Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSME

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

Unrequired disamb. page . Perhaps a redirect is more appropriate? Osarius Talk 23:41, 10 March 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. Clearly a well-known company. There are many possible sources that can be added. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Limited

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nominator clearly did not do WP:BEFORE. Many sources here, notability asserted as long-standing clothing chain also involved in other notable chains such as Bath & Body Works and New York & Company. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Plenty of sources can be found; company owns a few well known and notable companies. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They used to own those other companies, but this flagship brand was spun off, so that Limited Brands owns Victoria's Secret but no longer owns The Limited itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an overwhelmingly notable retail company~~; but I do wonder if we need separate articles for The Limited and Limited Brands, or whether these should be merged into one~~.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Limited Brands no longer owns Limited itself, I say yes, there should be two articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I misread the last sentence of the article and thus missed that distinction.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous company., with multiple available references. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An important retail company for several decades. I know there has been a lot of coverage -- I recognize the company name only because it was so frequently mentioned in business news stories. --Orlady (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Ten Pound Hammer. I simply fail to see the notability issues here. -- WikHead (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above; notable company that's received significant coverage in multiple sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:12, 12 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic hardcore

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

Unremarkable genre of music? Dengero (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste per WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR with no evidence of notability, and I could not find any from Google or Google News. Logical Cowboy (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not made-up. See this from The Dallas Morning News: Rolo Tomassi: UK Chaotic Hardcore Specialists Announce New Single. Here's the full article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - Most sources are about bands that perform music of this genre, but not finding significant coverage about the genre itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Chaotic" is an adjective and "Hardcore" is a genre, but "Chaotic Hardcore" is not a significant, notable new genre. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 17 March 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. I've actually eaten there. Hope that doesn't mean I have a COI :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Souplantation

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 110 locations is not trivial. There are a couple viable sources in here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. This is a chain found in various parts of the United States (under two different names, Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes). Any problems with this article can and should be dealt with through normal editing, not deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Plenty of citations.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable chain with over 100 restaurants. I've removed some material and added a third-party ref, but more can be done with time. 72Dino (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Dining Guide. Add you free listing now! sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep suggested. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above; notable company that's received significant coverage in multiple sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I can't believe you nominated this well-known chain for deletion. I admit the article as nominated was short on outside sources; I just reworked and updated it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey Bones Barbeque and Grill

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, did you even look at the sources in the article? Notability is asserted just finely, and the sources check out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chains of this size (66 restaurants) will always have adequate refs for notability. --as does this one. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:15, 12 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus Lamas FC

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

Contested PROD due to the club playing at the second level, however this is not a fully professional league. The original concern has not been addressed (orphaned article with no references). No notability has been established. Cloudz 679 22:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being a 'fully professional league' is not a notability requirement for clubs (we have a number of non-fully professional leagues where the clubs are notable in England, for example); this is a requirement for player notability. The current project guideline is at WP:FOOTYN (not an official standard it has to be noted, though). Frankly, whether this club played in their cup (before it was abolished) or their highest league I don't know. Consequently, I am staying my recommendation until I see the results of more research. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're completely right. FOOTYN's "fully professional leagues" is for players, how many times do people get that wrong?! However the reason for nomination was that it is an orphaned article with no references. A search for books and news (using the links above) returns no results. Even looking on RSSSF, there is no reference to this team. The article states that "They were relegated to Liga Mayor [third division] for the 2008/2009 season." however RSSSF has no teams by that name in either the 2008/09 season [1] or the one preceding it [2]. I have checked back to 05/06 and there is nothing. Really the question is "does this article meet the general notability guideline?" The answer appears to be no. Cloudz 679 06:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A quick Google search shows no evidence this club exists at all. If the creator of the article can provide evidence that the club exists, it would be easier to determine whether they are notable or not. However, as things stand, I stick with my delete. TonyStarks (talk) 03:51, 12 March 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. This discussion has been open for a day without any deletion rationale being provided by the nominator. It's now appropriate to close it as a speedy keep, as there are no editors advocating deletion. The nominator can renominate if he feels so inclined, but needs to give a reason. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Land

