" are arguments based on our consensus on notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is not difficult to find widespread, significant critical reviews, such as The Guardian, DevLounge, Moo, WP Candy, and Gizmodo. —EncMstr (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they get reviews, but given the notice on the top of the devlounge one, how many of the others are the same, nothing to indicate that this website gets any non-routine coverage. Mt king ^(edits) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to limited consensus over three weeks, this counts as a PROD deletion so can be reversed by simple request at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sila Hussain

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

While this actress certainly exists, I cannot find substantial, non-trivial, multiple RS pieces on her. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability, etc., last month. Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Only one weak source. Happy to change my mind if something better turns up.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaolan Huangpu

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

Is this art professor notable? I see no evidence of it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very lacking in online content and published materials. SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Yulong

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

Is this artist sufficiently notable? I don't think the article shows it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also found very little, even in my scholarly art resources. SarahStierch (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mun Quan

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

Was this professor sufficiently notable? I can't discern any real notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the Askart page, Quan is not notable enough IMHO to rectify inclusion. SarahStierch (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Liuming

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

Is this artist sufficiently notable? From an outsider's view, I don't think so, but further thoughts are requested. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Some notable museum/Biennale survey exhibition inclusion, mostly independently curated, plus after digging i found an in depth review from the senior art critic at the NYT about the artwork http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/05/arts/art-in-review-ma-liuming.html,}}Euartcurator (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the fine art world this artist is notable enough. Has a nice collection of publications about her work, many notable GLAM exhibitions and scholarly documentation. SarahStierch (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naushad Ali Kawa

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

Non-notable; quite limited RS coverage relates to competing in a Pop Idol style competition, where the singer didn't even place in the top 3. My understanding is that falls short of our notability requirements. Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — Only 9 results in news search, and a trivial mention in each one. Not significant in any other book or scholar. X.One ^SOS 05:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The guy stood 7th in top-16 contestants. Not notable! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sher-e-Lahore (2001 film)

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage to indicate notability. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Understandable difficulties in finding modern-day coverage for this 10-year-old Pakistani film... many due to the article's chosen name. Film is searchable as Shere Lahore, and Variety international film guide calls it "the number four hit". Could Pakistani Wikipedians please assist with finding coverage for this "number four hit"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. In the absence of any opinions of any type over three weeks, this is considered an uncontested deletion and can be restored by request at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sangram (2001 film)

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

Zero refs. Not to be confused with another film of the same name. Lack (from what I can find) substantial RS coverage. Others are welcome to search for it. Tagged for zero refs, and absence of notability, for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. Shahid Alam

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

Despite his own numerous publications, this is not the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources (failing WP:BASIC). This subject also fails WP:PROFESSOR; there's no indication this individual is widely cited, and most publications giving even trivial mention seem to come from organizations with which the subject is affiliated. JFHJr (㊟) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject seems to have produced at least a couple of articles on corruption from the 1990s that have definitely been academically widely cited. The subject's more recent anti-Israel polemics seem to have attracted attention both from allies and opponents (though possibly not beyond the "passing mention" level - I haven't checked in enough detail to be certain). While I'm not convinced of the subject's notability, I'm far from convinced of the opposite either - on current evidence, a relatively close call. PWilkinson (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article cites academic work of subject that could be taken as a reliable source itself for the topics covered. [33] [34] --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting substantial coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources is not needed? Generally we don't base WP:N on the subject's own publications, no matter how prolific. Third parties need to cite them as important, or cover the subject himself. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting that due to the work which itself can be taken as reliable for the given topics there's a very high probability of presence of sources in print/offline media and the article should not be deleted simply because of absence of online material. The article should be given a chance so that some editors who do have access to that material may add the sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a high probability is simply hypothetical until such sources are actually identified. That you think they probably exist is not a valid reason to vote keep. Of course offline sources are perfectly acceptable if they are verifiable, but they must be shown to exist if notability will rest on them. JFHJr (㊟) 01:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here are some published writings of him by third party sources [35] [36] [37] [38]. And here's a review of some of his works by an author other than him published by a third party [39] and another [40]. A biography + review of book [41] [42]. Review by a notable publisher [43] . --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are enough to even get separate articles for the book(s) being reviewed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources listed by TopGun are not very useful, I fear. That Alam has published is irrelevant, what counts is whether those publications have been noted (refs 3-6). I'm not sure the review in ref 7 is published in a reliable source (not saying it isn't, just that I don't know). The review in ref 8 is substantial, independent, and a reliable source. Ref 9 is just a promotional blurb by the publisher and absolutely not independent or useful to establish notability. Ref 10 seems just to be a blog and not a WP:RS. Ref 11 is to a bookseller and completely unusable (they're trying to sell the book, like MacMillan, they're not going to be critical and only write how great the stuff and its author are). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the publisher's view on the book are biased or not are not being discussed here WP:NPOV will be considered when including that content in the article. In this discussion, the review itself is of significance proving the notability. I think you do consider amazon as a reliable source (regardless of their bias for a book they published). I also assume you realize that publisher (whatever interests they may have) are a third party. Just because a newspaper advertizes their news articles doesn't mean that their articles will not be reliable source anymore. About the ref with a critical review, I think it is reliable and seems to be written by an expert other wise as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon will list anything if there's a market for it (they even list Wikipedia rip-offs). That does not contribute anything to notability and amazon is not a reliable source of reviews (it can be used to confirm that a certain book exists, or to find an ISBN, but nothing more). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puliangudi Palanisamy

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

Minor political figure with no substantial independent coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. No submissions in three weeks, so I am deleting as though this were an expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union

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

Non-notable credit union. Fails WP:N as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Does not satisfy any of the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Being "oldest and largest entirely student-run credit union in the country" doesn't confer inherent notability. GrapedApe (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that the article was created by Guasfcu (talk · contribs), who is now blocked as a role account.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Seraji

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

No valid source, Iran is not known Kasir ^talk 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability either in the article or in the various (auto)bios scattered around the net. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References and external list have been listed. In the U.S., authors work is frequently published in Shofar, Iranian.com, Pezhvak, and Yoldash, in addition he has three published books all available through Middle Eastern bookstores, and Amazon.com --User:Tablotoop 17:29, 19 January 2012
- Comment Having published three (or any number of) books is not sufficient to confer notability on an author - please see WP:AUTHOR. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your comment and reference. Citing criteria #2 on WP: AUTHOR, this author has pioneered a new approach to poetry, merging concepts in quantum physics with those in Sufism or Erfan. No poet, prior to this author, has taken this approach. In addition it's noteworthy that the author's post revolution work was banned in Iran for its biting criticism of the Iranian regime (see his poem Zahede Makkar in Shofar magazine - reference #5 in the main article). User: Tablotoop 5:22 20 January, 2012
  - Please cite verifiable third-party reliable sources. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of RS. Noted that Persian Wikipedia's article has been deleted in a discussion.Farhikht (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. No comment in three weeks, so this is treated as an expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canalys

