< 30 January | 1 February > |
---|
- 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. Some arguments are being made for a merge with Robert Morey. This is ultimately an editorial decision, and could still be enacted. At the moment there is clearly no consensus to delete, and it looks like a consensus to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moon-God Allah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am completing this nomination on behalf of the editor who started it, but who has used the template incorrectly. The original nominator user:Kazemita1, wrote "Per my inquiry from Fringe theories noticeboard, the majority of people attending the discussion agree this is a clear case of WP:FRINGE." Paul B (talk) 16:53, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just changed the categorization from History of Islam to Fringe theories. Nobody's claiming that this is a correct worldview, but judging by google-hits alone, there seem to be enough nut-cases believing in this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A fringe right wing Christianist theory, to be sure, but the Allah the Moon God myth is drawing refutations LIKE THIS indicating to me that this is probably an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - certainly a fringe theory but enough has been published on it - and is beginning to be included in the article - that it warrants keeping. Still, it needs a close eye on it to make sure it complies with WP:FRINGE eldamorie (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In the current format it is more or less a manifest of Robert Morey. I find the discussion in the fringe theory noticeboard quite convincing.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Here's one published source discussing this fringe theory from the page you cite — Tennent: Theology in the Context of World Christianity. This ultimately should come down to sourcing, whether there is enough published material pushing this fringe theory and contrary material debunking it to constitute notability. My opinion is that such sourcing exists. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have heavily rewritten the article since the nomination, cutting and adding material. I think the topic is notable, but the title should be changed to Allah as Moon-God and it should emphasise mainstream views per WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After some thought and a careful examination of the references, I'm going to go with a split merge to Robert Morey and to God in Islam, with the redirect going to the former. I'm not seeing that the theory has received enough coverage in reliable and secondary sources to support a stand-alone article - the most I see is in Lori Peek's Behind the Backlash, which gives it a couple of paragraphs. The books that are propagating the theory can't demonstrate its notability, and while refutations of it on Muslim websites might demonstrate that it's floating around in the popular imagination, that's not much more than a WP:ITEXISTS argument if the sources aren't reliable (which I wouldn't consider and never have considered religious/apologetic websites with no scholarly content or oversight to be). So merge the fringe theory-related content to Morey and the academic stuff to God in Islam. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Passes GNG, but barely. Fringe to be sure, but that can be reflected properly in its coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a view of which I have heard, not a mere "fringe" theory. I suspect that we know rather little from WP:RS of the pre-Islamic religion of Mecca. It is a POV, but so is the Islamic view what Mohammed was restoring the true Abrhamic religion: If I belived that i would not be a Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither "I've heard of it" (WP:LOCALFAME) nor "it's not fringe" and "I believe it" (WP:ILIKEIT) are appropriate arguments; please make a policy-compliant argument, such as one based on sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 5 February 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) RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio Amateurs of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability, no discussion of this organization in secondary reliable sources, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The private club has undetectable effect on the world outside its members. Existence of the organization could be noted in Amateur radio or some similar article. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the RAC is the Canadian member of the International Amateur Radio Union, the administrators of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service in Canada, and they serve in a substantial advisory capacity to the Canadian government with respect to the regulation of radio communications. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right now there are no references for that in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 8 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added a couple of sources. National amateur radio societies should have articles here.--Michig (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nominator's AfD voting score is pretty poor [1]. In 184 AFDs, has voted to delete 170 times. Only 96 actual deletions among his delete votes, meaning an accuracy rate below 60%.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Score? Voting? Relevance? How many of the "keep" not-votes were on articles that got kept? And since the possible three outcomes of these not-votes are "delete", "keep" or "no consensus" = "keep", 56% is better than chance. Do your statistics include AfDs that I originated? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree Wts that your nom should stand on its own merits, but at the same time I can understand concerns that a nom pay heed to wp:BEFORE (perhaps you have, and just view "discussion" differently than I do?) and seek to get a sense for what consensus views are on AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Score? Voting? Relevance? How many of the "keep" not-votes were on articles that got kept? And since the possible three outcomes of these not-votes are "delete", "keep" or "no consensus" = "keep", 56% is better than chance. Do your statistics include AfDs that I originated? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on Grandmartin11's reasoning. If their government takes them seriously, as do other established experts/organizations in this field, then they are notable. Someone just needs to find a trade magazine. Dream Focus 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are even more RS sources discoverable in a wp:BEFORE search. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The reasons given at nomination seem bogus. Wikipedia:OBSCURE is not a reason to delete; the nominator seems to be confounding notability with importance. "Assertion of notability" is only to avoid speedy deletion - articles in AfD don't require assertion of notability but "being notable". WP:ORG is not needed as long as there are sources that meet WP:GNG. An the nominator thinks that some of the content should be included in another article, so this should have been a merge discussion and not a deletion. Diego (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can certainly have a roll-call of hobby clubs, but obscure also means "not verifiable" and not notable. I read the Globe and Mail and my local paper, I watch TV news and listen to the radio - no-one ever talks about the ham club in the media. I've done a Google search and not found anything significant that shows any influence of this club on anything other than its members. Ham radio has become so unimportant to government that they've privatized licesning to this club...this doesn't seem to indicate that their activities or recommendations carry any weight. I'm sure the National China Dolls Collector's Association gives advice to goverment, too...but does anyone listen to the advice? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is an awful nomination. I've seen far worse. But the gnews and even moreso the gbooks hits suggest wide coverage, for years now, with the coverage not being limited to Canadian sources. Often the mentions are brief -- a paragraph or so in many books -- but the number of such mentions is so great that in aggregate I think they clearly confer notability. All that has to be shown is that the subject has been sufficiently "noted" -- not that it shows any influence or is in any way famous or the like.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can certainly have a roll-call of hobby clubs, but obscure also means "not verifiable" and not notable. I read the Globe and Mail and my local paper, I watch TV news and listen to the radio - no-one ever talks about the ham club in the media. I've done a Google search and not found anything significant that shows any influence of this club on anything other than its members. Ham radio has become so unimportant to government that they've privatized licesning to this club...this doesn't seem to indicate that their activities or recommendations carry any weight. I'm sure the National China Dolls Collector's Association gives advice to goverment, too...but does anyone listen to the advice? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Pretty clear that this is a notable topic and I'm Non-Admin Closing this as a keep giving the nominator the benefit of the doubt that they were a little quick on the draw here.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 23 February 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.
(add to top of list)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article. Several editors support a merge and this discussion should be continued on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dartington Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A primary school whose only claim to notability is being old. The buildings would warrant discussion in the main Dartington article, but the school itself now occupies a brand new building and nothing else about it notable. Suggest, as per common practice with primary schools, that it is redirected to the village article. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dartington, per long-standing consensus for all but exceptional primary schools. I see that there is a new school merger template up, so hopefully there will be a way to implement such obvious merger decisions outside the normal AfD channel shortly. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This long-standing 'consensus' has taken me by surprise. Primary School entries were informative, pertinent, not commercial. Is there a necessity to conserve space? Pafcwoody (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The bar for primary schools to cross to demonstrate their notability is just (arbitrarily) very high. For the record, I disagree, and think school age is a good criterion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep school age (established in the 1800's) confers notability through historicity per WP:ORG. This is a pretty extreme example of a historically notable school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial merge - typical non-notable English primary school. Sure there has been a school in Dartington for a long time, but it hasn't been on the same site, nor has it had the same name. The history section is actually a history of schools in Dartington and would be best placed in the Dartington article. Without the history section the article is nothing. Merge that into the town article and redirect the rest. Fmph (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A school (or, in fact, any organisation) continues to exist regardless of the fact that it may have moved sites. The history section is the claim to notability for this particular article, so, you're right, without that section "the article is nothing", but that's the whole point. Merging the article with the locality, in this case, would almost certainly result in the loss of content because much of the information would (or should) be considered trivial to the locality. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that it moved sites? There are no references to authenticate that assertion. And a read of the content would seem to indicate that it wasn't te same school on different sites. Rather it was most obviously at least 2 quite different schools within the same area/village. They had different names and different sites. This is not about a single historic entity tat has survived the ravages of time. Rather it is an uncorroborated commentary on the alleged educational history of a minor English village. It is most certainly not notable. Fmph (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that the school had moved sites, you did. And, you're right! There are no references to authenticate the rest of your commentary either. It's certainly not presented the way you read it in the article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, redirect or delete: "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if your house has any societal value (unlike schools), but I'm pretty sure that such buildings aren't covered under WP:ORG (perhaps you could ask at WP:WPARCH). Your argument, therefore, is a rather distractingly embarrassed kipper.
- As to "general consensus", you, again, misrepresent the truth. The general consensus is that non-notable schools are redirected not "tossed". This is a notable school for the reasons already given. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that isn't keep is tossed, IMO. And to say that WP:ORG should be interpreted as "anything that's old is notable" is a gross misinterpretation of policy. Furthermore, your allegations that I misrepresent the truth are a) personal attacks, and b) have been refuted by numerous editors in prior discussions you were privy to Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is a historic school which once served all age groups through to the then school leaving age. The article is already sufficiently well sourced to prove its notability. As the school will only have been known as Dartington Primary School for a tiny proportion of its long life there will undoubtedly be multiple other sources available under the previous school names. 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Dahliarose (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - historic school; over 200 years old and with sources likely to be available to meet WP:ORG. Formerly educated to school leaving age; effectively a secondary school. I fail to see how the project is benefited by the deletion of such an interesting and useful page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dartington. A school of that period is not exceptionally unusual. In its present form it differs little from 1000s of other primary schools. If the artiel were a lot longer, I would take adiffenret view. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The school has only been a primary school for a short period of existence (since 1939). For the remaining 150 years of its history it was a school educating children of all ages so it was effectively the equivalent of a secondary school today. It is therefore very different from a bog standard modern primary school. Dahliarose (talk) 19:24, 10 February 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 Jeff Hammond (actor). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Friday (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable small independent film. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Non-notable film. Searching for references, the only things that come up on web searches are its IMDB page and this article itself. Fails WP:NF.Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to filmmaker's article. While this $1,000, six-minute short film has verifiability,[2] it lacks the notability required for a seperate article. We can send readers to the one place where it might be spoken of in context to the film's creator. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. IMDb can't be used to establish notability, it can only be used as an external link, see WP:ELPEREN SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:53, 11 February 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. henrik•talk 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyde Park Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
School's only claim to notability is that it is over 100 years. It has some history, but so would any organisation that old. That does not confer notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ORG states:
When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
- Emphasis added. To say that a hundred year old school doesn't met this is awfully arbitrary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Mutley Plain. History section has some useful info. As per ORG, definitely no referenced impact on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Fmph (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that a school has no impact on education? You've also just admitted that there is some useful information in history, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No referenced impact. Prove me wrong. Fmph (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does a school need a reference to say that it has an impact on education? It's like saying that the phrase "the sky appears to be blue" needs a reference at Sky. You're also rewriting WP:ORG to add in that "referenced" bit. So I'm not playing into your Strawman, sorry.
- In any case WP:NRVE: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." After hundred-plus years of operation - history and education, per my above quoted section from WP:ORG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and what exactly makes you think that I didn't consider that? Wouldn't you be better off finding these phantom references snd proving me wrong? Fmph (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No referenced impact. Prove me wrong. Fmph (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that a school has no impact on education? You've also just admitted that there is some useful information in history, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, redirect or delete: "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is a historic school whose notably is already proven through multiple reliable sources. It makes no sense to merge it with the locality article. Dahliarose (talk) 02:03, 2 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not only a historic school but the sources meet WP:ORG in any case. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to Mutley Plain, where it is. The accepoted WP view is that Primary Schools are NN. I take the view that they are best merged to the place where they are, rather than being deleted out of hand. Education became compulsory in the 1870s. Accordingly, a school a century old is northing execptional. Its assocation with Drake is minimal: that would be better dealt with in an article on the neighourhood. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is far too long to be merged. Primary schools are a recent innovation and for most of its history this school has served the entire community who were eligible for education, therefore effectively making it equivalent to a secondary school today. Dahliarose (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The work done by Smalljim (talk · contribs) has transformed this article from being about a small non-notable primary school to a school, formerly educating much older children, with a significant and notable history. On that basis I am quite happy to change my vote to keep - even though I was the person who nominated it for deletion. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (e.c.) Thanks, Bob. I was going to say that I've expanded the article and added several new reference sources to help show that this school has much greater notability than that of an average junior school and that the delete/merge opinions above need to be reconsidered in the light of these new sources. But perhaps I don't need to, now :) —SMALLJIM 17:58, 13 February 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) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Human interaction management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism, patent nonsense and coatrack spam: Human Interaction Management (HIM) is a set of management principles, patterns and techniques complementary to Business process management. HIM provides process-based support for innovative, adaptive, collaborative human work and allows it to be integrated in a structured way with more routinized work processes that are often largely automated. This had been deleted and redirected in a prior AFD, to business process management, which is scarcely better than this. But all you get here are sales slogans and attempts at clever acronyms -
- HIM has an associated change management methodology called Goal-Oriented Organization Design (GOOD). GOOD emphasizes effectiveness over efficiency, and combines various approaches....