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

Bobherry talk -- Hi!! 21:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason has been given for deletion of this article, which at least does have sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with you, Metropolitan90. This is an article about a Japanese video game with cited references. And the fact that it is a Japanese-only game with the McDonald's characters on them only makes it more notable for video game collectors as well as people who research into the history of the McDonald's franchise. I have seen several other Japanese video games articles go through this process simply because they're not notable in North America and/or Europe. GVnayR (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've left a message on the nominator's talkpage. If they don't come and offer up a deletion rationale sharpish then it should be a quick 'n' easy speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. The only problem is that the article was created and edited by an extremely "confused" editor. --Hydao (talk) 01:23, 11 March 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) 19:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 11 March 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. Sandstein 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Fights 18

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

Contested WP:PROD : No indication that this MMA event is notable, only sourced to routine coverage of the fight card. Mt king ^(edits) 20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lack of any actual reason not to. Coverage available is more than sufficient for this televised event from a major promotion. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet - striking comments per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage only, fails WP:MMAEVENT. Mt king ^(edits) 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Because in the case the coverage is not routine, it passes WP:MMAEVENT. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

What coverage ? Mt king ^(edits) 23:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have discussions about the event (the fights, the fact that it would be televised, etc.) before it happened [3]. Google turns up all kinds of results once you sift through them. I am just citing one of many examples, but it is not a case where sources merely list the results after the fact. No, you got both before and after coverage. And it is not routine by any stretch. No, it is not as notable as the UFC events you are bafflingly arguing against, but it is not some local event I slapped together with some pals only covered in the local press either. Nor is it one of hundreds of seasonal baseball games you get in a year. For MMA, there are only really a handful of nationally and/or interntionally televised promotions whose events occurs weeks apart from each other. It does not diminish wikipedi by listing a couple dozens events for a promotion like Shark Fights that features fighters who have or did go onto to fight in the UFC and that were televised and discussed in multiple secondary sources. And before you throw anymore shortcuts, if it comes down to it WP:IAR, because I really just don't see how we benefit anyone is Shark Fights 18 is red and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Fights 18 is blue. So long as an article is sourced and is of obvious interest to someoneone,I would always rather keep the article and improve it the best we can or merge and redirect to an event list than become Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia of Deletion Discussions! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat what is written at WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:USEFUL, WP:VALINFO but since you have failed to reproduce a single link to non routine coverage here; I think it is safe to conduce you cant find any, and they don't exists. Mt king ^(edits) 00:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to simply be WP:ROUTINE coverage of an MMA WP:SPORTSEVENT, contains only stats and fight results and practically no prose to make it an encyclopedic article. It's only source is to Sherdog and a Google search suggests there was no main-steam media of the event and only limited "significant coverage" within MMA media, thus fails WP:GNG. (And no, I'm not going to argue my decision with an IP or others.) --TreyGeek (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE since this article is just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this event does appear to be verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Due to its televised aspect, it is one of those we should cover. At this point, events from UFC, ProElite, Bellator, Strikeforce, Shark Fights, Tachi Palace Fights, are the ones that are worth having articles on. I really do not see any plus to deleting this article. So, keep per WP:GNG and WP:FIVE, if nothing else. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments on advice from an admin from an indef blocked user due to abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. Look, we know it is not as important as say UFC 140, but still it was televised and is more than just a local promotion. I personally find such articles helpful and because there are at least some secondary sources available, I think it would be more harmful to remove this information than continue to improve it. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]
Delete The only thing is the article are the fight results, so it clearly fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage beyond just results meaning it clearly passes WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [4] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC) struck opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it meets WP:GNG. See this AfD link and this one to see my opinion of these rather pointless AfD cases being made against MMA events, which is by the way, a losing battle for those on side of the 'Delete' votes. BigzMMA (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BigzMMA. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC) struck opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of this article's defenders have yet shown that this article passes any of WP:N, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE, or WP:MMANOT. Looks like a clean sweep for deletion. Mdtemp (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And you appear to represent a SPA whose recent history is spamming that boilerplate complaint about Mdtemp. Hasteur (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N and WP:EVENT due to non-routine nature of the coverage and as article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Looks like a clear cut case for keeping. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Very similar IPs (63.3.19.1 and 63.3.19.130) are already involved in a !vote on this AfD above. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by TKO: Zero reliable coverage, zero sources, zero on article. Perhaps the wave of sockpuppets and meatpuppets infesting these MMA AfDs would be better served turning their energies to coming up with reliable sources which meet Wikipedia guidelines than to claim that their blogs and press releases do so. Ravenswing 06:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The people suggesting that we keep the article has not been able to show that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) exists. Should such coverage appear the article can of course be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK MMA Awards