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

Company does not appear to be notable. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Weisgerber

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

Person has done little of relevance outside of being on two reality shows, both of which are noted on those shows' respective pages TheNate (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Island Cricket

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

Dear Admin, Page created for a website in Sri Lanka. Please check if this article meets WP guidelines. Thanks AKS (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's marginal, but it has received a Sri Lanka Web Award (and an article by an independent organisation as a result). I'm not sure how well known these Web Awards are in Sri Lanka but I think it just about scrapes through on the "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." rule in WP:WEB. waggers (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. No contributions to the debate for three weeks. Treated as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Nihal Chishty

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

Detailed article, but I can't find sufficient substantial RS coverage of this guitarist/composer/record producer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Claussell

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

This DJ/music producer/record label owner lacks significant RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wonter

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

While he exists, this Polish DJ, producer, and promoter lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs, as well. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bachon Ki Duniya

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Gnews never heard of it, and gbooks has only a snippet. Tagged for lack of refs and as an orphan for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Sadiq

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for zero refs, and for being an orphan, over 3 years ago. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But Needs a complete re-write with proper references. --C h i n n Z ^{(talk | Contrib)} 06:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your rationale for suggesting it be kept?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did find this, but there needs to be more sources. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Chinnz can supply claimed citations. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The one source provided above looked pretty solid. Certainly better than anything the "lazily parroting websites=reliable sources" approach seems to come up with. The denizens of the wrestling websites used over and over again as sources probably couldn't find Pakistan on a globe, so you probably shouldn't expect any of them to write about it. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: apart from "anything," what sort of sources are you looking for here? Also, what is the likelihood that any of them are going to be in English? Furthermore, if abundant sources did exist in another language, would that change anyone's mind? I get the impression that a lot of recent wrestling AfDs are either oblivious to or perhaps actually capitalizing on the fact that abundant reliable sources likely exist, but are sources which are far removed from the consciousness of the average American wrestling fan. The ones who contribute here appear to be very content with their favored sources and don't wish to know otherwise.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We need multiple, substantial, independent coverage in RSs (in any language). We have many people in Category:Pakistani businesspeople who have coverage in Dawn, Daily Times, News International, Business Recorder, and the like -- just to name some of the local newspapers in English -- as well as in other non-English papers and non-local papers.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Vervaeke

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

Challenging notability of person, lack of references proving notability. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources on which to base a verifiable article and for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The only source actually included is a compilation of teaching evaluations that includes some of his courses; these sorts of evaluations exist for essentially every faculty member everywhere (though they are often not published), consist entirely of opinion, and aren't particularly useful in building an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per CSD G11. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Harpreet Singh Show

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

Apparently non-notable television show. Airs on a regional broadcast network, not nationally distributed. I can find no independent coverage: no gnews hits, and all ghits are either the show's own pages, the network's pages, or social media. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Household Name Records

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

Non-notable small record company. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N. Fails WP:MUSIC, as well. Notability is not inherited to the record company through any notability of the bands signed to that label. Notability in question since August 2010. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MGID.com

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

Firm is not notable. Article is corporate advertisement. No mainstream media publications reference the firm in question Jun Kayama 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another online advertising network advertising on Wikipedia. The non-trivial references are to testimonials on IT-related blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Counts as expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Farrugia

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a directory listing of two films with no commentary. Google searches not showing anything to establish notability. noq (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Blaby

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

This person does not seem to meet our notability requirements, and IMHO lacks substantial independent non-trivial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable traffic reporter. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough written about Blaby to make her notable, per requirements and guidelines, including articles in the The Telegraph and British Journalism Review. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - referred to in a British Journalism Review article doesn't impress me as the kind of significant coverage that WP:BIO is looking for. The number of 3rd party sources doesn't matter, it's the depth of the coverage that tells us how notable this subject is.--RadioFan (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for commenting. I found another article in The Independent where she was interviewed with others for a feature story. But I agree; more in-depth pieces would help, although I don't think she's "unremarkable." AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Everton

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

While this 19-year-old radio dj exists, and may be notable in the future, I cannot find substantial, multiple independent RS coverage of him. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wilkes

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

While this DJ/record producer/presenter exists, I cannot find substantial, independent RS coverage of him such as meets our notability guidelines. Others are welcome to try. Article has zero refs, though it has non-independent ELs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone currently active in media will surely have substantial information online if reliable sources have been written about him; I'd be greatly surprised if there are sufficient sources that the nominator's search failed to uncover. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I expected to find something verging on significant - he is a presenter on Kiss and previously on Capital Radio - but found little beyond confirmation of this and brief write-ups of his live DJ sets.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marshall Islands general election, 2011. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands presidential election, 2012

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

The Marshall Islands does not hold presidential elections. The president is elected by parliament in what is part of the general election process. This year's election of Loeak was fairly unsurprising (he's a veteran and an iroijlaplap) and uneventful (gets exactly 28 hits on Google news). It will never be more than a stub, and was easily merged into the general election article (of which it is an essential part and will need to be discussed under anyway). Nightw 15:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first statement is simply wrong; just because the election is indirect does not mean that "the Marshall Islands [do] not hold presidential elections". I'm personally in favour of a complete set of articles on all elections, whether eventful or not. —Nightstallion 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the vote was part of the general election that already has an article. It doesn't make sense to make a separate stub when we already have a (stub) article for the whole election. We only do that when the parent article becomes too long (WP:CFORK). Nightw 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to the page about general election, per discussion above. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support per nightstallion, the election FOLLOWED the general election. a la like india's indirect presidential elections. timing is coincedental.Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me that you know what the definition of a general election is? A general election is a legislative election and presidential election combined—the timing is not a "coincidence". Nightw 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory i agree completely. In practice and on WP its NOT the same across election articles. particuarly in parliamentary systems...grants Marshall Islands, but sinc eit was nt at the same time by convention they should be seperate articles. And you know in practice its NOT the same.Lihaas (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's accurate to say that a general election must be a legislative election and a presidential election combined. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles such as United Kingdom general election, 2010 for a country that has never had a president. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even an indirect election for the presidency of a sovereign nation (or territory) deserves an article. Scanlan (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we have one. It's Marshall Islands general election, 2011. This is a fork. Nightw 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there's nothing here that can't be put in the 2011 elections article, especially given it's an offshoot of those events. Leaving this an independent article would be somewhat akin to making an article on the House of Commons approving a prime minister, which doesn't make much sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marshall Islands general election, 2011. This isn't a separate topic from the general election; it's more an aspect of the general election. Both articles are quite short anyway and it would not be problematic to combine them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. There's no content that isn't duplicated. Nightw 07:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I have no opinion on keeping or merging, but it's obvious that someone elected the president quite recently in the aftermath of the general election. This is not the type of content that should be removed from the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "in the aftermath of the general election"—the general election is the election of the president. Nightw 07:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tabernacle, New Jersey