- the usual random lists (1. Top-down.... 2. Middle-out.... 3. Bottom-up.... I think you left out 4. Upside-down.) The article has references, but no footnotes, leaving you guessing whether any of the glittery slogans of the article are actually supported by any sources. Some of the sources themselves look dodgy, and don't sound like reliable sources; I suspect that stuff like:
- Peter Fingar, Extreme Competition: Innovation And The Great 21st Century Business Reformation ISBN 0-929652-38-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
- Keith Harrison-Broninski, Human Interactions: The Heart and Soul of Business Process Management ISBN 0-929652-44-4
- Mark McGregor (editor) In Search Of BPM Excellence ISBN 0-929652-40-1
will be more like infomercials in print rather than reliable sources. The Harrison-Broninsky book is called "the book" at the Human Interaction Management website, which of course is first among the external links. This suggests to me that this article and neologism is promoting some outfit's management consultancy or how-to-manage-people text.
If there's a subject here, you won't learn anything about it from this text. Recommend deleting this and creating a protected redirect to business process management per the prior AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete coatrack spam. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful content on the page which explains any of this beyond asserting it exists. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Marketing cobblers. I have problem in understanding what it means in real terms, it is completely unfathomable to me. Their are no footnotes directly supporting the content, we have no idea whether the sources support the material or not. Mattg82 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally agree with Smerdis. Typical project management bafflegab, trying to make themselves more important and validate their business. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:56, 8 February 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 to keep and improve here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Crimesterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All of the people are redlinks, and does not assert notability with third-party sources. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article is about an Armenian rock band. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, article is about an Armenia-based band. Would it be better if people get unlinked, at least from main content? Or I can deliver band members' pages as soon as possible. Although, it might be another problem as most of the sources (not all) would be in Armenian. Goyushek (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep. I'd vote for removing the unnecessary bunch of links instead, and providing a couple of third-party sources for the band biography, releases information, etc. Dharmist (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Redlinks removed, more sources added. Goyushek (talk) 07:36, 1 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per WP:AGF (I don't speak Armenian). It looks like we've got enough sources to justify an article, which was one of the main concerns above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:26, 28 February 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 Jhang#Education. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Victory Model School,Jhang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elementary schools are not inherently notable and no apparent notability for this school. PROD declined without explanation. Tried to redirect to local government article and that was reverted. Note that there is no school district article to redirect this to. Safiel (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per previous consensus, to Jhang District (for want of a better target). Yunshui 雲水 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete - No indication of notability is given. I know that redirecting is the standard practice with NN school articles. I just have no strong personal preference between the two options. But unless an actual indication of notability is given, the article itself should not remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete Leaning towards redirecting to Jhang#Education, but wouldn't be opposed to a deletion. However, if chosen to redirect, a space should be added after the comma. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, which has no recommendation to create a redirect for every nonnotable subject. Edison (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 2 February 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. Even for Web ephemera, adequate reliable sourcing is the core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:V#Notability), and the "keep" opinion gloss over the article's sourcing iproblems or ignore them. Sandstein 17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Slender-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character for which I could not find significant coverage beyond user-contributed content online. See the deletion logs at Slender Man and Slenderman for CSDs and AFD discussions on the same subject. wctaiwan (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I am slightly biased towards deletion when a deleted page is recreated, albeit with improvements. However, I believe, that with some effort, this article could be salvaged, as the subject appears notable. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sourcing is going to be a major problem here, as this is a meme character mostly (but not absolutely exclusively) used on one forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As cool as it would be to have an article on Der Grossmann, the subject just isn't notable enough. Yet. -waywardhorizons (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it does seem to be a rather pervasive phenomenon, albeit one that is primarily online. I don't see why that precludes it from being included in this article however, when even the most minor characters from third-rate TV shows get their own articles. --86.42.139.210 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It seems to be gaining a bit of a following. It is primarily user-created content, I'll agree, but it is gaining a following. It'll probably won't be too long before it is featured in some manner in mainstream media. --JB Adder | Talk 12:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor characters of even major shows generally don't get their own article, e.g. the Pokemon characters which used to have their own article but now are put in lists. This just isn't notable enough. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article actually has its own wiki along with it mentioned in multiple wiki's like mythical creatures and beast. Yeah some pokemon don't get their own article, but pokemon are way less likely to exist plus there about 700 pokemon and all have at least a paragraph of its attributes, where this slender man has been written on Egyptian Hieroglyphs and seen as a paranormal phenomenon. It can be merged but it deserve's it own article for one day it could be a marvel comic character or thriller movie. It still has potential to add a rack load of info to it. It may not be notable like Medusa or a more realistic creature like Kraken colossal octopus but its decent enough.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:50, 12 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of professional snowboarders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced list of 3 people. List itself is not particularly notable per WP:NLIST. v/r - TP 13:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments were rejected at the prior AFD for this list. Whether or not it is unsourced at present is irrelevant; obviously whether someone notable is or isn't a professional snowboarder is verifiable, which is what is relevant. WP:NLIST says that in such lists, only those with verifiable notability should be included, so I don't understand the nom's complaint here as that's easily achieved. So why shouldn't this be expanded to be a complete list complementary to the Category:Snowboarders structure per WP:CLN, one that can provide further information beyond an alphabetic list of names, and can group together those that are split up into nationality subcategories? Though I'm surprised to see how long this has been up with no expansion. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a keep, in case there's any doubt. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No reason given for deletion. Lists don't have to be complete to be useful. I've added a couple more names and expanded it a bit, but there was no reason for deletion to begin with. The people added to the list all pass WP:NLIST.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:23, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of scope for expansion. No valid reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic/list that has been expanded since AfD nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Pretty clearly an encyclopedic list: a useful source of in-links, sourced, logical in construction. Is it completable? Maybe not, but that doesn't offset the page's potential utility. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the above. Snow in the forecast?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 3 February 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. Sandstein 17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Iraena Asher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another of the millions of missing persons cases that happen around the world every year. No evidence of the person or the case being significantly notable. As I have repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is not the place for listing these cases. Dmol (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable. While tragic, the disapperence of this person has not received sufficient independent coverage to fulfill notability requirements. Google searches turned up nothing promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Her disappearance got very widespread coverage in the New Zealand media at the time, and some coverage in October 2011 when a coroner's inquest was announced. She is notable not because she disappeared, but because she rang the police fearful for her safety some hours earlier, and their response was badly bungled. This might be a reason to move the article to a title such as "Iraena Asher disappearance". I suspect that there is still wide recognition of her name in New Zealand seven years later. As an example of this, her sister's involvement in 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids received headlines such as Missing woman's sister discharged.-gadfium 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per major coverage at the time in New Zeeland and also continued coverage per this coverage and similar. Also her sisters involvement in the 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids recieved coverage because of her being the sister of Iraena which makes me think the case is still recieving coverage and is just not another disappearance. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've never claimed that the case didn't receive press coverage, as that is quite normal for most disappearances. The media will often drag it out again for anniversaries and other flimsy excuses such as her sister's activities. But that does not change the fact that it is still not a case notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia.--Dmol (talk) 11:04, 19 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, Deryck C. 13:35, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Selective merge to 111 (emergency telephone number)#Controversy. The case led to a collapse in confidence in the NZ 111 emergency call response, and directly caused a 2005 official review of the service: "The service has had its fair share of difficulties with public confidence hiting rock bottom in the wake of the disappearance of Iraena Asher four years ago. A distraught Asher called for help from the police and was instead sent a taxi that never arrived - she has not been seen since. "I think the Iraena Asher incident just galvanised us that we need to continually invest in this very important area of public service," says Rob Pope, Deputy Police Commissioner."[3]; "A damning report in 2005 found police communications centres were inadequate. The report followed the disappearance of Auckland woman Iraena Asher after she had called 111 for help. Police sent a taxi rather than a patrol car and it went to the wrong address. Similar bungles continue to dog the service."[4]; "The 111 system faces a major shake-up following a review into a number of high profile failures. Police Commissioner Rob Robinson today announced the establishment of a national board to oversee the performance of police communications centres. The review was prompted by incidents including the Iraena Asher case. She called 111 in distress from Piha, west Auckland, but a taxi rather than a police car was sent to her. The taxi went to the wrong address and Ms Asher has never been found."[5] Fences&Windows 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a WP:BLP1E she is notable only for (one event) and all overage is only for that event, her disappearance hence no need for a biography here and further several thousands of people disappear every year and we cannot have articles for all of them.She fails WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to even claim any notability other than for one event, so fails WP:BLP1E. And no coverage for other than that event, so fails WP:BIO. Novaseminary (talk) 05:08, 12 February 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. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayy Von Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG from what I have failed to find. SarahStierch (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No reliable coverage about him. - Cavarrone (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldnt find much eitheir.Questionable pulse (talk) 16:50, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete- No reliable third party sources, no claim of notability. It could probably be technically just speedy deleted under A7 rather than going through the whole deletion discussion process.Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 31 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. Redirečt at editorial disčretion. Sandstein 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Slobodan M Kovačević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. Only passing references to Kovačević in articles about other musicians, or in brief event announcements, can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say make it a {{R from member}} More, but nobody wrote an article about the band (which is vaguely notable - I heard about it, at least :). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 1 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, Sandstein 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Only references found are for tracklisting sites and MP3 downloads. Non-notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:57, 17 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overclass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not widely used enough to warrant an article. Basically, this is just a neologism for "upper class" or "elite" (which we already have articles for). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and until we can write more than a brief definition here, we should remove the article by redirecting it to Upper class. Mesoderm (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a journal article dedicated to this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Both what should be a dictionary definition and not commonly used. In response to the comment, it should be noted that Russian (and Soviet) journals frequently do not have the same definition of political systems as standard English, so the article would not be a WP:RS even if the journal would normally be considered one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 28 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, BusterD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom.. Not sure if synonymous with Upper class or Bourgeoisie. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject of the article is more than a dicdef, but a sociological, economic and political topic which has gotten substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources, besides the writing of Lind, satisfying WP:N. Google Book Search shows [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] , and [30]. It also has mass market news coverage, as in a cover story in Newsweek (which itself received coverage). and Business Week. It also receives significant coverage in the bestselling "A history of the American People" by Paul Johnson. Edison (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Edison. There is clearly enough material out there to expand the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:48, 31 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 There is a clear consensus to delete due to lack of reliable sources to meet notability. For the record, my own checks for other purposes concur, as many of the citations don't even mention Ellis, making me wonder about a semi-elaborate hoax. The article has also been subject to recent BLP-violating edits, another reason for getting on with closing this and deleting it now, given the evident consensus --Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sketch Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of him ever meeting WP:MUSIC, couldn't find much in google that are reliable sources. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON plus a conflict of interest to boot. Delete Secret account 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough evidence that meet WP:MUSIC. In this article there is more than enough [[WP:RS|reliable sources] cited ]. Tommylane1 23:08, 25 January 2012 (EST)
- Flicker, twitter, a talent agency website (which is probably the most unreliable sources) and these blog like very small independent websites are not reliable sources. Please read the guideline further. Secret account 05:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let all of us that try to keep this page up to date know what sources that "you" feel are more reliable? Tommylane1 21:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)