If you came here because a plea made by the administrator of The Fight Lounge for its users to vote keep (Note, screenshots were taken of the forum thread since the administrator said he was deleting the tread), 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)

This is an article about a new award from an MMA website. The article was created by someone connected with the website and has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 20:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the only links I can find for these awards are by the website giving out the award (which apparently isn't notable enough to have an article about itself) and receivers of the awards. I was unable to find any significant coverage by independent sources. Thus fails WP:GNG --TreyGeek (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comments on advice of an admin due to user now indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find that it passed WP:GNG. Mind listed the "significant coverage by independent sources"? --TreyGeek (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It seems significant enough for me. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Can you list the sources? Without a list and without any in the article (which currently contains only sources by a single site), then your keep !vote has no weight. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just copying and pasting "Fails WP:GNG" as I keep seeing carries no weight either. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG This is the only real awards ceremony in UK MMA, should people be able to see who won what each year? I have added a few more references from other sources than the fight lounge..there is now no reason to delete--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)— Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:V. There is still no significant independent coverage. The only sources are the site that created the awards and the sites from some of the winners saying "we won this award." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudent0 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well what other sources would cover mma awards other than mma websites and the winners/nominees...you come across as stupid--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read about what independent sources are. For example, your site is not independent of its own awards. Astudent0 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no..the UK MMA Awards is a separate body..it's just we choose to reveal the results on The Fight Lounge as an exclusive to that site--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:V. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [5] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC) struck opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep par WP:GNG and WP:V. During the time of the first Awards, it received a lot of attention in the UK, but as times passes by, it can become harder to trace all the articles out from the time it was released (as we all know). An example of how this has actually happened before was with the first ProElite events pages, which contained a lot of good articles which were easily obtained at the time due to the fact they were created prior to each event the same way as many UFC event are, but because of someone stupidly nominating it for deletion, and the many more idiots who got it deleted, when they were recreated and survived their second nomination, the pages look weaker than their originals. Differences is with these is that they are only now been made, so if anything we need to preserve these so that we locate all the other vital articles and add them onto this page! BigzMMA (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Starwar1 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep as notable event and within rules --Redbaronfury (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep--London84tfl (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)keep as within rules and notable event— London84tfl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that London84tfl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep as within rules and notable event--Brashleyholland (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete as failing verification of notability by reliable sources. Sockpuppet/meatpuppeting aside, in the end, it simply doesn't pass the criteria by having multiple sources that give significant coverage (or any, for that matter) by independent sources. Simply SAYING it is notable doesn't make it true, any more than saying I can fly means I am a bird. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
id does have sources though, from various websites. It is notable. It is obvious that while you may not be able to fly, you have the IQ of a pigeon --Fightloungemike (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That, in fact, is not obvious at all. I'm not even aware that there are IQ tests for pigeons. Fightloungemike, any more personal attacks and you will be blocked. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I did a Google search I got 10 hits--that's less than my 90 year old grandmother and she makes no claims of notability. While it's true that ghits can't be a determining factor, the fact that an on-line MMA site's award has so few ghits I think is significant. Since the only sources seem to be the backers of the award (according to the article) and its recipients, it certainly seems to fail WP:N and WP:V. There's also no evidence to support Bigzmma's claim that there was lots of coverage when the award was given. Otherwise, what happened to all of that reporting? Mdtemp (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Fails WP:V, never mind WP:GNG. No reliable sources proffered other than the primary source of this outfit's own website. Serious WP:COI issues, in that the creator is associated with said website, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality isn't helping. Why, look, there's even a meatpuppet army. (And good question there, Mdtemp. We're not talking awards given out a generation ago or a century ago. We're talking awards purportedly handed out last year. The reporting just doesn't "go away," and it's far simpler to imagine that it just never existed in the first place. Of course, the Keep proponents can prove us wrong, if they wish. Ravenswing 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
over 40,000 people in the UK voted on the awards, and it featured on many sites (especially ones who were nominated). How do I know you aren't part of a "meathead army" voting to delete. Please show proof of you not being part of one. You have lied about me once today, I will take it that you will lie again--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you would do good to assume good faith here WP:AGF. Lots of people know Ravenswing and respect his opinions whether or not they agree with what he says. Just last week he (gently and politely) let me know I needed to shut up. I was smart enough to see that he was correct, even though I had plenty more to say. Even if he was mistaken (it happens, we are all human), you would do good to raise the issue somewhere else, like his talk page, and be just as polite as you would want him to be. Assuming good faith means just that, assuming that even when someone is wrong, they had good intentions, and they aren't just out to get you. You've had a rough day as it is. You seem to know quite a bit about MMA, and it would be swell to have you around here, but you won't last long if you don't learn to be more respectful of others. Wikipedia isn't anarchy, or a forum, or a democracy, and there is no "right" to be an editor here. BTW, saying "40,000 people...blah blah blah" just gets experienced editors to laugh or ignore you. WP:BIG explains why. The closing admin will ignore it automatically, so you wasted your time in saying it, and in the end, made yourself look ignorant of the guidelines in the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I couldn't care less if he is respected in a virtual world. That's like saying you have to respect so and so as he has a sacred goblet in World of Warcraft. You saying I won't last long if I don't be respectful of others - I will be if others like yourself respect me and my reasons on why certain pages should be on wikipedia--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the position of someone who nearly was blocked at ANI earlier today, and was warned a few hours ago that your next personal attack would be your last, is this the hill you really want to die on, FLM? You know, it's funny, for someone who is as knowledgeable about MMA as you have repeatedly claimed to be. MMA bouts have strict rules and regulations, and repeated failure to follow them will not only get a fighter disqualified, but endanger future bookings in a fed. Very short shrift (if any at all) would be given to a fighter who whined that the rules weren't fair or that he was too good or knowledgeable to have to follow them. There is a lesson to be learned in this. Ravenswing 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet - striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... isn't it the case that almost all of your edits since July of last year have been to MMA-related AfDs? WP:BOOMERANG, here. Ravenswing 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NoteI put up some excellent points on this but they have since been deleted by Ravenswing - this is unfair as it will judge the overall decision--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What I removed were personal attacks and nothing but personal attacks, save for Dennis Brown's response to them. Nothing in them had any bearing on the notability of the subject or upon any policies or guidelines under discussion in this AfD. Ravenswing 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROMOTION. Encourage transwiki to Edge MMA wiki. What's it about these MMA deletion procedures and rife socking? Just because the sport encourages battles, must supporters see this encyclopedia as a BATTLEGROUND? If these are merely sourcing issues, why can't some of these supporters pull some print sources out of magazines and apply them? BusterD (talk) 10:50, 18 March 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 as a blatant hoax. See last comment in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mylong black