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

Possibly merge to Tabernacle Township, New Jersey. Not sourced, either. Tinton5 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per #1, no deletion rationale provided or proposed. Whether or not it is currently sourced has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted (or merged, for that matter). Per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, it was a mistake to list this at AFD without trying (or even discussing) merger first (are AFD instructions not clear enough?). There has been no talk page discussion for this article, nor at Talk:Tabernacle Township, New Jersey, nor was the sole creator of this article contacted except to notify him of this deletion discussion a day after the article was posted. That's absolutely not how things should be done here, and I can't help but wonder if that is representative of why Wikipedia is having trouble gaining new editors and retaining old ones. If you see that an article about a seemingly viable topic needs further development, help with that process by doing some research, writing, and editing, or even just merging; communicate some concerns or proposals to the contributor on their talk page; tag it for the attention of others who might be more interested or knowledgeable about it; or leave it alone so someone else can deal with it properly. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge clearly this info has merit and was created in good faith. It easily would fit into the Tabernacle Township, New Jersey article.

BTW, fully agree w/ above about procedure here.Djflem (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The history of this township belongs in the township article; it is not extensive enough to warrant a separate article. I would have said "merge" but since this article has no references, none of the information is verified. Any historical information which can be sourced or verified should be added to the township article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement is verifiable, not verified. We do not remove material just because it is not presently referenced. Unless we have good reason to doubt it, there's no reason to remove it. Merge it, tag it for references, and let editors develop it and research it further. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be an option. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected as per below. Useful material was merged over. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi graphical characters

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

Original research on a made-up term. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a made-up term, this terminology is often used in datasheets of CRT controllers, (and font ROM's for them) that include such characters. several examples can be found here: [44], it is also used in informal conversation about early computer graphics, although there seems to be no clear consensus on how to call it, some call them glyphs, but the term glyphs does not exclusively describe characters that can be used as building blocks to create larger graphical figures. semi graphical characters were included in several of the very first character generator ROMs that were on the market when ROMs with more than a dozen or so bytes were still very rare. Whether the article should be called "semi graphical characters", or "semigraphics" or something else doesn't matter, these character set extensions were very common in the beginning of the home computer age, before high resolution graphics became abundant, there should be some information about them in Wikipedia. Mahjongg (talk)

Note that we discuss not semi-graphical displays, but so named semi(hyphen)graphical characters, which are actually some glyphs or icons from a non-standard set. Characters are not glyphs, and both are distinct from (underlying) hardware technology, feel the difference. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Text semigraphics, which essentially addresses the same topic, to a single article Semigraphics, the common name. --Lambiam 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, as I mentioned in the Semi graphical characters article, block graphics are essentially also semi graphical characters, and most (if not all) sets of semigraphical characters also include block graphic characters (text semigraphics), as just another way to introduce some graphical possibility to a display that otherwise could only display text. So text semigraphics are a subset of semi graphical characters. If there is anything problematic with these articles it is in the difficulty in naming them. Many different ways were used to address these special characters. I'm unsure if there ever was an official name for them, but one point of reference is what hardware designers of the Video chips and character-set ROMs used to call them. One remark, its indeed "semigraphics", not "semi graphics", because the latter sounds like your are talking about a picture of a Semi-trailer truck, as I found out after googling for semigraphics and google asked if I meant "semi graphics" and returned with pictures of trucks. Also it could mean "a little bit explicit". One problem with calling semi graphical characters semigraphics though is that when you google for "semigraphics" you almost exclusively find they are talking about text semigraphics, not about graphical characters like ♥ or building block characters like triangles or circle segments.

Anyway I support the proposal. Mahjongg (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… and it is originality of the article what is demonstrated by such Google searches. IT-men speak and write about semigraphically capable hardware and display modes, not about vaguely defined sets of unusual characters and nonstandard glyphs, which are in some cases uploadable, but in other are hardware-specific. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is "OR" here, its not on whether the subject exists, but what name (if at all) to give to it. The concept of special characters that could enhance otherwise pure text rendering video hardware existed, and because the concept needed a name to be able to talk about it, they did. Specifically the IT engineers who wrote early technical documents about it did. Proof of it can still be found in these documents, with which I was familiar. I was only googling for "semigraphics", to check the claim by Lambian that this was the "common term", of which I was unconvinced, and still am. The problem is that any article must have a name, so I had to choose one out of several options. If that is OR, so be it. Perhaps I should have named it "special characters in a font set that enhances the display logic to give users the impression it supports high-res graphics", or something like that. Merging the article is a way to avoid putting a specific name to "Semi graphical characters", so if you are arguing that I have been "inventing" that term, merging, and then avoiding putting a name to it is a good way to solve that.By the way, I was talking about video systems who relied on these characters, not on systems with reprogrammable font sets, which did not, but only came with default font sets which included these characters for legacy reasons. On the systems I was talking about semi graphical characters were so important that the keyboard keys of these systems were imprinted with them for ease of combining them to form a larger graphic. Mahjongg (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mentioned in the article, that the concept is restricted to modes relying on built-in fonts, not uploadable. And even it were, it would still be OR without appropriate sourcing. The basic problem is actually not a title, but a definition (definedness). I willingly accept such topic as built-in fonts in display devices, and would try to keep such article even despite poor sources and partial OR. It is not so important, but definitely a valid piece of the information technology. Or course, such article will mention various non-standard characters and custom glyphs, and sources present in "semi graphical characters" confirm existence and use of such. But attempts to define "semi(-)graphical characters" as a class of characters, independent of an implementation, will IMHO result in OR. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So actually what you are against is saying this and that idea was implemented (and improved upon) at different locations and by different people, but "attempts to define the occurrence of these ideas, and putting them in a named category" is OR. Well, I can see what you are doing, but guess what. Long before I started the article people also recognized these characters to be in a special class, and they talked about them, and called them "semi graphical characters", or sometimes "pseudo graphical characters" in computer magazines and such of the era. They even did so independent of the actual implementation, and said things like "the semi graphical character set of the PET is better than the one of the OSI Challenger". Mahjongg (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge / redirect to Text semigraphics which covers the topic already much better. No opinion whether that should be renamed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the current Text semigraphics article is NOT about the same topic, only a related one. Text semigraphic characters, involve characters made up of a matrix of "pixels" (sometimes referred to as sixels), which then were used to create a crude (low resolution) All Points Addressable pixelmap. While Semi graphical characters are all such characters designed to give the display logic the appearance of having access to the possibility to change any pixel in the display to create a display that shows anything at all, instead of just text. Some later systems accomplish this by using programmable fonts, other by really having logic that allowed to set or reset (or change the color) of any individual pixel of the display, making this crude trick obsolete.