- It's not what Secret "feels" is reliable, it's what the policy says is reliable. Affiliated and user-generated content are not considered reliable sources for notability per the general notability guideline. For what it's worth, a few reliable sources would be: reviews in national newspapers or magazines, a few paragraphs of coverage in a book from a major or well-regarded specialist publisher, or in-depth television or radio coverage (i.e. a section or programme on Sketch Ellis and his work, not simply airplay). Yunshui 雲水 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability shown here. Lots of name dropping but notability is not inherited. member of multiple notable bands does not confer notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of sources which would meet WP:GNG criteria. Yunshui 雲水 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article would need reliable sources, which don't exist for the topic, and, while associated with notable bands, he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC himself. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:06, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig Seymour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article does not seem to meet guidelines for notability. CarbonX (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable as author (2 books != major author), and the material in his own books != source of notability. Hit best sellers rank 493,000 and 887,000 at Amazon. Thus not notable as books either. This BLP is a promotional ad for Seymour, with all that entails, but promoting oneself online != notability either. Article was created by a indeffed sockpuppeteer User:Ratel [31]. Collect (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Multiple reliable sources cover the author and both of his books. Additional examples: [32][33][34][35][36][37] Passes the test, clearly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:00, 31 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample sources in article and in Arxiloxos' comment above to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲水 12:48, 8 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Score Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An educational project being promoted by someone involved in it. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to have been created to promote awareness of an undertaking by someone who does not really grasp the nature of Wikipedia.DaveApter (talk) 09:40, 3 February 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd Nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd Nomination)
- 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 St Bede's School, Hailsham. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- St. Bede's Prep School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Preparatory (primary) school with nothing substantial to establish its notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or redirect to Hailsham if absolutely necessary. Nothing notable here. Fmph (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A better redirect might be to the senior school, St Bede's School, Hailsham, which already contains some content about this school in its history section. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline, which says nothing about compulsory redirects for nonnotable schools. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a redirect is beneficial in that it would probably deter any attempt at recreation. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to St Bede's School, Hailsham, perhaps with a few lines merged in. This per longstanding consensus for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:ORG states:
When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
The article makes a claim for notability in that it is approximately 115 years old. Only a very strict reading of WP:ORG would deny this historicity. Therefore, the school is historically (and educationally) notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to read over WP:ORG again. Age, by itself, is not a determining factor of notability. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I highlighted "history" and "education" in the above quote from WP:ORG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to St Bede's School, Hailsham. It is part of the same entity. Even the school website is common to the junior and senior schools. Any notable information can be added. Sussexonian (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Houses aren't of societal value and aren't covered under WP:ORG. Schools are. This school is notable because of it's historic and educational value. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Another notable school which has inexplicably been nominated for deletion. This is a historic school with a notable link to the murderer Bodkin. Dahliarose (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable. I'm not convinced that the age of this school -- by itself -- makes it notable. Similarly, the relationship to a notable murderer is extremely tenuous, IMHO, for making a claim that the school itself is notable. WP:NOTINHERITED does come to mind. I also think there is no reason to bring the nominator to task for making this nomination; the !votes of the community seem to overwhelmingly support his view, to this point, that the subject of the article fails to warrant a stand-alone article. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Sussexonian. It is all one organisation.--Charles (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect per the usual past practice -- this is not notable, see "non-selective school", and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. A redirect or merge will not harm the project. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 6 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Max Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor playwright. At least, there's nothing in the text even indicating otherwise, and not even any references at all to back up what does say. Calton | Talk 11:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources, could be original research--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, given the lack of sources. No evidence of notability that I can find. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:23, 7 February 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd Nomination)
- 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Porntourage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly hi! 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 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 talkabout my edits? 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've looked, and I can't find reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 31 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 leave to speedy renominate. Relisted twice and since Sandstein didn't find a sufficient consensus to ring this up 8 days ago, I'm going to close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Munster Junior Club Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This championship lacks requisite multiple independent substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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 talkabout my edits? 11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator (fails WP:GNG). Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in the Republic of Ireland, and senior level games receive a lot of coverage. However, it's hard to find much coverage of the second level intermediate games, and the third-level junior teams rarely seem to get more than results listings in local papers. (for a list of levels, see Gaelic football#Leagues_and_team_structure). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the Junior & Intermediate grades do get much coverage. The local papers cover these in major detail. Since the creation of provincial & All-Ireland competitions for clubs at these levels, interest & coverage have grown. One saw this especially with the recent semi-final of the All-Ireland Junior Club Football Championship between Dromid Pearses & Derrytrask. The national pagers & media interest is now very high. --Pmunited (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not seen much coverage myself, and although I am not a sports fan (so wouldn't usually seek it out) have been looking today at the websites of both local and national newspapers. I found nothing of any significance, and have had no more luck with the search terms suggested by your comment. The coverage of that match seems to be overwhelmingly related to the mass brawl which made national headlines(e.g. [38], [39], [40]). That may be enough to justify coverage of that one match (tho WP:NOTNEWSPAPER suggests caution), but it does not seem to me to be evidence of wider substantial coverage.
- I readily accept that I may have looked in the wrong places, so if anyone wants to provide some evidence of ongoing substantial coverage of junior level matches, that would be very helpful. If you are right that national pagers & media interest is now very high, then it should not be hard to find. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the Junior & Intermediate grades do get much coverage. The local papers cover these in major detail. Since the creation of provincial & All-Ireland competitions for clubs at these levels, interest & coverage have grown. One saw this especially with the recent semi-final of the All-Ireland Junior Club Football Championship between Dromid Pearses & Derrytrask. The national pagers & media interest is now very high. --Pmunited (talk) 17:32, 6 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, Sandstein 17:19, 12 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anne Carly Abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After research, she fails WP:CREATIVE. SarahStierch (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 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 talkabout my edits? 11:02, 31 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pretty much a bibliography, sans sourcing. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to indicate that this meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability offered. --DGaw (talk) 01:42, 16 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vedette (showgirl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We already have an article on this topic: showgirl. Note how the vast majority of the content of this article is cribbed directly from showgirl. Merging is unnecessary due to the lack of original content, and redirecting is unnecessary because of the unliklihood of the search term being used with the parenthetical. I have updated vedette (disambiguation) to include a link to showgirl. Powers T 16:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 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 talkabout my edits? 11:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, noting that much of the text appears already at vedette. As to the underlying concept, I suspect it might support an article; at least in American English showgirl suggests a supporting player in a Vegas style cabaret show. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 31 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. Decision about whether to merge and where to merge can take place on the article's talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vega-Bray Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN. It is a commercial "recreational" observatory that now operates under a different name. It has no cites in the NASA/SAO ADS. It has no large (gt. ~ 0.8 m) telescopes. The text reads like advert. Thetrick (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has gotten spammy over the 7 years since I created it. Probably should just be redirected to San Pedro Valley Observatory... I'll try to create a page there.--Rayc (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it should be purged entirely. V-B never had any notability. --Thetrick (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Benson, Arizona then trim per WP:WEIGHT. It may also be worthwhile building a List of public observatories and merging a brief summary there. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of mentioning a defunct 3-4 room B&B? V-B had no influence on the body of astronomical knowledge, and it never garnered any more than PR-style mentions in newspapers. And it's not even in Benson - it's about 2 miles outside the built-up area and outside the city limits AFAICT. --Thetrick (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The influence on the body of astronomical knowledge is irrelevant, as the same can be said of any planetarium and most public observatories. Its in the interest of science as a whole to have an educated and knowledgeable populace, and public observatories contribute to that goal. Placing it outside the city limits is entirely appropriate for an observatory. Two miles makes it readily accessible from that locale. Ergo, my preference remains a merge. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of mentioning a defunct 3-4 room B&B? V-B had no influence on the body of astronomical knowledge, and it never garnered any more than PR-style mentions in newspapers. And it's not even in Benson - it's about 2 miles outside the built-up area and outside the city limits AFAICT. --Thetrick (talk) 21:20, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 14:27, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies WP:ORG. If it is spammy, then editing rather than deletion is needed. Notability does not require that a subject be still doing business at all, and it does not require that an observatory have a telescope of some specified size, and being "recreational" is not a bar. Coverage at Los Angeles Times (March 5, 2000), Washington Post (June 28, 1998), San Diego Union (Nov 10, 2002), Arizona Daily Star (April 26, 1998), Benson News-Sun (June 15, 2007)], Hartford Courant (Dec 29, 2002), Macon Telegraph (May 16, 1999), Scopereviews,com and more. Not showing up in Google News archive, but viewable through Proquest (subscription) are "View skies, nothing but new skies: Runice, Jacky. Daily Herald [Arlington Heights, Ill] 28 Oct 2007: 5.," (112 words about this inn and observatory), "The Duchins do a deal," The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 11 July 2003: G.4. which has a paragraph about this subject, and says this is "one of the world's largest amateur astronomical observatories." Edison (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge some of the non-spammy content to San Pedro Valley Observatory, which is now the name of the facility. It's notable per Edison; also see results at GBooks[41] showing that this place was a legitimately notable tourist attraction, as well as receiving coverage in sources like the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine and Forbes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 31 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. No consensus to delete, but also no demonstration of notability.Kubigula (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dilshad Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be non-notable--if anything, the article is a listing of things found there, a listing that smacks of promotion. Google News provides nothing but mentions as a locale, and Google Books provides nothing but hits for the place as part of business and other addresses. Article has been tagged for an eternity. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - When I do a google search I come up with an officially designated district of New Delhi,[42] even with two of its own Delhi Metro stations. [43] --Oakshade (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not denying it exists. But there are other places shown on those maps--do their occurrence then mean they are notable by our standards? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 31 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 talkabout my edits? 14:25, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Failure to have other articles on equally notable places in en.wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. En.wikipedia is notoriously deficient in India topics, particularly geographic. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly true, and WP:BIAS is a very real problem. The best way to solve that however is to help us out by finding proper sourcing which is harder to find for those who don't speak the language (like me). The arguments it's notable because it just is, or it's notable because we have too little India topics just doesn't hold. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider that a good counterargument to a deletion discussion based the nominator thinking an article "appears" to not be notable and has had tags for a long time. If not, show me the policy list of proper counter-arguments to "I think it doesn't look notable," and "tagged for an eternity." Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly true, and WP:BIAS is a very real problem. The best way to solve that however is to help us out by finding proper sourcing which is harder to find for those who don't speak the language (like me). The arguments it's notable because it just is, or it's notable because we have too little India topics just doesn't hold. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:14, 8 February 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. per WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- UPFOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Description of a piece of very specialised software. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Essentially an advert or user guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 1 February 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 for lack of notability, even after taking the new source into account. Deryck C. 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Imayam TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero refs. Zero ELs. There is one article in The Hindu, but other than that I've only found trivial passing mention in RSs, and few of those. Appears to fail to meet our notability requirements. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Reference added:
- Subramanian, Karthik (Mar 22, 2006). "`Imayam' TV channel to be launched". The Hindu. Retrieved January 17, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help)
- Subramanian, Karthik (Mar 22, 2006). "`Imayam' TV channel to be launched". The Hindu. Retrieved January 17, 2012.