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

Don't see any evidence that any of this info is true. Could be a hoax/vandalism. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward that speedy delete myself, especially based on the original editor's other edits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
his last name is richard i forgot to put that in there look him up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggggaaawommmaaaa (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've Speedy deleted it as a blatant hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 10 March 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. B music ian 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics Technician distance education program

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

Delete. Non-notable educational course. I was an electronics tech for most of my life... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable article, as shown by the RS references. I don't see what the noms personal professional experience has to do with it: he might be saying that it isn't a high quality program, and for all I know he may well be right, but that has nothing to do with notability. The article does need a less promotional tone, but that's a matter of editing. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion disussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable article. The awards bestowed by Canadian provincial and federal government organizations (Association of Canadian Community Colleges, TVOntario, etc) attest to the program's quality, reputation and innovative delivery format.Goatboy22 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Notability is comprehensively asserted.Jama555 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources here, notability asserted as long-standing, highly regarded, award-winning education program.Carl142 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 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. No agreement that the notability requirements are not met. Sandstein 09:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Paul Brekke

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently an expert on immigration to scandinavian countries, based on the long lists of publications in Norwegian and English. Most of them appear to be articles of long reports, rather than books, so this is only a weak keep. But the noWP has an article, and I give considerable deference to their ability to judge the notability of Norwegian researchers, which I think likely to be better than ours., and I think their notability standard in general at least as high as that of the enWP. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no:wp's notability inclusion criteria, particularly for biographies, is considerably lower than en:wp. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, main notability is as a TV figure I think. Geschichte (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or delete. Notability as a scholar has not been adequately documented by independent sources. His stature as a minor television celebrity is also tenuous as a reason for keeping this article. __meco (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He probably fails WP:PROF, but I guess he passes as a TV-figure. Article needs a overhaul though. Would be a shame if the article was kept, and then noone cared to do anything about the article, leaving the article as it is now. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a new search in Atekst (printed newspaper database) shows 289 hits. For instance, Klassekampen on 29 January 2011 had a two-page article which discusses a report he has co-published in lieu of Norway's immigration politics. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:34, 14 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C167 family