Video display systems that use Semi graphical characters operate in text mode but use characters designed so that they can be used to give the illusion of having a freedom of choice that isn't really supported by the hardware. For example they can be the circle segments and line segments that can be used to draw a box with rounded corners, while the system doesn't have the ability to support drawing lines, let alone curves, on screen. Many early simple video systems in early home computers used this trick, before hardware came along that made the trick unnecessary.

All the characters that made this possible are members of a class of characters known as Semi graphical characters. Obviously there was no consensus in the beginning on exactly what kind of characters could be used, but for example the developers of the PET were told that it would be nice to be able to support card games, so the developers added card symbols, and horizontal and vertical lines, and four kinds of quarter circles, to draw a "card" (rounded rectangle) with card symbols in them. Other designers borrowed ideas from earlier implementations, choosing well thought out characters, and dropping seldom used ones, to design a set of symbols that allowed as much variety and flexibility as possible, with as few extra characters as possible. Common characters were for example characters that filled a triangular area of the character matrix (often 8×8 pixels) for creating slanting angles. Sometimes they included characters they anticipated were needed for games, like a little stick man, a "tank", or a ball. Using special characters this way was an idea, that was used by different designers, at different companies, and they all gave their different twist to it, but after some time there was consensus to call these special characters pseudo or "semi" graphical characters, as can be seen when reading old magazine articles and datasheets of those days. Mahjongg (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I went ahead and incorporated the content of this article in a rewritten version of Text semigraphics. It remains to be seen whether that article should be reamed to Semigraphics, I am neutral on that, and I rewrote it so that it doesn't matter. Obviously this article can now be deleted. Mahjongg (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to turn this article into a redirect. Mahjongg (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed the page into a redirect, hopefully this closes this case. Mahjongg (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood songs

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

An article on Bollywood songs. Poorly sourced, disrupts neutrality, and is likely to be useless for all purposes relating to the article's subject. A category exists, I believe, having a list of notable Bollywood songs, and this one has only certain songs, some of which are unnotable too. There is another article for Filmi covering most of the stuff about Indian music, which is not restricted to Bollywood alone. Not only that, I believe this article is used in the Bollywood article in the "See also" section, as well as in a main article in some other section. It has little relevance to the article. X.One ^SOS 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content of the article sort of violates the Wikipedia:Content forking policy as the article Filmy exists (and exists in much better manner). Mentioning only 10 songs is a joke. The rasas mentioned have no connection shown with the songs mentioned that makes it more like a random collection. The description and "wowness" of songs are personal opinions. The section of "Pop Song revolution" mentions stories of age when the revolution was long gone in history. The article does not even have any scope of being rewritten into anything more sensible. Category:Indian songs covers all notable songs on wikipedia. Please Delete!-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean Filmi instead of Filmy. --Lambiam 19:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Filmi. --Lambiam 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note — I don't find any advantage in redirecting this page as no useful content can be found, and the past versions of the page must NOT be accessible as they are nothing but fancruft and spam. This article must not be created as long as Filmi exists, and almost all info has been mentioned elsewhere in articles like the latter so delete would be the best option. What do you think? X.One ^SOS 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per above reasons. X.One ^SOS 07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to stub & rewrite. The article is worthy but the content is all crap. I have begun a cleanup and adding references. The article Filmy is not an analogue of this film for it to merit being considered as worthy for deletion.AshLin (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, the article's name is just not right, it should be "Music of Bollywood" and if you really think this is stored with potential, you can userify it and re-write it. Btw, we are referring to Filmi, which is a genre relating to Indian Music, covering all aspects and not only Bollywood. X.One ^SOS 15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::Anyway, with the edits I have made, the article is just about suitable now. I have added eight referenced statements and rather than go to the trouble of deleting and recreating, I think this one can be salvaged here and now. With this and more edits, it can serve as a base for a well-referenced article. With change in content, I request dissenting editors to reconsider the deletion, as it would only add more process to its recovery, which I am sure is at least as acceptable an alternative as simple deletion. Struck out since it is considered as CANVASSING. Article in present form copied to user-space in case consensus is to delete. AshLin (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: Agree with Ashlin, the article needs some more work. As of now, it looks better after few clean. The term Bollywood songs, is often referred many a times. -- Karthik Nadar 17:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think deleting and userification would be better, as there is a page called Filmi talking about Indian cinema. After it has been finished, it can be added to filmi with a section titled Bollywood songs and not an article, as far as my view is concerned. What are your thoughts? X.One ^SOS 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that we wanted to delete the article because it had crap in it, not because the topic was not notable. In just a couple of hours, I could round up some six odd RS to give it some flesh, in time we can add more. Considering that full books are written on Bollywood song and dance, the topic is inherently notable. Deleting it now would just be insisting on completion of the process for the sake of process, not because the article is not in satisfactory condition at present. Why not let the article live and save me the time of userification, transferring to user-space etc? Creating a section in "Filmi" would definitely make sense instead of an article if there were not so much sourced material to add. Imo, editors may consider the article's retention now on its own merits and not because of its former state. After all retrieving an article is better than deleting it, if the topic is notable, don't you agree? AshLin (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but do you want to userify or keep it? And, it needs to be changed to "Music of Bollywood" if kept. X.One ^SOS 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Ashlin. I think there is definitely an encyclopedic article here. No need to rush on deletion! Veryhuman (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability has been established, and that is stated even by those calling for deletion. Concerns about the quality of the article are best met by editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Feilberg