- 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 talkabout my edits? 14:21, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The one reference is very short, consisting mostly of a rehashed press-release. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No evidence of notability provided. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nawaz Rice Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't verify the first source, but the other two are a company website and an index listing. My own search doesn't reveal anything that would enable this company to pass WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲水 10:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE , Wikipedia police must give some respect to honorable companies from small, poor countries. Nawaz Rice Engineering is the only company from Pakistan that has put "Made in Pakistan" machinery in Europe and North America. Please see the following links so you know their footprint is global and a pride for Pakistan. Please do not delete it. It has been on Wiki for over an years. http://panjiva.com/Nawaz-Rice-Engineering/1609213
, http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/nawaz-rice-engineering.html, http://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/nawaz-rice-engineering http://www.21food.com/showroom/49881/aboutus/amanat-nawaz-rice-ab,.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 (talk) 08:34, 5 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the ImportGenius links give me 404 errors, so I can't comment on them. The Panjiva and 21food links are just company listings, much as you'd find in any directory. They are totally unsuitable for demonstrating notability. Yunshui 雲水 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Cooper (voice-over artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm thinking WP:ENT applies to voice over artists. in any case he fails WP:BIO. he's not even listed on IMDB and could not find any coverage of him [44]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I feel uncomfortable deleting this article because if Cooper has narrated programmes, news bulletins etc. for the BBC World Service and numerous TV channels, he would certainly meet WP:ENT. However, on the flipside, I feel uncomfortable keeping an article cited only to a blog. I'm struggling to find reliable independent verification of Cooper's work. If someone can find sources, I'd vote 'keep'. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - fully meets the WP:ENT. Issues with sourcing are unfortunate but not enough to delete the article, on contrary it is an invitation to improve it. Deleting is easy, improving is not, so try doing that instead.--Avala (talk) 13:11, 2 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:35, 8 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No credible assertion of notability ("known for his work" appears to be untrue) and no reliable sources to indicate notability. The person exists, but existing and having a job are not the criteria by which we include people on Wikipedia. Fails basic inclusion criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the only reference sources that can be found are blog-based, then there is not sufficient reliable third-party coverage to satisfy the notability criteria for a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 08:24, 19 February 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. Most comments below agree that there are Korean-language sources supporting the notability of this game; to avoid a 3rd AfD, please go and cite those in the article soon. Deryck C. 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Special Force (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are sources in the article, but they don't suit our purposes. We've got (1) a press release about the publisher, (2) a tournament put on by the publisher, (3) a press release about a tournament merely mentioning the game, (4) an article about the sequel, which appears to be in beta testing, (5) an amateur review on a directory site, and (6) another amateur review on a directory site. Note that OnRPG appears to be affiliated with MMO Hut, which is specifically considered unreliable on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As I mentioned in the previous AfD under the name Special Force Online, this article has a history of being deleted and recreated under different names to bypass deletion review, so I'd recommend salting this name as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:03, 24 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) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:05, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's assessment of the sources. Doesn't seem to have gained much if any notability since the last AFD deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable game in Korea means reliable sources are in Korean. Search for the Korean name on Google News, and you'll get loads of hits.[45] Most of the recent ones are about the sequel, but you can search through the archives and find plenty of stuff like this from The Chosun Ilbo which suggests that it is domestically popular.[46][47] - hahnchen 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through those links, I'm still not finding anything. There are numerous press releases and a lot of financial information about the developer/publisher—including all three of your references—but no substantial information about the game itself published in reliable sources. The most we could do with this information is have an article with the text "Special Force appears to be a game popular in South Korea". Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then do that. When a game is so important that its distribution rights are discussed in the financial press, it has to be fairly notable. When the source states that Special Force has generated 3.5billion ₩ (~US$3M) in 2008(?), it's notable. Maybe that's another sentence you can add on to your proposed stub, it's better than your suggestion of deleting and then salting this. - hahnchen 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through those links, I'm still not finding anything. There are numerous press releases and a lot of financial information about the developer/publisher—including all three of your references—but no substantial information about the game itself published in reliable sources. The most we could do with this information is have an article with the text "Special Force appears to be a game popular in South Korea". Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The game seems to be virtually unknown outside of South Korea, but there it is popular enough to warrant an article, IMHO. There's people playing this game for a living, that ought to count for something, right? :) Someone who speaks Korean would be of great help finding sources here. I'm absolutely positive that there are more than enough. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm from Korea and I know the game personally and it should be notable. Although I can't go looking for the sources, I know there should be reliable sources out there to back this page with. Kagemasta (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a lot of people in this discussion talking about how there must be reliable Korean sources on this game, yet none have been found. Being from Korea, you're probably better equipped than most of us to find sources that will help keep this article. When you have the time is it possible for you to find something that will help support the claims of many in here? -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just searched "스페셜포스" on Google and saw a TON of articles on that game. Apparently this game is played in pro-leagues and as we know Korea is known to be one of the countries that takes gaming seriously. This article should be kept but maybe more in detail on bottom of current results of professional gaming scene. Jwjkim (talk) 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment it would be very helpful if someone who speaks Korean does the above google search, evaluates the sources, and creates proper references from it. Right now we have the situation where we are asking for, say, two specific examples of independent reliable sources, and responses are 'when I google it I can find tons of them!'. Though I appreciate the preliminary work, it would be nice if someone could help the non-koreans out. I for one am not equipped to properly asses the google results into what is an independent reliable source, and what's not, so I can't do it myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:03, 8 February 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. Treating this as an expired PROD. In case things do still come up, or someone saves the day by finding an alternative name, and sources are easier to find, undeletion is available at WP:REFUND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sathon – Khlong Toei Express Boat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Is not mentioned in either the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning's or the Marine Department's websites. In fact, I couldn't find any online evidence of its existence, in Thai or English (apart from Wikipedia article mirrors & forks). Paul_012 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I've found lots of WP:RS for express boats going NW from Sathorn. This route, however, is NE from Sathorn, and I've found very little other than a 2010 plan to expand. I wonder if there's a naming problem that's clouding this. HausTalk 17:01, 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 talkabout my edits? 02:18, 24 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 talkabout my edits? 10:37, 31 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. Sandstein 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Society for the Academic Study of Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability - apparent absence of independent sources covering this topic; the only coverage appears to be self-published sources, such as the society's webpage. --Smcg8374 05:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To verify journals, usually I use Ulrich's Periodical Directory. http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com (may not be accessible outside of a library). I will check it to see if the journal is listed. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a "Journal for the Academic Study of Magic" listed in the database at http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/title/1327330062136/505671 - Its ISSN is 1479-0750 and the publisher is Mandrake of Oxford. It is from the United Kingdom, it is published annually, and it began in 2003. The directory says "Refereed Yes" = it is peer reviewed. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But to be safe, it is better to have secondary sources, so I'll see what I can find. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I found something on Google Books:
- Anthropology News, Volume 45, Issues 1-5. American Anthropological Association, 2004. p. 48. says:
- "It is connected to the Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM), which was established in Bristol, England by Alison Butler and Dave Evans. Both the society and the journal focus on the scholarly study of magic and its history and ..."
- WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ulrich's also says that the journal is "Abstracted / Indexed" WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding these WhisperToMe. For a journal to be considered notable there must be evidence that it is considered influential in its field by third parties or that it is frequently cited (see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)). The fact that it is listed in Ulrich's does not show that the journal is considered influential or that it has ever been cited. The article that has been proposed for deletion is about the Society, rather than their journal. A single mention in what appears to be a "current events" notice in Anthropology News does not constitute 'substantial coverage' of this organisation by independent parties and hence does not meet notability guidelines. Oddly enough, even though Google books has a screenshot with a mention of the Society, when I accessed Anthropology News through my university library, I could not find any reference to the Society in this journal. Page 48 of Vol. 45 did not match the Google Books screenshot at all. A search of the journal (via Wiley Online Library) again produced no results for the Society. The Google Books reference does not appear to be a reliable source as it cannot be verified against the original source. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the report. That's strange that the book you found didn't seem to have it. Did you check the index to see if it could be on a different page? Also, Ulrichs says that it's indexed by EBSCOHost, H.W. Wilson, and OCLC. I know EBSCOHost is a major academic database. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well what do you know, I actually did find it in Volume 45, issue 2 (I had previously looked in issue 1) so the Google Books reference is valid after all. There is a short paragraph (four sentences) under "Section News" mentioning that the Journal and the Society may be of interest to scholars working in the area and providing details of how to contact them. So what we have established is that there is a very brief mention of the Society in a single journal. WP:N requires "significant coverage" over a period of time and "multiple sources are generally expected". The notability guidelines also state that directories and databases, announcements columns, and minor news stories may not actually support notability, even if they are from reliable sources. Unless there are other independent sources that discuss the Society in more detail, the coverage of the topic does not appear to be significant enough to meet notability guidelines for inclusion. --Smcg8374 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just done a search of Journal Citation reports for citations of the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic for the years 2003 to 2010. There were no matches. A Journal Citation reports Impact Factor would produce evidence of notability. Since it has no impact factor there is a lack of evidence that their journal has been cited in another journal. --Smcg8374 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a journal is not listed in JCR, that doesn't mean it doesn't get cited (GScholar and the Web of Science may give some hits). Of course, not being in the JCR most probably means that there will not be many hits. Of course, the journal may be included in other databases. In any case, whether the journal is notable or not does not seem to me to be very important for the discussion at hand, which is about the society. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ulrich's also says that the journal is "Abstracted / Indexed" WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 24 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, Stifle (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A search of GoogleScholar using the term "Society for the Academic Study of Magic" produced a total of 5 hits[48]. The first four were citations of the Society's Journal. The fifth was for a book on shamanism by Robert Wallis. A view of Dr Wallis' website[49] shows that six of his publications (all of these book reviews) were published in the Society's Journal, so I doubt if he qualifies as an independent source. A search of Web of Science[50] produced one hit that oddly enough is about financial reform and nowhere mentions the Society. --Smcg8374 (talk) 01:55, 1 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, Sandstein 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A fairly extensive search above has found very little to suggest notability, and not for want of trying. I think the efforts described above are sufficient to show, at the very least, a lack of clear notability.Tyrenon (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well put Tyrenon!--Smcg8374 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's journal is notable: it's in 245 libraries. there are 17 libraries in NYC alone that have it, according to WorldCat. It's in Wilson's Social Science Index, which is highly selective, though not as scholarly oriented as JCR. Web of Science is not the standard for relatively popular-interest oriented semi-academic journals of this sort--if anything, it makes a point out of not covering them. We could write the article focused around the journal, but it makes more sense to have it at this title DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 13 February 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) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haitai Oh! Yes Choco Cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Product with dubious notability. ZZArch talk to me 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if deletion is necessary. It's simply showing us what "Oh! Yes Choco Cake" is. With a picture, I think it would be totally worthy of staying. Take Choco Pie, for example. They are basically the same types of snacks, yet Choco Pie does not have an AfD. What do you all think? Nanakoe11 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing to be found. As a comment to Nanakoe11, the difference between this article and the Choco Pie article, is the significant coverage, especially about the export to, and meaningfull significance in North Korea. I haven't found independent reliable sources that claim the same, or equivalent coverage in a different area, about this product. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and trim back Haitai where the same info is repeated. WP is not a product directory. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:02, 8 February 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. Renaming/moving can be done through normal editorial process Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stockland Traralgon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found absolutely no coverage of this shopping mall. [51] Till I Go Home (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename: More common name is "Traralgon Shopping
CentrePlaza". Several news references:
Incidental mentions:
- Radio's shifting stars to enjoy station views in The Age
- Bean there, paid for that in Herald Sun
- A gallery of good ideas, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, August 12, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 075
- In Brief, Leader - Moonee Valley Gazette (Melbourne, Australia) - Monday, August 2, 2010, Edition: 1 - MV, Section: News, Page: 011
- Leading role in region's rebirth, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, July 29, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 065
- Our cover stars, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: ENERGISE ENTERPRISE, Page: N03
- Coastal getaway her pride and Joy, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, July 8, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 063
- QUICK PICK, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, December 2, 2008, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESS, Page: 058
- Bashed man critical - ASSAULT, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - Monday, January 17, 2011, Edition: First, Section: News, Page: 6
- AAP News: VIC:Man fights for life after assault, AAP News (Australia) - Sunday, January 16, 2011, Provided By: Financial Times Limited - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, Index Terms: Crimes ; General News ; Justice Public Order & Safety Activities, Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings exc ; Miniwarehouse ; Lessors of Real Estate ; Police Protection ; Postal Service ; Public Admin ; Real Estate ; Real Estate & Rental & Leasing ; Transportation & Warehousing, Location(s): Australia Australasia
- Property group is cashed up and itching to play - Xchange, Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) - Thursday, April 17, 2008, Author: Edited by Danny John, Edition: First, Section: Business, Page: 28