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

Non-notable microcontroller architecture (although I'm admittedly not quite sure what a "microcontroller architecture" is), and the article seems a bit like advertising. After conducting various Google searches using the term '"c167 family" microcontroller', this German paper was the only remotely significant coverage I could manage to scrounge up, and a two-paragraph description in one paper doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to C166 family. The overall architecture/platform seems notable enough, but minor variations and updates probably do not warrant their own articles for now. Hqb (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 3 March 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) 18:44, 10 March 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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Wadge

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

I don't believe this person meets the notability criteria for a musician. Plus the entire article is unsourced. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added some references. Mainly biogs from music sites, don't know if they hold up as proof of notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She co-wrote several songs with Ed Sheeran, a top-selling, multiple Brit-award winning singer/songwriter (Best Male performer 2012, Best British Breakthrough 2012), please see the section "Songwriting" that I added to her bio with the details. Another argument for notability, she made a Billboard chart, world's top grossing concerts of June 2004, chart published in the July 24, 2004 Billboard issue. She was billed in a June 2004 concert at Royal Albert Hall, London, with Jeff Beck and Jan Hammer that charted. I added it to the article.OttawaAC (talk) 02:35, 9 March 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) 18:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage shows up on a GNews search to pass WP:GNG.--Michig (talk) 20:53, 10 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Associates of the National Theatre

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 March 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) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't prove notability until we have sources. Shii (tock) 07:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, there are some references: [6], [7], [8], [9] to name a few. Now that being said, there is not enough extensive coverage in third party sources to establish notability. -Aaron Booth (talk) 06:34, 13 March 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. Sandstein 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virginity (EP)

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

I PRODed as Unreleased EP. No independent refs, failing WP:GNG. Fails WP:NALBUMS. PROD was procedurally removed. Note the participation of editors discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jeffree_Star_discography and that while they haven't participated in the article since that discussion started, IPs with apparently similar unreferenced inside knowledge have. I've searched for references, but the name makes that very hard. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a quick search for sources, all I'm seeing is a lot of blog and forum posts, and a few mentions in sources affiliated with the subject. I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources, so I don't think this unreleased EP meets WP:GNG at this time. Camerafiend (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this EP; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 17:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per the Stop Disrupting Wikipedia to Make a Point Act. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Online Piracy Act

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

No neutrality Delete, no neutrality at all. Makes SOPA seem really bad, some of it may even be defamation!--WOLfan112 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly disruptive nomination. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia says all articles must be neutral, so how is it disruptive. It may also be defamation.--WOLfan112 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 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 March 10. Snotbot t • c » 18:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Surmountable WP:PROBLEM. Marcus Qwertyus 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If it's not neutral WP:BEBOLD and fix it, not nominate it for deletion. It's clearly notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Speedy keep Please read the WP:Deletion policy before nominating another article for deletion. Reach Out to the Truth 19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. AfD isn't for neutrality disputes. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 20:28, 10 March 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 Ardmore, Pennsylvania#Eminent domain controversy. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Ardmore Coalition

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

No notable coverage beyond one or two passing mentions in news articles. Some of the information of the group's site might possibly be relevant to Kelo v. City of New London. -- LWG ^talk 17:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In addition to local press, this organization did get a healthy discussion in a 2005 article about Kelo in The Economist.[10] Still, I'd think the best course of action would be a redirect to Ardmore, Pennsylvania#Eminent domain controversy, which already has more information about the issue than does this spinoff POV stub (so no merge really needed).--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support that suggestion. -- LWG ^talk 18:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ardmore, Pennsylvania#Eminent domain controversy as above. More complete description and more NPOV. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:59, 11 March 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. Sandstein 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popular (Elena Paparizou song)

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

PROD was removed, artist page exists but fails WP:NSONG MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a one-time performance made by Elena. It will probably not be released as a music single etc etc. I say delete it. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For obvious reasons, this is just a cover, with minimal changes in production. Even the most notable covers don't get a seperate article. If it turns out she is actually releasing it as a single, it can be merged to original.GreekStar12 (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment - According to the singer, (see this source) it will be released as a single in Sweden and Greece, and actually is already on Swedish iTunes. (see here) That being said, the song is just a cover and I don't think it warrants it's own article. Any information related to Paparizou's cover can easily be added to the song's original page. Greekboy (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Eric Saade song page per the reasons stated above. Grk1011 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is released as a single in Sweden: http://itunes.apple.com/se/album/popular-single/id509513905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.99.78 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 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 International Law and the Gaza War. Anything that does not duplicate existing content can be merged from the history to the extent consensus allows. Sandstein 09:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial tactics in the Gaza War