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

Fundamentally flawed article, sole content contributor is Robert Ørsted-Jensen[45][46] and is the author of the major sources used, noting that other reference cited in the article are for quotes only. Personaly I think this is a candidate for a WP:CSD#G11 which is for Unambiguous advertising or promotion, though I know that would be controversial hence this AFD. The Author Robert Ørsted-Jensen is only one of a handful people who write about the controvercial subject Australian frontier wars given that this article is written by one person based solely on his work the article couldnt be concievably written in accordance within the requirements of a neutral point of view. Carl Freilberg probably is notable as the incidental quotes indicate that he was a recognised individual associated with what is now referred to as Australian frontier wars, but an article written solely by someone with a clear WP:COI should be deleted and recreated from fresh by editors without any COI and rely on multiple sources. Gnan garra 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 07:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sole contributor advised[47] Gnan garra 07:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. While Feilberg appears to be notable, this article would need to be re-written from scratch as it's basically an essay at the moment. The alternative is to chop it back to a short stub. It's worth noting that Mr Ørsted-Jensen identifies Feilberg as being the most important influence on him opening section of his book Frontier History Revisited, and this appears to have significantly influenced the article's tone and content. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another main source for this is Henry Reynolds chapter 6 in his 'This Whispering In Our Hearts'. Do you wish to burn that book too Nick? Also, this article, it will be noted is not at all based on the book 'Frontier History Revisited' - it is in fact based on a much larger study and part of the primary evidence is a pamphlet cited and redirected to on this very page. Why not red that pamphlet and then Reynolds bookHelsned 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article here is based on multiple sources and it is not just one persons work. However, there would be nothing wrong if it was! Every single article written for the Australian Dictionary of Biography is written in the exact same way, by one person and usually based on this person having conducted a study - all exactly as in the case here. The only difference is that the ADB frequently presents the reader with less sources and no notes. Here you have multible sources and many notes. You are both clearly way out of line! Helsned 05:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason we are here is because it was primarly written from one source, to quote from the article Ørsted-Jensen, R.; The Right to Live: The Politics of Race and the Troubled Conscience of an Australian Journalist, main reference(emphasis added). The editor who wrote the article is also the author of that source and that the author is noted for being at one extreme in the debate over Australian frontier wars, under such circumstances the whole article is questionable. Initially this article was based on the unpublished work The Right to Live by Ørsted-Jensen the source was published after the article was written that violates WP:NOT specifically WP:FORUM Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information Gnan garra 11:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is based on a doctorate which is already in part published and eventually is going to be fully released for everyone to read and criticise. The entire idea that any single scholarly work is equivalent to just ‘one source’ is completely nonsensical. It rather put on deeply regrettable public display a level of profoundly disturbing ignorance as to what scholarly work is. No single biographical work rest on only one source, and multiple sources are clearly stated in this case here. That a 'main reference' is noted is only natural when, as in the case here, only one larger biography/monograph exists. Is this unusual or abnormal? No it is in fact the most common scenario! Only very few people in this world have multiple biographies written dealing with their life and achievements. A brief biography based on one single monograph is, indeed, best case scenario, most similar biographical notes are based solely on a few obituary notes and similar. One main reference simply means one larger biography/monograph has been collected, this always from multiple sources, it is not possible any other way. There are no marked difference between the composition and style of this article and billions of similar articles printed in encyclopaedias available to the general public. In fact, most of them are far worse of, many are build on only one obituary a few documents added a bit of genealogy. I would roughly estimate that up to 80 percent or more of the articles written for the great Australian Dictionary of Biography are based on one or perhaps two obituaries and letters added a bit of genealogy and a few citations from contemporary public records. In comparison, this article here is indeed way above standard and by far better notated and bibliographed. Let me provide just one example: Helsned 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

note as stated above This article is based on a doctorate which is already in part published and eventually is going to be fully released for everyone to read and criticise wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, WP:RS Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, even the editor admits that the article is base on his own unpublished work, how can our readers verify the content if its unpublished, not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:COI & WP:SELFCITE . Gnan garra 14:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well gnanarra - if this was the only source - but it is not - a whole range of other sources of which all of the most notable are listed for anyone to see and read. Besides were you to delete all articles based on unpublished doctorates, you would be very busy indeed, we would have to produce some gigantic bonfires Helsned 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RB Joyce article in the ADB of the politician Samuel Walker Griffith (no doubt some here have heard about the Samuel Griffith society – well here he is). It has (as all ADB articles) no notes at all, and it rest solely on one single monograph and a few articles – all of which were also authored by - guess who? – Joyce himself! Does that mean that it is just ‘one source’. No, it does not, because Joyce, as all other good historians has written his book based on numerous sources and articles written by numerous people. This is certainly also the case with the article here.Helsned 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gnangarra’s entirely unfounded remark about being ‘extreme’ (I am not and have never been extreme on anything in life) relates to an ongoing debate in an entirely different article. A debate in which the author did the right thing, which is, citing the very latest scholarly work done by one of the most notable Queensland historians in this particular field, Dr Raymond Evans, and adding as further evidence another highly praised recent book by Orsted-Jensen, released only last month. Gnangarra’s remark rather provide us with some documentation what all this really is about - indeed it increasing look like – a politically motivated witch hunt against views which is universally accepted by all Australian historians of note who are experts in this particular field. What Gnangarra classify as a 'handful of people' represents in fact the views of over 90% of academics who have some in depth scholarly knowledge in this field. Helsned 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep - This is supposed to be a test of whether an article subject meets notability guidelines. This subject clearly does. Everything else is a content dispute, which is in this case clearly overblown. Of course scholars with specialist knowledge are going to make use of their work when they are adapting information to Wikpedia. This is not "self-promotion," this is common sense. Whatever content shortcomings there are with this piece is a matter for the normal editing process, not AfD. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not solely about notability guidelines, it also about the other poicies and community standards Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, this article is all of those. Gnan garra 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a content dispute, its question of an article being primarily sourced on what was an unpublished work, written by the autor of that work...clearly its a WP:CSD#G11 but obviously as demonstrated its nomination is controvercial. Gnan garra 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the details as coming from Nick and gnangarra - there is a lot to wade through - it might feel like a notability issue to some, however the issues are clear regardless of the claims in the keep department - it needs to be either deleted or re-written so as to answer the issues raised by nick and gnangarra.Satu Suro 13:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controvercial says gnangarra! Well it is impossible not to take some note of the fact that immediately following me reversing the changes to the Aboriginal death toll in the article ‘Australian frontier War’ made by an ardent Australian military and war memorial interested writer, who had with a stroke reduced an estimate he did not like - from 24.000 to - 1.500 (did anyone use the word ‘extreme’)? An act he performed without changing or replacing the notated source to this very figure: which is a properly cited estimate of 24.000 killed by the native police in Queensland alone. Not a figure invented or made up by me, or my colleague Orsted-Jensen, but a figure which appears in a lengthy new study by Dr Raymond Evans. One of the most respected and widely published historians in Queensland, we should take some note, and published by a reputed publishing university house. A study which contains the first ever properly calculated statistical survey on a section of actual Native Police files held in Queensland State Archives. Now – guess what – certainly we see the entire war-memorial obsessed community mobilized and taking a deep interest in other articles authored by me, and eventually putting one on the delete list – a well sources and notated article for which I am one of the main contributors. Ohh – what a coincidence this is?!Helsned 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that using WP:AFD pages (where it should be simply addressing the criteria for delete or keep) - leaving large amounts of text which are peripheral to the basic vote - including usage of weasel terminology - is making this AFD a soapbox - WP:SOAPBOX Satu Suro 13:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a POV is not obvious, and the article is well-sourced and well-written, it's a keep. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Defence Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans

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

This article was written on the false premise that the subject post is a Shadow Cabinet post in the UK. It is not and never has been. There isn't even any evidence that Doyle actually has this portfolio or that Labour gives names to sub-Shadow Cabinet posts (other than a select few), let alone that they use the same nomenclature as the Government. The article is also unsourced and has few incoming links, with little prospect for more.

As it does nothing more than say the holder of the supposed office shadows a particular minister and list the current supposed holder, the article really serves no purpose. Rrius (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Doyle's website says: "Gemma is a Shadow Defence Minister, with specific responsibility for defence personnel, welfare and veterans." (my emphasis) The article title misrepresents the situation. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Wikipedia gets dafter by the day. At this rate there will be articles on the Liberal Party's list of spokespeople for saving the flared trouser and open-toed sandal. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can have the debate on which shadow positions should have wiki articles another day, but this position is too vague for a meaningful article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not official /notable. RafikiSykes (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urpney Technology

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

Page is nothing more than a list of plot devices used in a cartoon. It serves little to no purpose and would not even be necessary in the main article or episode list. Nothing more than fancruft. Steve Farrell (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (That's so bad I'm going to have nightmares about it, just what Zordrak wants.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable topic. Author, copy it quick and post it to a blog or something. This may be the first time I've said "fancruft" in an AfD, but now I've said it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like original research based entirely on primary sources. I suggest making a user copy for User:Cynthia149 as a courtesy in case they return to editing and possibly want to move it to another wiki. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamine Nekrouf

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

Never played at professional level, not notable .. fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kohara

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

I found no significant coverage for this goddess of tuna. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Striking-see below. This article must have been under some kind of divine protection for the last ten years. One sentence, no references, and no improvements in a decade.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A book published in 1992 (9 years before Wikipedia) called "Pacific Mythology: An Encyclopedia of Myth and Legend" verifies that Kohara is a tuna deity. That is the source of the protection. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at that, but it is only one sentence among other one sentence deities. SL93 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Referenced stubs are good, a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover deities of all established regious traditions, and I believe that there is a reasonable presumption that offline sources exist, or sources in one or more Polynesian languages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't a referenced stub yet. It's a sentence. I think it's a bad precedent to assume that sources must exist. Sorry to repeat myself, but this "article" has been up since 2002. To paraphrase Marsellus Wallace, If it was gonna make it, it would've made it by now.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once Cullen328 adds a citation to the article. Deities of real religions deserve coverage if we can establish that they really are/were considered deities. It's one thing to presume sources and a completely different thing actually to refer to them by title. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article a bit and added four sources. I concede that each is a brief mention. Two, though, are from authors notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies, for what that's worth, and I think it is worth a little. Taken together, I think that these four references establish the notability of Kohara, the suitability of the current stub, and the potential for expansion of the article when someone more knowledgeable about Polynesian mythology comes along. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, definitely keep now. If you'd been able to present just the one source, I'd still say keep, but the three extra sources make it even clearer. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawing delete in light of improvements. Still not convinced that we have evidence of significant coverage, but deserves a chance. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Corruption. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this term isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic corruption

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

Not sure that there is enough for this article to exist independently. Suggest it be merged with Corruption or Political corruption or deleted. It's hard for me to determine whether "systemic" corruption is a concept distinct from the generic usage of the term. N^oformation ^Talk 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell, the author's primary purpose in creating this article has been to label Wikipedia and others with whom he disagrees with it. It's also a keen example of WP:SYNTH. Rklawton (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP aside from the ad-hominem hypothesis (made by a user probably upset with the author), systematic corruption is a very different subject than corruption per say. it is the cause of such manifestations as a single case of corruption, stemming from a system --Namaste@^? 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already been warned regarding WP:AGF, now I am warning you regarding personal attacks. Calling other editors hypocrites as you did in a recent edit summary and ascribing motive is not tolerated here. Don't assume for one second that you're "on my list," I do have a list of editors I actually have negative feelings about but that list has about three names on it and those editors are long banned - you do not register on this list. N^oformation ^Talk 02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you've called at least a half dozen admins "corrupt" today alone, there's not much hypothesis about it. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not. only you Rklawton have been dubbed as such, and you are facilitating this trying to delete an article that was my only edit during this time...on claims that somehow our personal discussion has gone back in time to when this article was created...which is not only ludicrous but also personal.--Namaste@^? 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Noformation thanks for not banning me, that is very kind--Namaste@^? 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar does return a number of hits for "systemic corruption" but the term appears to be used generically quite a bit. Is it possible to succinctly define this term in a way that would set it apart from political corruption? For instance, has there been literature regarding non-governmental corruption in organizations distinct from the government to such an extent that it warrants its own topic? N^oformation ^Talk 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have no doubt that this could be made into a useful article. But the article we have here has been around a long time and is an embarrassment. Rklawton (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been around for only a few months, and during that time was trunked several times (including minutes before this delete vote) by those trying to delete it over-again. --Namaste@^? 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt here[48] [49] [50] Abuse of powers here: [51] And there's more, but what's the point? Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to corruption. If something can be said about it, it can be added to that article, but there are no actual statements made in the article which are attributed to reliable sources. It appears not to be political corruption. (Technically, "Redirect" is a "keep" vote.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into corruption. While it seems to be a distinct subject, we don't have enough content to warrant a separate article at this time. --timrem (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can not grow when they are being kept under constant suppression. even while..and just before.. this deletion debate huge sections of this small article are being erased. this will not facilitate a good judgment of merit of content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs)
- Reply as you have already been told, unsourced POV material would have made this article look worse than it already is. Someone was doing you a favor. The fact that you characterize this as "suppression" illustrates an overall lack of judgement that detracts from your credibility. The reality is that people are trying to help you and your response has been paranoid and insulting. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to corruption. Someday there could be a standalone article that makes it clear what the subject is, but this isn't it. There would be a much better chance of the subject being developed in the context of the corruption article, which is surprisingly incomplete. First Light (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With political corruption.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - merge only works when there's something to merge. As far as I can tell, this article contains nothing of value so there's nothing to merge - only delete. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect ... the sources in the first four sentences may be of use in Corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); however, the section containing examples is pure WP:SYNTH and should simply be deleted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per several others. Original synthesis that reads like advocacy; the existence of any kind of political power makes corruption possible, so all corruption exists in the context of a political system. All corruption is systemic corruption. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to corruption. Per rklawton, I feel that "merge" isn't really appropriate if there's no content worth keeping in the target article (which already has broader, sourced coverage). bobrayner (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Political corruption. Notwithstanding the title and definition in the lead of that latter article ("the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain"), it covers a much broader terrain and already deals with systemic corruption in general, so "Systemic corruption" will serve as a better page title (even if the present article is not merged but simply deleted). --Lambiam 10:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for keeping in two weeks of discussion. Michig (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentosa Plaza