- New owner in centre swap, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - Wednesday, August 25, 2004, Author: Monique Bouma, Edition: 1, Section: News, Page: 003
- Stockland to redevelop Tooronga Village shopping centre, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, August 3, 2004, Author: Fleur Leyden, Edition: First, Section: Business, Page: 1
The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s, which suggests sources probably exist offline from that period that are not easily accessible online. The history is something brought up in a several other sources that mention the centre. There is a major problem of sources that can be used to prove WP:GNG being only available offline, and thus we're left to find sources that suggest if we went to those offline sources they would exist. The above adequately do that in my opinion. --LauraHale (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per LauraHale's results on sources, many more are highly likely to be offline and not viewable via any search site. Bidgee (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per LauraHale. Sb617 (Talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In-depth sources are pretty difficult to find for this shopping centre. However when after I created the page for Mid Valley Shopping Centre (15 kms away) I visited Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper. I intend to go there again sometime to do more research, and I'll make a note to look up more about Traralgon Shopping Centre/Plaza (actually I read the local name a lot as Traralgon Plaza, and therefore don't support a rename to Traralgon Shopping Centre). Brionnach (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I live near-ish to Traralgon and this is a pretty run-of-the-mill shopping centre, but if it meets the GNG then I see no harm in keeping it. On the issue of the title, "Traralgon Centre Plaza" is definitely the common name (though most locals just call it "the Plaza") – if the Latrobe Valley Express was online this would be very easy to prove. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - In cleaning up links to this article I found an appropriate redirect target (the artist who created the album, per WP:NSONGS), so I created the redirect. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamishegi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This album lacks substantial, multiple, non-passing coverage in RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. ●Mehran Debate● 12:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of RS.Farhikht (talk) 11:32, 6 February 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 National Register of Historic Places. Note that this requires a redirect for licensing reasons, see WP:MERGE, if any content of substance is merged. Sandstein 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Recent past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
undefined and nonconstant concept. There are articles on years, decades, and generations that fulfill time period covered in more defined and constant way. SkyMachine (++) 08:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a dictionary definition of the article title and original research at that. Maybe the "50 year rule" is notable, but the term "recent past", whilst common, doesn't form the basis for an article. Yunshui 雲水 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Fifty-year rule (not leaving a redirect, since the search term "recent past" is quite unlikely to relate to this topic). --Lambiam 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indifferent about keeping the content, but agree with move and no redirect if it's kept, per Lambiam. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Move/no redirect, but since it is all about a criterion for including in the US National Register of Historic Places, I wonder whehter it might not be better merely being merged there (without a redirect, if possible). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/no redirect to US National Register of Historic Places as suggested by Peterkingiron. The information seems much more appropriate there than as a stand-alone article. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/no redirect to US National Register of Historic Places is most logical thing to do. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:05, 8 February 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) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the UK Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the Australian Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the German Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the US Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seems like a non-notable intersection of a certain type of pop group and those groups having number-one singles. One can find a favorite group's number ones at List of UK Singles Chart number ones and the like. And unlike List of UK hit singles by footballers, there does not appear to be coverage on the topic in outside sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars --(talk) 07:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did the articles to run alongside the main article of boy bands as well as list of best selling to show popularity and trends over the decades as mentioned in the main article. The articles are meant for anyone interested in which songs reached number one in the four countries focussed in the article and as a complete #1 discography per country. Musicality123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicality123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. In addition, I find the term "boy band" misleading, after all most pop bands are young, and a fair percentage are all-male, so it becomes a judgement call i.e. failing WP:OR whether a specific band should be included. Why shouldn't, just from the top of my head, the following boy bands be included, The Lettermen, The Rhythm Boys, The Bachelors, The Beatles? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Overly trivial intersection. Inherently OR per Richhoncho since "boy band" is a bit subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Having singles reach #1 does not notable in and of itself. cf. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:INHERITEDCurb Chain (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the "boy band" term introduces problems for these lists which Richhoncho put nicely above; and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right, as far as I can tell, that the topic of these lists, unlike the "hit singles by footballers" example, lacks significant coverage. Gongshow Talk 09:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shivdeep waman lande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS; WP:BIO ZZArch talk to me 07:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure! Delete -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article isn't, and based on the sources given can't be, written in a neutral point of view. While it potentially meets the general notability guidelines it is clear that these sources refer to one event which isn't sufficient. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Shivdeep Waman Lande, the subject is notable and has been covered by WP:RS multiple times (and already has an article). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are both exactly the same article under two different titles. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. So if there is anything salvageable from this article, it can be merged with the more appropriate one. Otherwise, simply redirect. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article qualifies for a speedy delete under WP:CSD#A10. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are both exactly the same article under two different titles. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is consensus that the topic is notable but that the current content is poor. There is no consensus about whether this means that it should be deleted or kept until a full rewrite occurs. Sandstein 19:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sectarian violence among Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What exactly is the point of this article? After removing the unref'd material, we have two refs, the Beeb and the Post. This is not OK for such a huge and contentious subject which would require a lot scholarly work to be any kind of useful article. Better no article than this. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Theres a similar article with Sectarian violence among Christians. This one should be expanded rather than deleted. Pass a Method talk 09:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sectarian violence among Christians is not "similar" as looking at the two articles shows, notwithstanding that you probably wrote this article to make that WP:POINT. [[Sectarian violence among Christians] is a proper article. This isn't, and if we're going to address such a contentious subject it'd best be approached from a scholarly-historical point of view and not by cherry-picking news headlines. Let's start over. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy. It's obviously a topic, but Herostratus is right that it would need to be written using scholarly sources, not news sources. Until it's written with appropriate sources, it's unsuitable for mainspace (and there's nothing there worth keeping right now - WP:TNT), but since the topic is notable, I see no reason not to let the creator have it and keep working on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - obviously a legitimate topic for an article. Yes, there's virtually no content here at the moment, but I don't see the need to 'blow it up and start again' when this article could simply be improved instead. At the very least, instead of deletion this article could be redirected to Sectarian violence#Among Muslims, which contains more material on the subject. We do have existing articles on similar subjects at Shi'a–Sunni relations and Persecution of minority Muslim groups, but I'd recommend against a merge as neither of those are quite the same thing. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and possibly userfy, if there is a serious editor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or improve - this article is not ready to be in the main space yet and can be misleading. Reading the part about Bahrain; it says nothing about any sectarian violence, so why mention it in the first place? Bahraini Activist Talk to me 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as viable topic. This one should be expanded rather than deleted. Remember, all articles are work-in-progress, some more than others. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:13, 8 February 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. Withdrawn too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aural Psynapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable single not fulfilling WP:NMUSIC or the WP:GNG. A412 (Talk * C) 06:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The song charted in Canada [52] (it apparently peaked at 38, but I can not locate a WP:RS for it), so per WP:NSONGS, this is "probably notable". As far as significant coverage, these two articles [53][54] are the best I can find. Gongshow Talk 18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gongshow, passes WP:NSONGS. Cavarrone (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Strange, if you go to his artist profile on Billboard, then to the song, it says it "never charted". I guess that's what led me off initially. A412 (Talk * C) 19:02, 5 February 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. Sandstein 10:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Homer Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is our local library. It's quite nice for a small town library, and their sales of older books have fattened my collection of hard sci-fi immensely. In short, I like this library and everything it stands for. However, I think it is a bit silly to have a Wikipedia article on it. It's a small town library, and not terribly notable. The references in place are mostly from the local papers. While I would certainly consider them both reliable sources being reported on by them is not exactly a sign of notability in the sense of general notability in an encyclopedia. I've been interviewed by our two local papers a total of three times, and trust me, I'm not anybody of note. The remainder of the sources are a USEPA page which seems to be a dead link, and a link to some sort of corporate website, also a dead link. Like I said, it is a very nice facility for such a small town, but ultimately that is all it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Beeblebrox, I think you underrate the value of the Homer library. Pretty much every library in Alaska with the exceptions of Anchorage and Fairbanks' libraries might be considered small libraries by Outside standards. Being the third LEED building in the state is quite significant, I'd say, and it has served as an example and standard for other buildings . Quite a few articles on Alaska institutions and personages get nominated for deletion due to their lack of notability, supposedly, but in a small state a small institution has much more proportionate influence. It sounds to me like the real problem here is that the links are outdated and the page needs cleanup. That's a different matter than needing deletion. I vote for keeping it. Deirdre (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't imagine how you could think I underrate the value of the library when I made it abundantly clear that I value it very much. What I doubt is its general notability. Even if the links were updated they are not really any good as far as notability, and the local paper isn't either. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it has served as an example for other projects? What were those other projects? Where is the coverage which states the Homer library was their inspiration? How does being the third building to meet a particular standard confer automatic notability? I don't see any backing for any of those positions, they seem rather to be your opions. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you can supply evidence to back your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I'm somewhat rehashing my argument from the last deletion discussion. Working on updating/reorganization of Portal:Alaska and WP:ALASKA. This gives me too much information on what exists and what doesn't and what might need to exist at some point. The approach to creating articles used thus far and its organic nature reveals huge gaps. I bet there'll be an article on Ahmaogak Sweeney (currently enjoying a buzz in the media for his role in Big Miracle) before there's articles on any number of actually notable Iñupiaq (like his grandmother, perchance?). The public libraries of both Anchorage and Juneau are lacking articles. In these cases, notability exists both due to the history of the establishment and the architecture of the buildings. Compare with articles such as this, Haines Borough Public Library and John Trigg Ester Library, whose comparative notability is questionable. The George C. Thomas Memorial Library can claim substantial independent notability, so I won't complain about this community having two separate articles on its public libraries. People who don't know any better will run with what you give them, but only what you give them. Also, perhaps "Being the third LEED building in the state is quite significant, I'd say" requires addditional explanation, because it sounds to me like you're fetching for a reason.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:56, 1 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, Sandstein 08:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The architect firm apparently got a couple of awards for the building: 2007 Honor Award • AIA Alaska Chapter, 2007 Member's Choice Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention, 2007 Best Non-Residential Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention, 2007 Judge's Choice: Community Beautification Award • Homer Chamber of Commerce, 2006 People's Choice Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention.[55] / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some references and the awards. Although the library is small it has gotten quite a bit of attention due to its new building and LEED certification. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Small libraries are not usually notable, but the LEED status (with the relevant references) make it so. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References meet WP:GNG significant coverage in reliable sources. Per criteria in WP:NONPROFIT, this small organization has received recognition in the form of state and national-level prizes. Djembayz (talk) 02:34, 12 February 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruno Benetton Free Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band; minimal local press coverage only, supported by a couple blog references and YouTube links. Hairhorn (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's hard for me to judge how well the sources conform to WP:RS, but it seems reasonable. this looks like a solid RS, and provides significant coverage. this is slightly shorter, but also an independent reliable source. It looks like both of these are national outlets, so we can't really call that local press. I can't really find if Slovakia has an albums chart, so I have no means to check if the album charted. Google translate hasn't been really helpful in translating this, which claims they either receive, or don't receive radio airtime. Some slovak translation would be nice here, though even without the airtime, I think we're scraping by the good side of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:25, 8 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:31, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:32, 15 February 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. as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hameeduddin Ahmed Al-Mashriqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Problems meeting WP:GNG. One of a series of articles edited by a relative & IPs from his location, who is also the source of the obituaries scattered on the web in various arcane publications. Maybe there is something offline, but I can find nothing of note otherwise. Relative is Nasim Yousaf. Sitush (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 1 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:08, 8 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there's no evidence that any of this is true. Were this article newer, it would be subject to a BLPPROD, and that alone is reason for deleting here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yasi (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No surprise that I nosi references for a game "developed by independent enthusiasts" for a defunct console. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I have to agree with Clarity here. Can't find the particular game in any notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.68.243 (talk) 13:07, 31 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). — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like an unofficial, homebrew game that came out 10 years ago for an obscure, unsuccessful system that went out of production almost 20 years before that. No claims to notability, and I don't see it developing for the reasons I stated above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 1 February 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, because the only editor who has added content here blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jurabek Labaratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Identical article (see original version) by same SPA has twice previously been deleted as a copyright violation. Somehow, what applied the last two times didn't this time.
Following the admin's lead, I removed the copyright violations individually—which left virtually nothing. No sources were given, and the only mentions of this company I found (outside of their own site) were to tangential press releases (example).