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

The article duplicates material of International law and the Gaza War thus creating WP:POVFORK everything useful should be merged to main article.It covers all the issues that covered by International law and the Gaza War Shrike (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the main article, do you mean the Gaza War article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean International law and the Gaza War--Shrike (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would say the question is whether tactics during the Gaza war were only controversial because of the issue of international law. I would say no, because if you look at the section on allegations of misconduct by the IDF it is not based on international law. My personal view is that a better way to move forward would be to make sure that where the two articles do cover the same information (i.e. where the controversy was due to the issue of international law) that we make sure that both articles are strictly NPOV. WP:CFORK states that "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." - So pointing out that the two articles share a "significant amount of information in common" does not seem like a valid justification for deletion.Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just "significant amount" this articles contains all the issues covered by International law and the Gaza War--Shrike (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already pointed out the section in this article on alleged misconduct of the IDF is not related to issues of international law. It would not be relevant to the international law article and does not appear in that article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was there anything not controversial in the Gaza War? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is already over long - this article was spun off in order to try to make the main article more manageable. The main issue with deleting this article will be that any relevant well sourced information that is not covered by the International law sub article will have to be re-incorporated back in to the main Gaza War article Dlv999 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article name screams 'POV', and it appears that it's also a POV fork. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If "everything useful should be merged to main article" then shouldn't Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger be followed and once the merge has been completed the article can be nominated for deletion ? It isn't clear here whether deleting the article right now would result in the loss of content/references and there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the article's talk page about merging it. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, it will just be deleted whether or not that results in loss of information present in the article but absent from the target of the proposed merge. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You always can copy the article to you own sandbox.That what I did.--Shrike (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if there is material present in an article that isn't present in the merge target article (and I don't know whether that is the case in this instance but it's usually the case), and the source article is deleted, it means that content is removed from public view until such time that someone merges it from the sandbox. That doesn't seem like the best way to approach this kind of issue. I assume that is one of the reasons we have Wikipedia:Merge rather than a workflow that involves deleting articles that are potential merge sources first and and sorting the merge out later. If the objective is to merge the article now, a merge proposal/discussion/effort is appropriate (presumably followed later by an AfD). If the objective is to delete an article now, an AfD is appropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Law and the Gaza War. It's an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap. It can't remain as an article - as other users point out, it's a POV fork that duplicates a better-done article, and the length-fork argument is invalid since the original article is basically already about stuff that was controversial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 12 March 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. NW (Talk) 00:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.CAP

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only claims are notability are in who this artist has associated with. No indication of how he might meet WP:MUSIC. Supplied reference is trivial. RadioFan (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom; non-notable artist with music released under a label with his cousin. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:29, 17 March 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. Sandstein 09:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty of being delicious

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for web content. – hysteria18 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable tattoo design, sources seem to be gossip sites, which aren't generably reliable. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there that shows that this tattoo is notable or that it's even that big of a meme. I'd also like to note that the major contributor to the article is the creator/owner of the tattoo and with the borderline promotional and non-neutral tone of the article, it'd need a complete re-write even if there were sources. Which there aren't, none that would show notability, anyway.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William John Smart

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

Borderline candidate for deletion as an advert. He appears to be a successful architect, but no more notable than anyone else in the industry, which means that he isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article (IMO). No evidence of significant coverage of HIM, not just his work, in independent reliable sources. One IP edit resolves to his company, so almost certainly a WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO. The-Pope (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This appears to be this guy's CV, and there are no real indications of notability. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:50, 17 March 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. Wifione ^Message 09:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Kuchmina

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

I see no notability here. From my search I found no main draw entries, no wins at $35,000 tournies, no Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence that she meets any of the WP:NTENNIS guidelines and can find no reliable sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't prove notability until we have sources. Shii (tock) 07:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 10:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find no results that satisfy NTENNIS. No in depth coverage in reliable sources to qualify through GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 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. Wifione ^Message 09:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets and lies first generation