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

This shopping centre exists, but lacks substantial non-passing coverage in RSs. Zero refs. Tagged for that problem for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question I'm no fan of shopping center articles, but this one looks like it might have sources , though perhaps not in ?english, and perhaps not online. Has the nom. looked for them?. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no non-English hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three years was ample time to collect sources. --Ifnord (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am sympathetic to claims that items of internet culture should be kept; however, consensus has long been that to establish notability there needs to be independent sources outside of YouTube and someone's own website. It is not for us to establish notability - for that we rely on adequate sources, which are missing here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rappy McRapperson

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)

Notability not supported by secondary, independent sources. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 07:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to have any assertion that would meet WP:MUSIC, let alone have reliable sources backing it up. - Sudo Ghost 08:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - According to section 10 of WP:MUSIC, the page should not be deleted. Mr. Katz (Rapperson) made the theme song to the Captain Underpants television show. Sources are in the article. - HollidayMasterofMystery (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: From that section: But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything about a television show for Captain Underpants, either on the article, or by searching on Google. That it may or may not exist is one thing, but if the television show isn't notable enough to find reliable sources for, then WP:MUSIC #10 doesn't apply. - Sudo Ghost 08:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: #4, has released two albums through an indie label that's notable. Scrub Club Records is the biggest nerdcore recording label (I'm sure you know that, SudoGhost) Rappy has released an album with Mc Wreckshin ^[1] and one with Emergency Pizza Party ^[2] Scrub Club has or had tons of notable Nerdcore rappers, and is very notable in the scene.HollidayMasterofMystery (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the label itself is notable. The guideline expects it to be "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, sure it's notable! They're released stuff from MC Lars ^[3] (for example), Funky49, MadHatter (also the head of Scrub Club), Kabuto the Python (aka Kasparov and DJ Snyder) YTCracker ^[4] (Zealous1 is also listed as a band member, not to mention he is listed as notable in the Nerdcore article) and others. Lars and YTCracker are called "Notable artists" in the Nerdcore article. They've been around for a while, the exact year I have no clue. But, if you want to see how prevalent they are to the Nerdcore community, see ^[5]. There's way more, but I have a google redirect virus and it makes life a whole lot more difficult than it needs to be. HollidayMasterofMystery (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Artist is definitely notable, as is the record label. Kythri (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per what? I don't see anything that establishes any such notability. - Sudo Ghost 12:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - There's just too much documented impact on pop culture and the nerdcore genre. -Indalcecio (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? - Sudo Ghost 12:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as theme song writer and record producer. Sourcing is weak but tangible. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium and in my own personal view we shouldn't be overwrought rigidly applying the standards of the former to the latter. There has always been a low bar for contemporary muscians and bands, for better or worse, and this guy seems to clear it based on available sourcing. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect to Captain Underpants then, provide that someone writes about the TV show in that article? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Captain Underpants is just one of many notable things Rappy McRapperson is responsible for. His music career spans more than 10 years now. He's released 10 studio albums. He's worked with Wing, PBS and many nerdcore arists. He's had viral hits and radio play. Music is all this guy does.--ChrisTomkinson (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Rappy McRapperson has collaborated with many major artists in the Nerdcore community [52] and is very well-known for that and his viral hits. He's worked on Biz Kid$ on PBS and he's written the theme song to Captain Underpants [53] which is a best selling kids book series. (Scholastic feature's Josh Katz video on their Captain Underpants page) Everyone who has kids knows about these books, and DreamWorks (the movie company that makes the Shrek movies) has just won a bidding war for the movie rights to Captain Underpants ^[6] which will be using the well-known Rappy McRapperson theme song. Rappy is very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTomkinson (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: ChrisTomkinson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent some time looking for reliable sources (under both names) but only came up with passing mentions in two blog posts on Wired.com, here and here. The Captain Underpants video appears to be only a YouTube video, although clearly the author of the books, Dav Pilkey is a fan and says so. The Dreamworks connection mentioned above is purely speculative. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO.--CharlieDelta (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The Captain Underpants song by Rappy/Josh is more than "only a YouTube video." Scholastic books hosts the video on their own Captain Underpants website. [54] They refer to it as the "Captain Underpants Movie." --ChrisTomkinson (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Sources have been posted that Rappy is apart/has released music through the biggest nerdcore label, Scrub Club. According to WP:MUSICBIO #5, this means he is notable. 97.103.196.132 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He doesn't appear to be mentioned at the Scrub Club website. I can't see any sign of the "two or more albums" there. He is mentioned only as a guest vocalist on the Wing website. The key thing about all the notability criteria on Wikipedia is that notability has to be verifiable from reliable sources. After a review of the guideline at WP:NRVE, I believe it is correct to say that without the sources to verify the presumed notability, it is difficult to see how the article can stay here, however many impassioned voices pitch in. Of course, if someone can find the required sources, then the issue is probably resolved. The refs currently used in the article don't cut it, unfortunately. --CharlieDelta (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Please check my comment up a bit, it shows two albums he was released in under the Scrub Club label. Just because Hopsin isn't listed as a former artist under Sony, doesn't mean he wasn't (Ruthless Records folded into Sony) HollidayMasterofMystery (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both albums you've highlighted above appear to be free downloads. The second of them only mentions Rappy as an "also featured" artist. I'm not sure of the status of free albums in the WP:MUSICBIO criteria (all seems a bit like self-publishing to me) but if all that can be identified is one free album, a bit part in a second and a YouTube video (none of them verified by independent third-party sources) this seems pretty thin grounds for a notability claim.--CharlieDelta (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability per WP:MUSICBIO and really fails spirit of WP:BASIC. I looked at the reliable sources and there's only a passing reference to him, nothing in depth or detailed. --Ifnord (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - According to section 10 of WP:MUSIC, the page should not be deleted. Rappy is a MEMBER of Emergency Pizza Party, a Scrubclub group and is a Scrubclub artist both explicitly and implicitly. His albums are all hosted at nerdcorenow.com where he has won several awards that acclaim his noteriety and positive impact on the nerdcore genre. Rappy and his "I'm a Gangster" is one of the most prolific singles in the genre. - itsbeaker (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — itsbeaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of those seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO #10. - Sudo Ghost 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Rappy McRapperson/Josh Katz is very notable, not only in the Nerdcore hip hop scene, but also as a composer/performer for the extremely popular series of children's books known as Captain Underpants. Scholastic uses Rappy's song on their official Captain Underpants page ^[7] and CDs containing all 22 tracks of the songs Rappy performed and composed ^[8] are currently being sold on all Major retail book sites. ^[9] Rappy starred in a TV show on Seattle Community Access Network for 2 years. ^[10] He performed at Nerdapalooza in 2011 ^[11] ^[12] and has collaborated with several Nerdcore artists over the years. He's also written for Biz Kid$ and stared in a few skits. ^[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTomkinson (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: ChrisTomkinson (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete, the sourcing is not just 'weak', it is 'practically non-existant'. Drive-by !voting aside, this quite clearly fails WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roll of Honour (song)