The subject's sole bid for notability is the claim that it's "one of the largest medicine manufacturer and retailer headquartered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan." While Tashkent is a large city, it isn't known for its manufacturing prowess or its pharmaceutical/healthcare R&D sector. Consequently, "one of the largest" could mean anything at all—assuming that it's even true. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shortly after this AFD was created, the original editor blanked the page. Should this be changed to a {{db-g7}}? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article is worth having, all this nominating for deletion has become harrassment. I see now someone has removed the references section as well. The company is a prominent company in its country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So if an editor creates an article which is then deleted as a copyvio, and the editor then re-creates an exact duplicate of the article, it shouldn't be put up for deletion as that would be harassment? Interesting POV, but not one I agree with. And if you have sources that say that this is a prominent company in Uzbekistan, please consider adding them to the article! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nu electro metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A user-created "phantom music genre" which has no citations for verification and is completely built on the article creator's imagination and not on any referenced fact. Mr Pyles (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:MADEUP/WP:NEO. No sources to be found; yet another totally fictitious metal genre. 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as PROD nominator. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 1 February 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 CWF Mid-Atlantic. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CWF Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship Title history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable high school wrestling title Guerillero | My Talk 04:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think its high school, since CWF Mid-Atlantic appears to be a wrestling organization syndicated to UPN, according to the wiki article there. However, this title history is unreferenced, so it either needs to be or needs to go. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not convinced that the title history for an independent wrestling promotion is notable. Similar treatment may need to be given to CWF Mid-Atlantic Tv Title History. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nomination is inaccurate. As pointed out by Syrthiss, this title belongs to CWF Mid-Atlantic, a multi-state professional wrestling promotion. Given that the parent article is fully referenced and that this article is only 2 days old, I believe this nomination was premature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:27, 1 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to CWF Mid-Atlantic This article doesn't seem to merit being a separate article, but I see no reason the information should be deleted when it can be kept in a place where people are most likely to look for it. Astudent0 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - the article does have sources which prove what it says is accurate and the info would really make the CWF Mid-Atlantic article too lengthy if merged - it seems like a reasonable offshoot per WP:SPLIT (the two articles combined would be around 60k in size). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:05, 8 February 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) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apache Ness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 106 Google News entries, in which he's defined as a "legend of reggae" or even "a living legend" (see here). Enough for me to substain a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 00:30, 7 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This seems to be a straight translation from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm of the view that Wikipedia is two things — a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium. The former needs tight inclusion guidelines and the latter benefits from comprehensiveness and less obsession with so-called "reliable sources." Deletion nominations should be looked at from the perspective of the Rule of Reason — 1. Is the information accurate? 2. Is the encyclopedia better off with the piece or without it? In this case: yes and keep. In the anticipation that such thinking will offend the rules-loving types who proliferate at WP, I point out that IAR is a policy and Notability Guidelines are just that. (And no, don't waste your time pointing me to an opinion essay describing how the number 4 is actually > 5, a policy is higher level WP doctrine than a guideline.) In short this argument in favor of using a rule of reason is policy-based... That said, this article is a mess and somebody needs to format it correctly... Carrite (talk) 18:53, 8 February 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Brave 10 Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a tad overkill since only one episode has been shown Guerillero | My Talk 04:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So merge and redirect to Brave 10, and then break it out again when size concerns dictate. This shouldn't have been an AFD issue. Can we speedy close this per my recommendation, Guerillero? postdlf (talk) 16:16, 31 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Faith-head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dicdef. I would say "transwiki to Wiktionary" but I'm almost certain that Wiktionary wouldn't take it with these refs which are pretty sketchy. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not The Insult Dictionary. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per wp:notdic --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:14, 5 February 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) →Στc. 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Man-made law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dicdef at best. The only ref is to a blog post, the main thrust of which is that a man in Ireland named John Hill is in fact Jesus Christ.... um not a good ref. Not to say that phrase has never been spoken, but if there was to be article on this subject (doubtful, but you never know) starting from zero would be better than starting from here. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this word has been popularized especially recently by several islamic extremist groups, and less commonly by extremists from other religions. I have added more references anyway. Pass a Method talk 09:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What potential do you see it as having beyond a mere definition of the term? And would it actually be part of a larger topic, something like Islamic criticism of secular law, rather than a distinct concept? postdlf (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And Pass a Method, you haven't added more refs. Because I deleted them. Because they are raw Google Books URLs which are useless as refs because, among other problems, they provide no information if one can't follow the link (e.g. when offline or using a printed copy or other reasons). You have been counseled repeatedly by myself and others on this, and are apparently unable or unwilling to change. For another editor I'd be willing to fix them instead, but I'm not your cleanup boy; I've told you before that I'll delete on sight any more raw Google Books URLs that you post as refs and have done so. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Herostratus, You might need to see an optician because those were not raw URL links and you've been reverted.
- @Postdlf, The title "Islamic criticism of secular law" would be incorrect because the term man-made law has also used by christian evangelists, as noted in two references. It could be expanded to include a history section of people or organizations who have used the term. Pass a Method talk 20:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and anything else? Because with a definition and a list of uses, you just have a WP:DICDEF, not an article. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering this phrase has been used by many notable organizations such as Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Muslims Against Crusades etc. (and i havent found it in an ordinary dictionary) i think this does not fall under WP:DICDEF. I also dont think wikipedia has rules on a minimum number of words if im correct, so i dont think it needs to necessarily have a dozen paragraphs or something. Pass a Method talk 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an issue of length, it's an issue of the kind of information. Unless you can say something more than that, it does fall under WP:DICDEF. Please read that page thoroughly and reconsider. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering this phrase has been used by many notable organizations such as Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Muslims Against Crusades etc. (and i havent found it in an ordinary dictionary) i think this does not fall under WP:DICDEF. I also dont think wikipedia has rules on a minimum number of words if im correct, so i dont think it needs to necessarily have a dozen paragraphs or something. Pass a Method talk 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and anything else? Because with a definition and a list of uses, you just have a WP:DICDEF, not an article. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And Pass a Method, you haven't added more refs. Because I deleted them. Because they are raw Google Books URLs which are useless as refs because, among other problems, they provide no information if one can't follow the link (e.g. when offline or using a printed copy or other reasons). You have been counseled repeatedly by myself and others on this, and are apparently unable or unwilling to change. For another editor I'd be willing to fix them instead, but I'm not your cleanup boy; I've told you before that I'll delete on sight any more raw Google Books URLs that you post as refs and have done so. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What potential do you see it as having beyond a mere definition of the term? And would it actually be part of a larger topic, something like Islamic criticism of secular law, rather than a distinct concept? postdlf (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per wp:dicdef. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:DICDEF, unless something more than a basic definition and list of uses can be shown, though I think at best this is part of a larger topic on religious views on secular law rather than a discrete concept or term of art. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral now on current version after substantial expansion. I have a concern that it might be WP:SYNTH at present, and it may belong under positive law instead, but I'll leave that to others to work out or argue over. postdlf (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. "Man-made law" is an alternative name for what Thomas Aquinas called lex humana. It is a concept in natural law theory, and, if it is not an article, should be redirected to an article on that subject, probably Positive law. James500 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Positive law. I'm not an expert on legal philosophy, but those articles seem to be different names for the same concept, both contrasted with natural law. Robofish (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per above. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this is an OR def, not an enc. article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete plausible redirects for that reason. James500 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Struck because Ism schism has changed his rationale. James500 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Ok. As this is an OR article, and not an enc. article, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We include redirects from plausible misnomers, so that probably doesn't matter. James500 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. As this is an OR article, and not an enc. article, it should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Robofish, rather than delete, because this is a plausible redirect to positive law. But it does not stand alone as an article. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 6 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, Sandstein 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist comment: Relisted because the article has been substantially changed after February 7. Sandstein 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whilst there may be scope for merger it is not straightforward, and in the context of this AfD discussion the content of the article as it presently stands should be kept. As pointed out above, the term is a common and appropriate expression in English (eg from lex humana in Aquinas) of a very important concept in the history of political philosophy (or philosophy or theory of jurisprudence as you prefer). It can be alternatively named positive law, but as the Positive law article points out that term is used in several different senses, so merging what we have here into that short article would not be helpful without a recasting and expansion to give those different meanings due weight. Personally I would be happier with it as a stand alone article. --AJHingston (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. I think the article has been improved significantly since my last comments. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: it has really advanced since the nomination, and it seems that keeping it would now be in order. Herostratus (talk)
- Keep. The article has improved. It appears that man-made law and positive law are not co-terminus, so a merger is not appropriate. James500 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a well-referenced article on a notable philosophical concept (lex humana), per AJHingston. -- 202.124.72.98 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 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. Wow, what a mess this AFD is. I want to assure everyone that I did read every last word here, that I gave appropriate weight to arguments not based on WP policy, and that it is as obvious to me as it is to everyone else that there was quite a bit of bad behavior here, including socking and canvassing. That being said, it appears that what was at one point a marginal case at best has nudged just over the top of the bar for notability. I am as loath as anyone to take any action that would seem to reward the various bad behaviors involved here, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bahram Nouraei (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This rapper exists, but lacks sufficient substantial RS coverage. Article created by an apparent single-purpose account. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - no sign of notability, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs some work, but two sources even if in Farsi, makes it multiple, and since they cover him in depth, non-trivial, so keep, weak keep, but keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Spada's comments below as to them not being RSs ... any thoughts on that? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I speak Farsi too, sources cant pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Low validity sources --Choqa zanbil (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I'm working on an article about Bahram Nouraei which was commissioned by a major international publication. Within a few weeks Bahram will have an important English language reference.jigsawnovicht (talk) 6:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Jigsawnovich has been identified as a sockmaster of BacheMosbat, and posted this at iranian.com, vis-a-vis the current AfD. Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef----Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jigsaw. Welcome back to the project. That would be a good time for you (or any of us) to re-write or add to the article (which you can have userfied, if it is deleted), with substantial RS refs. But we don't generally to my knowledge treat as notable subjects or wp articles on the basis of editors having been commissioned to write such articles in the future. (Others are welcome to correct me if I am wrong on this point). Is that the sole rationale underlying your !vote?