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

The only source is a Facebook page, a wholly unreliable citation, there are no mentions of sources that could confirm claims it makes, and as such neither the article nor its subject appear notable. dci | TALK 05:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't establish notability at all, probably self-promotional, no wikilinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmajeremy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly a promotional article and there's absolutely zero sources out there about this self-published ebook. (Bookbaby is a self-publishing company.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 13 March 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've viewed the keep comments. After repeated requests, it seems valid sources have not been forwarded to confirm notability. Currently deleting with no prejudice to an early recreation if and only if multiple, reliable sources are cited when the article is being recreated Wifione ^Message 09:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Samman

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

PROD declined. Subject is a non-notable MMA fighter and article is practically unsourced. Only one fight with a notable organization therefore fails WP:MMANOT, also appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we all know, Bellator is an established organization because with its TV deal with MTV2. The question is if XFC should be considered a notable organization. Considering it has a television deal with the channel HDNet and is home to mega stars such as [[Jamie Varner]}, i think it is fair to call it a major promotion. Therefore, Samman has 2 fights in major promotions, as well as a victory over a recently well known fighter, Chris Cope. Im not sure why the legitimacy of sherdog as a source is being questioned, when one of Sammans opponents also shares his only source with sharedog.com yet does not face deletion. Mikey Gomez To be honest, he is one of the only major athletes to come from Tallahassee, he is going to continue his fight career in big places, and deserves to have a wikipedia to show his accomplishments. Thecrow1313 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One fight for a major organization fails to meet WP:MMANOT nad being mentioned at sherdog.com fails to meet WP:GNG. Claiming he's one of the few major athletes to come from Tallahassee doesn't meet any notability criteria noR can editors override consensus to set their own criteria for notable MMA organizations. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if a Television deal and having signed notable fighters doesn't make you a notable organization, what does? I have a voice, and I plan on speaking my opinion. I only gave facts, which is his MMA record found on sherdog. I did not include questionable websites as they are not facts. If you would like more websites cited, i would gladly include them.
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MMA. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a listing of "significant coverage by independent sources" since I was unable to find much? Can you also explain how the individual passed WP:MMANOT? You cited WP:JNN before in a different AfD today, practice what you preach. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As pointed out above, we can verify WP:V in reliable sources WP:RS that he fought against notable WP:GNG fighters and for a notable promotion. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to list the sources. The only source cited in the article is the fighter's record at Sherdog.com. If the subject passes WP:GNG there should be "significant coverage by independent sources" which means you can list a bunch of sources. If that is true, do so. Also, you fail to specifically state how this fighter passes Wikipedia:MMANOT#Fighters; to me this fighter has few fights with notable organizations (only 1 or 2) which is a criteria supporting deletion. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherdog is a reliable source for MMA organziations. Look, just to be franks, what's it to you if this article exists? We know it is not a hoax or that it is a personal attack on that guy, so at worst it provides information on a fighter of some notability. Removing it from Wikipedia achieves what exactly? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you are unable to find other sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG? That would mean the subject of the article is not really notable and thus fails Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding what topics deserve articles. It doesn't affect me if this article stays. It affects Wikipedia's status of being a source of notable information. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Thecrow1313. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He fails WP:GNG. But per Thecrow1313, he has 3 fights in top-tier, which means he technically passes WP:MMANOT. Unfortunately, WP:MMANOT is an essay, and there are questions about sherdog.com. Still, in its borderline state, I'm inclined to not be hasty with deletion - give it time, and tag it with {{refimprove}} for maintenance-inclined editors, but don't delete it yet. It was only created a few days ago, after all - let's give it time to improve rather than deleting something that may be incomplete. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure where the previous editor got his number, but this fighter has 1 fight for a top tier organization (see WP:MMANOT for a list). There's also no significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since i created the article i know my view point is slightly skewed. I would like to bring to the table that this fighter does have some local coverage as well as multimedia coverage:

Tallahassee coverage: http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20120222/SPORTS/202220332/Four-Tallahassee-fighters-get-ready-MMA-event-Atlanta Television coverage: http://www.wctv.tv/insidethegame/headlines/38167309.html A student made documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Fo84P1tCY I understand that this fighter does not meet the guidelines that makes this website operate, but i ask wikipedia not be deleted yet. Since he is an active fighter, he will have big fights with big promotions in 2012. It would be a shame for this article to be deleted and a week later a new fight be announced in bellator/ufc/xfc. I don't want to make this personal, so I agree, you are right. He does not completely meet the criteria you ask, but he does not completely fail it either. Give it time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrow1313 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at WP:CRYSTALBALL. Claiming he will become notable because he will have major fights in the future is not a valid argument, especially when he needs several of them to meet WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets void that part of my argument. What doesn't change is his significant media coverage outside of MMA websites. Do you have a comment on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrow1313 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He stills lacks significant independent reliable coverage. Youtube fails, as does the local paper talking about a bunch of local boys going up the road to Atlanta to fight, and so does a mention that he's become a personal trainer. Astudent0 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Youtube video is significant second hand documentary coverage. Just because the video file is hosted on youtube does not mean all of its material is void. 2)A state capital's news paper is not local. Nor is a major city's newspaper that has a wide circulation. I guess that means New York Times should never be cited because it is only local to New York City. And if you continue to read the article, it states about his recent fight. 3) Television coverage is a reliable source