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, 99% of this artilce is lyrics, making this essentially a copyvio. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to speedy after seeing first request. Recommend a SALTing. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Max

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was "Lack of notability, long unsourced BLP". I can't find anything establishing significant coverage either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find many articles by Josh Max, but nothing about him. Fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret ^account 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki editors---

Here are some articles about Josh Max. The first three are about the network television show he hosted in December on the Discovery channel's Velocity network, and the final one, published by MediaBistro.com in 2008, is about how Max began his career as a journalist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tamarawarren/2011/12/02/new-tv-show-follows-the-life-singing-car-journalist/

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/carnivore-josh-max-1213-2011/

http://www.guitaraficionado.com/ga-contributor-josh-max-debuts-carnivore.html

http://suzetteklierocks.appspot.com/www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a10248.asp

Finally, here is a commercial for "CARnivore" on the Discovery channel's Velocity network YouTube.com page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ER-wC7rd0&list=LLESHyc1U5ke2kSZ0_397ahQ&feature=mh_lolz

Trust this solves the issue of "I can find nothing about him."

Thanks for reinstating his page. AP — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoinePancakes (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added to article:

Warren, Tamara (December 2, 2011). "New TV Show Follows Life Of Singing Car Journalist". Forbes Magazine. Retrieved January 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"GA Contributor Josh Max Debuts 'Carnivore'". Guitar Aficionado Magazine. December 6, 2011. Retrieved January 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are sufficiently independent of the subject in my view. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotem Guez

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

Not notable persons biography disguised as a not notable lawsuit You really can 00:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep possibly speedy. There are tons of news articles on this person. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Striking comment. I didnt read gnews hits properly: it was VERY late. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- 'Tons of news articles' with nearly the exact same coverage of WP:BLP1E, his name change to highlight his legal difficulties, which had not previously achieved significant coverage or notability. Dru of Id (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Dru of Id. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too agree that it is a WP:BLP1E, not a true biography but an article about a non-notable lawsuit and publicity stunt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No substantial coverage by reliable third party sources, failing WP:GNG. No independent notability under WP:BLP1E. JFHJr (㊟) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neither Guez nor the lawsuit are notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt (novel

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

Delete per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article mainly consists of a quote from the author's website. Promotional. Notability far from established. Book does not exist. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ellen Hopkins. The book might eventually gain notability when it gets released (and probably will, given the reception for Hopkins' other books), but there's not enough out there at present to support having an article for it at this time. It wouldn't hurt to have it just redirect to the author's page for the time being since I can see this being typed in as a search topic by random people. There's no sources out there that could be used as reliable sources, but there's more than enough buzz out there to justify the idea that people would use this as a search term.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per wp:crystalball. Redirecting isn't useful as no one is likely to look for a book that isn't out, and the title is borked anyway, with a missing ) mark. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://scrubclubrecords.com/free-music-albums/rappy-mcrapperson-and-mc-wreckshin-the-2nd-best-mixtape-ever/

[2] ttp://scrubclubrecords.com/free-music-albums/emergency-pizza-party-shine-avenue/

[3] ttp://scrubclubrecords.com/free-music-albums/kabuto-the-python-parseltongue/

[4] ttp://scrubclubrecords.com/scrub-club-records-artists/sinister-six/

[5] ttp://scrubclubrecords.com/what-is-scrub-club-records/

[6] ttp://www.slashfilm.com/dreamworks-animation-wins-bidding-war-captain-underpants/

[7] ttp://www.scholastic.com/captainunderpants/

[8] ttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2002452351_underpants26.html

[9] ttp://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Captain-Underpants-Collectors-Included/dp/0439756685/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1327125945&sr=8-11

[10] ttp://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20050826&slug=underpants26

[11] ttp://www.geekworldordersite.com/blog/2011/07/nerdapalooza-2011-rappy-mcrapperson-mc-wreckshin

[12] ttp://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/07/nerdapalooza-2011/

[13] ttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/rappy-mcrapperson/1b/7ba/9a7

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]