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for welcoming me, Epeefleche. The article about Bahram Nouraei was commissioned because the editor recognizes and acknowldeges Bahram's importance and influence as an artist. I have followed Bahram's work for nearly three years. I didn't write about him before out of fear of triggering more persecution. Rappers in Iran don't have it easy, you know. And Ettala'at keep close tabs on the internet, including Wikipedia.jigsawnovicht (talk) 6:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jisaw. I believe you may have inadvertently !voted twice above. You may wish to cross one of the !votes out (while keeping the text, as I expect you meant to title it "Comment"), and indent it below my comment, which it responds to. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your suggestion, Epeefleche. I'm still acclimating to HTML and Wikipedia protocol. I'm sleep deprived. Working on the Bahram article for publication was very intense. His life is really interesting.jigsawnovicht (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One thing has to be understood. In Iran due to limitations on certain "western" articles like music, sources might be rare to come by but these authors and figures often have a vast enough following to merit Wikipedia entries. That plus the fact that he has multiple sources already in presence makes it a keeper. I have no problem with this bloke having his page at all. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Often having a vast enough following" is not what leads to a finding of notability on wp. Rather, the subject must meet wp's notability standards. Many of these authors and figures in Iran do -- see, for example, those reflected in Category:Iranian singers; this specific rapper does not seem to have the requisite substantial coverage in RSs, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair to the doctor's point, singers are not always deemed "west-struck" like rappers are. Bahram's "Letter to the President" is cited in Laudan Nooshin's excellent "Hip Hop Tehran"—See Iranian_hip_hop#Further_reading. My lack of Farsi, the multitudinous variations of transliterations of Farsi into English, and the name changes and different name forms of this rapper discourage me from searching, but i would not be quick to delete. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also would not be quick to delete. However, given the absence of verifiable, substantial RS support for his notability (having looked for it), I believe a slow deletion is in order. The problem with the above !vote, and the reason it should not be weighed strongly in the close here, is that it is not wp-policy-based.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. I view his comments as a mix of informed comment and the important essay WP:BIAS. Guidelines like WP:MUSIC try to give likely indicators of notability based on western typicality. The point that sources are harder to come by here is well made. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We try harder to overcome any bias. But we don't suspend our notability guidelines, however. Or imagine -- without verifiability, a core policy being met -- that multiple substantial RS coverage exists in the absences of verifiable evidence of it. We still require that our verifiability policy and our notability guideline be met. Any !votes here that suggest otherwise aren't based in policy, IMHO. And of course an essay is just the view of one or more editors, and is not akin to a wp guideline or policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability, a core policy, concerns the contents of an article. Notability, the guideline, is a property of the subject. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:38, 29 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this article has been relisted, I'm adding this as a new comment below the above notice as instructed. I just added to the Bahram Nouraei (rapper) article this excellent quote from London-based journalist Cyrus Sharad, who wrote IN ENGLISH that, "Against such a repressive backdrop it was perhaps inevitable that Iranian hip hop would find an audience...kids...dutifully memorising and repeating the sentiments of lyricists such as Bahram, Pishro, Erfan (Erfan Hajrasuliha), and Zedbazi with the same reverence that their elders once recited the slogans of the Iranian Revolution." This is part of the reason that Bahram was arrested and persecuted. Cyrus Sharad should be regarded as a serious journalist. His website shows that his articles have been published by Ambit / BA High Life / BBC Online / FT / Hotshoe / Huck / Iran News / Knowledge / Little White Lies / Mint / Modart / Navidson Record / New Statesman / Observer / Sight & Sound / Stella / Stool Pigeon / Sunday Times / Telegraph / Think Quarterly / Time Out / Transworld Snowboarding.jigsawnovicht (talk) 9:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I struckout your vote here because you already voted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 28 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 talkabout my edits? 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though Sharad is a respectable journalist, the above is in the nature of a passing mention. However, with this, the cite i mention above (as 86.44...), and some of the article cites such as that of Mashkouri, a freelancer who writes for iranian.com and used to edit zirzamin.se, it seems to me broadly incontestable that this is a notable act. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)— 86.44.38.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- But see the comments by Farhikht, etc., re the non-RS nature of the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see them but they're just arguments by assertion... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Supported by the wp policy WP:SELFPUBLISH. Which states in part "self-published media, such as ... personal websites, ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources.... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. ...Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It takes no farsi for that interpretation... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the evidence that iranian.com has been used by Jigsawnovich to solicit !votes at wp AfDs such as -- and in fact including! -- this one, it is now beyond cavil that the site is not one wp should treat as a reliable source.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a brief (one sentence) mention in "The Music of the Children of Revolution: The state of music and emergence of the underground music in the Islamic Republic of Iran" [56] Sanam Zahir, The University of Arizona. Near Eastern Studies. So he keeps showing up in overviews of all underground music, here, or of all iranian hip hop, in Nooshin above. Has anyone checked R.C. Elling's "Zirzamin: Hip-Hop i den Islamiske Republik"? Or Sholeh Johnston? Have our Persian colleagues checked Haft Sang and anthropology.ir for all instances of "Bahram"? And so on. He is extremely difficult to search for, in a field where there is good reason for sources to be scarce, and where editors have little expertise, and yet we have quite a lot indicating notability. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources provided do not indicate that this person meets WP:N or WP:MUSIC. For the Farsi sources I am trusting User:Spada2's claim that the Farsi sources do not indicate notability because that user is quite experienced and seems to know Wikipedia policy well. This artist is mentioned in some places in English but not in a way that indicates notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Neither of the two sources (nassir-mashkouri.com & beshkan.co.uk) are reliable. Noted that both the articles have been written by same person (Nassir Mashkouri).Farhikht (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sokout.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The AfD for this singer's album "Sokout" was just closed as a Delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My four page feature article about Bahram will be published on February 5, 2012, and is expected to be on newsstands by February 7th. The article is in English, and will be published by an internationally recognized magazine. The article mentions Bahram's Sokout album.--Jigsawnovich (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations. But see WP:CRYSTAL.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In June 2009 the BBC (British Broadcasting Corperation) broadcast segments of the "Ye Mosht Sarbaz" video in which Bahram Nouraei and his former producer, Atour, appear as part of an English language segment during which Hichkas was interviewed by a BBC correspondent.--Jigsawnovich (talk) 1:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Having a video, in which one appeared, be included in a broadcast segment does not make one notable. Many, many non-notable people appear in segments of broadcasts on television.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Footage of Bahram Nouraei performing was broadcast by the BBC. And it would be premature to delete this article before we find out whether in fact the feature article about Bahram Nouraei, in a magazine that meets the Wikipedia guidelines for RS, is indeed published within another week as claimed by a commenter above.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BacheMosbat talk(talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; Sock Block: BacheMosbat has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet of Jigsawnovich.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:51 am, Today (UTC−5)
- Delete does not pass N --Guerillero | My Talk 04:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Bahram is a WP:N WP:COMPOSER . He has credit for writing lyrics for a notable composition. Bahram's lyrics to Namei be Raees Jomhoor (Letter to the President) are famously, sharply critical of President Ahmadinejad--unusually risky lyrics in that authoritarian country. --Jigsawnovich (talk) 5:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Namei be Raees Jomhoor is a notable composition, as wp uses the term "notable".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is some evidence. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I totally verified the article and its sources. At the first glance it seems he's roughly a notable person. But when I saw the sources, my point was changed. I think it's good to consider the references here:
- [57] & [58] are two facebook-like pages and absolutely they're not reliable.
- [59] is the Persian personal website of "Nassir Mashkouri" who is not a notable person himself. This is like a weblog, and notwithstanding reviewing Bahram, it's not notable enough to use as a reliable source.
- [60] This one is an interview with another Iranian rapper, Hichkas. And through the interview, we can see this sentence "What couldn’t have been predicted was the degree to which kids would take those artists to heart, dutifully memorising and repeating the sentiments of lyricists such as Bahram, Pishro, Erfan and Zedbazi with the same reverence that their elders once recited the slogans of the Iranian Revolution." which just have named Bahram along some others, we can not extract anything relating to WP:N from this sentence, so this reference is invalid too.
- This is like the same above in video format.
- This website has the same situation of the previous link and its writer is نصیر مشکوری (Nassir Mashkouri), who, I said above, is an unknown person and wrote a review about Bahram.
- Altogether, this is not a notable person according to Wikipedia policy. ●Mehran Debate● 08:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without accepting your analysis, to only analyze sources currently in the article is a failure of WP:N. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor, who understands Farsi, has done us the service of sharing his analysis of the refs, which have been relied on in some of the !keep rationales. I'm not certain why one would accuse him of a "failure". He has done precisely the correct thing, and we should all thank him for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite simple epee. Notability isn't a property of an article, in any version. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mashkouri is mentioned at least six times in The Music of the Children of Revolution and at least once in "Hip Hop Tehran". A google books search for "zirzamin.se", which i recall reading he used to edit, and in which his Bahram review also appeared, returns 5 results, one of them Young and Defiant in Tehran, University of Pennsylvania Press, again citing "the editor" (probably Mashkouri; the preview does not extend to the notes). Perhaps Persian isn't everything when it comes to evaluating sources. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we never rely on Google results in AfD. I'll be oppose of deleting the article if only I see it's notable. Your statements is not acceptable about Mashkouri, the Persian reference used in the article is obviously unreliable, you can ask it in WP:RSN to be sure. Wikipedia policies/guidelines are clear enough, please show us how did you deduce that he's notable? (Under which criteria?) ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mehran. I'm referring to specific sources, but also telling you how to see them and others. I accept that you would oppose deletion if you agreed that he was notable. I must reply to your question, which I thank you for, at some length.
- Please review the video at the bottom of this page[61], which is from VOA. (Epee, this is perhaps instructive for non-farsi peeps also.) Mashkouri appears as an expert on Persian hip hop; he is introduced at 13:33. At 18:15 they discuss zirzamin.se. At 19:50 Bahram appears. At 25:30 is Erfan + Bahram's "Ino BeFahm". Mashkouri's segment ends at 43:06.
- In addition to VOA, The Music of the Children of Revolution, "Hip Hop Tehran", etc. as detailed above, Mashkouri is relied upon in Sholeh Johnston's paper "Persian Rap" for the Journal of Persianate Studies Volume 1, Number 1, 2008. (You can verify this by searching his name on Google Scholar).
- So, I deduce that Bahram is notable in the following wise:
- 1a) Mashkouri is an expert in the field (I view this as undisputable) and his review is therefore acceptable as an RS per WP:SELFPUBLISH
- 1b) His review was also published in zirzamin.se which is so widely cited in high-quality sources (i'll give specific sources on request, or come back to it later) that it is at least approaching an RS.
- Perhaps the VOA footage qualifies as significant coverage of Bahram (I can't really judge) in which case WP:BAND 1, is already met. This is basically the GNG which is all i really care about when it comes to notability.
- 2) I view the citation of Bahram's address to Ahmadinejad "Letter to the President" in Nooshin's scholarly overview of all Persian hip hop ("Hip Hop Tehran", Migrating Music, ed. Toynbee, Dueck, Routledge, 2011)—in which Nooshin links the track to Tupac's track of the same name and uses it to suggest the influence of the Western gangsta rap paradigm—as significant. Again this means criteria 1 is met.
- 3)There are other non-trivial but non-lengthy mentions in RSs, and indications of notability such as the Danish(?) TV footage below.
- 4) WP:BIAS is an excellent reason not to demand a Rolling Stone cover story in this case.
- 4b) There are good reasons further sources are hard to come by, including the disapproval of Iranian authorities, named potential sources going unchecked, the lack of expertise of us as editors to know of others, and "Bahram", this rapper's WP:COMMONNAME, being a zooastrian god, six ancient kings, the Persian for Mars, and a common name. :) 86.44.40.73 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you my friend about your answers you gave. I try to answer step by step:
- So you want to prove that Mashkouri is a notable person and then deduce Bahram could be notable too, it's not a correct way to show the notability of a person.
- I don't accept your reasons about Mashkouri's notability (You can create an article for him if you think he's notable, but it certainly will be deleted)
- even if we suppose Mashkouri is notable, nothing will be changed, it would be a kind of invalid criteria.
- With ignoring Mashkouri's notability, the reference used in article ([62]) never can be reliable. Zirzamin.se has the same condition (It's a little promotional and it's like much more like a weblog than a reliable source).
- It's not good to refer to video resources as a RS to show notability. Before using any videos, we should can find "published" sources. In your way, you a little approached to WP:NOR. Contents should be clear enough to deduce them anything we want, not like this case, we have to discuss a long page about them just to show that someone could be notable or not! ●Mehran Debate● 12:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're completely mistaken on pretty much all counts. In short:
- VOA "published" its report -- there's no distinction between this report and those in newspapers . It's a WP:RS.
- See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Either he is an expert in the field or not.