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MMAIS due to significant independent coverage. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [11] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Due to the fact that if any fighter has fought for a top tier promotion, they are instantly notable, which means that this guy is definitely notable (before I get any fanboys commenting on this vote saying I'm wrong to vote, let me point out that this has been the case for a long time, so to argue with me is to argue with everyone who has every defended guys such as Rolles Gracie Jr., who has only fought for the UFC once, and he has been deemed notable on many occasions)

I assume this comment is from Bigzmma since he's made up this rule at other AfD discussions--contrary to WP:MMANOT. FYI-- Rolles Gracie, Jr. has never been up for AfD so his notability has never been decided by consensus. Mdtemp (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles on notable fighters like him. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support this claim. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant independent coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and his one top tier fight fails WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a variety of users on this post can be found at the many other places he stuck this comment. Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 17 March 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. total agreement. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Levantaphobia

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

I cannot find reliable sources proving the existence of this phobia (either as levantaphobia or levantophobia). Links given do not mention the word. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent evidence that this exists. The only online reference is a "comment" on a magazine story that was added yeasterday (9 March) by a reader who references this wp article. Possible hoax. Tigerboy1966 01:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete no indication of wp:notability or even that it exists. Confirming previous comment, the only online reference is a "comment" on a magazine story that was added yesterday (9 March) by a reader who references this wp article. Term is not mentioned in the article. Adding the name as a comment there and adding it as a reference here were only hours apart. Single article editor. Zero google hits except this article and mirrors of it. Possible hoax. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax or something made up in one day. Google is a big empty zero on this one. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking any verifiable sources - eg hoax or made up. Whilst it is possible to have a term in English formed by a combination of Spanish or Portugese and 'phobia' it is unlikely and there would need to be some clear and identifiable reason why this had occurred. 'Levant' has specific and well known historical associations which have nothing to do with lifting. If somebody tried to argue that it referred to a fear of things or people associated with the eastern Mediterranean it would be more plausible as a word though improbable as a notable condition.--AJHingston (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A neologism that doesn't seem to discussed in reliable, independent sources. You know you've got problems when one of the "references" in an article about a claimed psychiatric condition is an article in Teen Vogue about an actress who is afraid to be lifted over people's heads, especially when that "reliable source" doesn't even use the word in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mental disease that is identifiably different from acrophobia. Whereas acrophobia sufferers fear heights, levantaphobics are comfortable in high places but are extremely uncomfortable with the mechanical movement and sensation involved in being lifted. I believe the first such cases appeared in a church in South America in the ouskirts of Rio de Janeiro. The church dismissed it as a simple fear of heights. I don't remember the outcome but it's worth looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.219.226 (talk • contribs)
Cullen328 has checked out one source. I've done another. Pages 170–173 of the first book cited are nothing to do with this purported subject, but are rather about "Eliminating the Excessive Need for Approval". This article has false sources and appears indeed to be a hoax. And given the edit history of the article, 74.94.219.226 above is the hoaxer editing without logging in. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is fake then why is the suffering real? I do not understand why more folks want to shove Levantaphobia sufferers under the rug. The problem here is not a hoax, it is of awareness. A simple Google search reveals numerous people asking what it is called when they are frightened of being lifted. Are these invented people? Without a name, a treatment cannot be properly guided. Please be brave and defend these people. http://levantaphobia.wordpress.com/

comment site mentioned above is less than 2 weeks old and has attracted zero comments. Can we wrap this one up before April Fools Day? Tigerboy1966 08:19, 14 March 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid inspiration podcast

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

Non-notable "fortnightly comedy podcast" with sources that can't be described as wholly reliable. dci | TALK 00:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non notable web property Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article appears to have been CSD-tagged, I'd assume it'll be deleted shortly. dci | TALK 00:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:59, 10 March 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.