- You have ignored everything else, and you misunderstand almost every policy and guideline you refer to. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we never rely on Google results in AfD. I'll be oppose of deleting the article if only I see it's notable. Your statements is not acceptable about Mashkouri, the Persian reference used in the article is obviously unreliable, you can ask it in WP:RSN to be sure. Wikipedia policies/guidelines are clear enough, please show us how did you deduce that he's notable? (Under which criteria?) ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mashkouri is mentioned at least six times in The Music of the Children of Revolution and at least once in "Hip Hop Tehran". A google books search for "zirzamin.se", which i recall reading he used to edit, and in which his Bahram review also appeared, returns 5 results, one of them Young and Defiant in Tehran, University of Pennsylvania Press, again citing "the editor" (probably Mashkouri; the preview does not extend to the notes). Perhaps Persian isn't everything when it comes to evaluating sources. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite simple epee. Notability isn't a property of an article, in any version. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor, who understands Farsi, has done us the service of sharing his analysis of the refs, which have been relied on in some of the !keep rationales. I'm not certain why one would accuse him of a "failure". He has done precisely the correct thing, and we should all thank him for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without accepting your analysis, to only analyze sources currently in the article is a failure of WP:N. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This WP:N segment includes footage of Bahram Nouraei performing in "Ye Mosht Sarbaz", which was directed by WP:N Farbod Khoshtinat, who was presented an award by WP:N Hillary Rodham Clinton in the WP:N Treaty Room of the WP:N White House and has been viewed more than 200,000 times by people in nearly every country in the world as the Google analytic map below the video shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xebK0CrtyuM; was broadcast on national television by WP:N BBC1's WP:N Panorama program during the interview conducted by WP:N Jane Corbin. As the Wikipedia article about her shows, Jane Corbin, Lady Maples (born 16 July 1954) is a British journalist currently working for the BBC. She was educated at WP:N King's College London where she graduated with a degree in English in 1975. Corbin has been a reporter for the WP:N BBC's WP:N Panorama Programme since 1988. She is married to the former Conservative Member of Parliament WP:N John Maples. --Jigsawnovich (talk) 8:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Bahram was arrested before Iran's 2009 Presidency election because of releasing a song called "A letter to the president" which he criticize Mr.Ahmadinejad in the lyrics of that song. And I think [Bahram] is notable for keep on wiki.Persian Clique (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)— Persian Clique (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note; Sock Block: Persian Clique has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first lacks substantial RS coverage and in any event does not in itself make one notable -- many people have been arrested. And as to the second, different wikis have different notability guidelines (and they are not always immediately enforced), so existence on another wiki does not mean that a subject is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I want you to read WP:BLP1E. ●Mehran Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is a substantial web footprint for this artist even on an English-language search. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium, like it or not. We have high bars for certain topics and low bars for others — recording artists and TV personalities being among the lowest. This artist, verging on political dissident status it would seem, SHOULD be included here. In this particular case, for me anyway, another factor to consider is that this individual is the subject of a page in the Arabic WP. Does that satisfy the notability guideline here? No. But it does help me to rationalize the desirability of applying the POLICY of Ignore All Rules in this case. With all due respect to the nominator, I'm not sure why this deletion nomination is being fought to the last ditch (8 comments and counting). Sure, I concur, this one is soft in the sourcing department. But, bottom line: this piece should be in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- nom responsiveness should be encouraged in my view, and afd should be a discussion. i pity the closing admins when it actually is a discussion, but hey. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite -- perhaps it is because different editors come up with all manner of new arguments in an effort to support keep rationales. Ranging from apparent non-RSs, to as-yet-unpublished articles, to "has a vast following", to !voting twice, to relying on self-published sites, to reliance on appearing briefly in a video that itself appears briefly on tv, to existence on another wiki that lacks our notability criteria, to -- the last stand for all AfDs that fail to comply with our notability rules -- let's just ignore those notability rules that it fails to meet.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot appearing briefly and i presume in your opinion non-significantly in scholarly overviews such as Nooshin's, plus scholarly sources existing that have not been checked, despite our "try[ing] harder" to overcome bias. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite -- perhaps it is because different editors come up with all manner of new arguments in an effort to support keep rationales. Ranging from apparent non-RSs, to as-yet-unpublished articles, to "has a vast following", to !voting twice, to relying on self-published sites, to reliance on appearing briefly in a video that itself appears briefly on tv, to existence on another wiki that lacks our notability criteria, to -- the last stand for all AfDs that fail to comply with our notability rules -- let's just ignore those notability rules that it fails to meet.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- nom responsiveness should be encouraged in my view, and afd should be a discussion. i pity the closing admins when it actually is a discussion, but hey. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can anyone verify the original source of this interview,[63] which is not bax50.com—a persian site that has got hold of it—but Scandinavian (Danish?) TV? The microphone flag circa 55s looks like it might be TV 2 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. This doesn't pass wp:v and wp:rs, and Youtube is generally not an RS in and of itself -- certainly not material posted by other than the copyright holder.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no one on Earth can verify the source? You have checked with everybody? Hahaha! Of course as posted it doesn't pass V and RS, good heavens. Until tracked to its source, it is merely a possible indication of further notability. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm answering for myself. Thought that might be obvious.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. It's not necessary for anyone else who reads the query and can't shed light on this to answer in the negative. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppetry. As reflected above, one of the Keep !votes was by a sockpuppet (Persian Clique), and the only Strong Keep !vote was by entered by a sockmaster (Jigsawnovich). A third editor who was a sockpuppet (BacheMosbat) was used to extend the term of this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting re this AfD at iranian.com. It seems that in the past Jigsawnovich actively solicited support -- on iranian.com, of all places ... the site mentioned above -- for her efforts to keep wp articles from being deleted at AfD. And she more recently posted this at iranian.com, vis-a-vis the current AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the four page feature about Bahram Nouraei is published in Rolling Stone Middle East magazine IN ENGLISH, and the print mag will be available for purchase. Godsnephew (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Godsnewphew has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd. Now you appear -- a newly created SPA -- claiming knowledge of the same unpublished article that Jigsaw (a confirmed sockmaster) claims to have written, but not yet had published.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Bahram Nouraei is a notable lyricist as defined by Wikipedia rules WP:COMPOSER. Bahram has credit for writing lyrics for a notable composition. Bahram's lyrics to Namei be Raees Jomhoor (Letter to the President) are notable for being so sharply critical of President Ahmadinejad that they contributed to Bahram being arrested and detained as a political prisoner in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, Iran and being interrogated by agents from the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran, and this is reported in the February 2012 edition of Rolling Stone Middle East magazine. Bahram is a notable rapper as defined by Wikipedia rules WP:MUSICBIO. Bahram has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. A video interview with Bahram was broadcast by Danish TV2. An audio interview with Bahram was broadcast by Dutch Radio Zamaneh, and this is reported in the February 2012 edition of Rolling Stone Middle East magazine.Godsnephew (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)— Godsnephew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Godsnewphew has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More. "Ashcraft’s Publicity Work ... Writing ... Wikipedia articles ... publicizing Khoshtinat and the video ... The Wikipedia article Ashcraft wrote (under her Jigsawnovich pseudonym) about Farbod “Fred” Khoshtinat received ... views from 4/2010 through 9/2010, and administrators of at least eight websites have reposted the Wikipedia article to their sites." From http://worldofashcraft.wordpress.com. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and eventually review the article in a couple of mounths. Aside the sockpuppettry deal, at least the "Rolling Stone" article and the BBC interview appear as signs of some notability (I cannot judge the reliability of the articles in Arab).
I suggest to close this discussion with a no consensus with no prejudice in renominating the article if the "Rolling Stone" reference should it result trivial or even false...and hopefully in the meantime more verifiable reliable sources will be provided.Cavarrone (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would not comport with wp:v and wp:crystal. The opposite would comport with wp:v -- deleting, per the above (ignoring the sock !votes and relying on policy-based !votes), with leave to re-create if substantial RS coverage appears. I see no reason to rely on the statements of socks. There is no existing Rolling Stone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just found the Rolling Stone article. And the footnote says "To read the full story, pick up a copy of Rolling Stone Middle East, available at over 200 outlets in the UAE and GCC". Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just in case this is lost in all the tl;dr hubbub, here's that ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE LINK DEALING WITH THIS SUBJECT found by Cavarrone, once again... Carrite (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. It was written by Julie Ashcraft. Who lists as her PR work: "Writing ... Wikipedia articles ... publicizing ... The Wikipedia article Ashcraft wrote (under her Jigsawnovich pseudonym) ... received ... views ... and ... eight websites have reposted the Wikipedia article to their sites." Jigsawnovich has been confirmed as a wp sockmaster. Jigsawnovich has actively canvassed off-wiki on iranian.com vis-a-vis AfDs. And she also posted this AfD at iranian.com. She has been blocked indef.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the source, that remains significant and very reliable. Are you arguing that, as the journalist was a bad WP user, "Rolling Stone Magazine" has now become a unreliable source? Probably the more appropriate process for this article would have been a deletion a couple of weeks ago and a recreation in these days, but, since we are here, you should accept the validity of the source, even if you don't like the journalist (with reasons).Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sockpuppetry was a stupid error and now Wikipedia has lost a talented editor, that's my take on JA/Jigsawnovich. But there is a substantial web footprint for this guy, I state again, combined with the big Rolling Stone spread, combined with the fact that art seems to have crossed into politics in this instance which makes this an even bigger public figure... So it's a tragedy for WP and a Keep for the piece both, in my view. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept of RS presumes that there is something we can deem reliable; an article that is reliable. Usually, a piece in Rolling Stone would qualify without question. This is different.
- The sockpuppetry was a stupid error and now Wikipedia has lost a talented editor, that's my take on JA/Jigsawnovich. But there is a substantial web footprint for this guy, I state again, combined with the big Rolling Stone spread, combined with the fact that art seems to have crossed into politics in this instance which makes this an even bigger public figure... So it's a tragedy for WP and a Keep for the piece both, in my view. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, the piece that Rolling Stone carried was written by someone we know without question is completely unreliable. She demonstrated that in various ways. She broke wp's rules by being a sockmaster. She socked at this very AfD. She extended the term of this Afd through a rule-bending 4th week through 1 sockpuppet. She used another sockpuppet to !vote multiple times at this AfD. She canvassed for people to !vote in support of her position at wp AfDs by posting off-wiki on the blog iranian.com. And then she duplicitously sought to convince us here that iranian.com -- the very blog she was pushing her agenda through, with no apparent or effective oversight -- was a Reliable Source! She bragged on her own site that her PR work includes writing wp articles on people for purposes of "publicizing", how many unsuspecting sites had in turn spread a wp bio she created, and how many views that bio received. She posted about--and linked to--this very AfD on iranian.com. And this AfD has been littered with !votes and actions and comments of her sockpuppets and meatpuppets. At last count, I believe she and 4 other puppets have been blocked indef as a result of this web. The article she wrote, which Rolling Stone printed, therefore falls at best into the category of what wp:RS refers to as "Questionable sources". Reliable? Not a chance.
- At times, a presumptive-RS has a non-reliable person feed them the news. This contribution to Reuters is just one of many examples. We would not rely on the contributor there, who we know to be unreliable, just because they have a photo in an RS. The same with contributions by known-unreliable-editor Stephen Glass, even though writing in The New Republic. Similarly, we know this writer to be unreliable, and her article is therefore not an RS piece.
- Furthermore, as stated above, the other "support" consists of blogs and other non-RS coverage, including by iranian.com -- the very site she used to encourage editors to !vote in support of her at AfDs. Losing her and her sockpuppets and meatpuppets is no loss for wp, btw. Unless you really believe that losing a person who engages in this sort of rampant, duplicitous, self-serving behavior to promote their own personal PR business is a loss for the project. I don't.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, being a bad WP user does not mean automatically being a bad journalist or a bad person. She was blocked as she broke other (important) rules, not because what she wrote was "unreliable" (on the contrary, she wrote that an article about the subject would be published by RS this mouth and it was true). Rolling Stone Magazine clearly has a strong editorial oversight and surely checks the facts before publishing an article online & on paper, it could not be considered a questionable source. The fact that Reuters had in the past a non-reliable journalist is an OTHERSTUFF argument that has nothing to do with the actual case, unless you want to consider ALL the sources as questionable sources. If you have a proof that Julie Ashcraft is an unreliable journastist who manipulates news and informations in her articles, or a proof that Rolling Stone Magazine has no editorial oversight or intentionally distorts the news, please show us evidence of that, and we all will change our votes. Cavarrone (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, as stated above, the other "support" consists of blogs and other non-RS coverage, including by iranian.com -- the very site she used to encourage editors to !vote in support of her at AfDs. Losing her and her sockpuppets and meatpuppets is no loss for wp, btw. Unless you really believe that losing a person who engages in this sort of rampant, duplicitous, self-serving behavior to promote their own personal PR business is a loss for the project. I don't.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 9 February 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 Selena Gomez & the Scene. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Joey Clement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's not a single reliably sourced fact in this article that actually pertains to Joey Clement. I can't find anything that actually talks about Joey Clement that isn't a fan site or a Wikipedia mirror. —Kww(talk) 02:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene or Midwest Kings. No notability outside of these groups. Actually, might as well be a delete, because you can't redirect to two pages. A412 (Talk * C) 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene. Member of two notable bands, if that can be verified, so passes WP:BAND ctiterion 6 - I couldn't find a reliable source for his membership of the Midwest Kings and none of the sources in that article mention him. If we can't verify that, redirect to the other band per standard practice for musicians without individual notability. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 29 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. DaveApter (talk) 11:03, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #6. I've added a citation to a reliable source for his membership in the Midwest Kings. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the nominator, I still argue for delete. It seems sad to have a BLP where we don't have anything we can say about the person that is the subject aside from the fact of his membership in two bands. We can't even fill out the standard infobox for a person based on the information that can be gleaned from reliable sources. The article will read, pretty much in full, "Joey Clement is the bassist for Selena Gomez & The Scene and The Midwest Kings." We can'tsource the time period when that statement was true, either. The ultimate in permastubs, serving only as a magnet for BLP violations.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest of keeps. The only reason I have to present to keep, is that there is no likeliest redirect page, it could be either band, and either redirect would be unreasonable. The only two reasonable things I can think off is losing this information with a delete (which I think is a fair option), or have the permastub Kww refers to, in lieu of a 'redirect disambiguation', which is also not desirable. This is indeed, as Kww argues, sad, but I think the latter, even though it is a pretty bad option, is the best option we have. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:06, 8 February 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. Deleting all... Wifione Message 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cage Fighting Championship 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article. The only coverage I can find of this event is the standard fight results tables. Event appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (unsourced, no coverage other than the usual fight results and some online videos):
- Cage Fighting Championship 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cage Fighting Championship 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cage Fighting Championship 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cage Fighting Championship 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cage Fighting Championship 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--TreyGeek (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so since these articles don't have any sources apart from Sherdog (which I have not linked to, I know) and the promotions website (which I have linked to where possible and also includes press releases via the link), they don't belong on Wikipedia? -- Manwithaduck (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For an article to "belong on Wikipedia" the article's subject should be notable. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines says that a subject is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I could find very little in the way of significant coverage of these events. The coverage I could find consisted almost entirely of routine fight results and some videos. The articles themselves cite no sources independent of Cage Fighting Championship. This lack of coverage suggests, to me, that these events are not notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no one else has voted or commented yet, I added the article on an upcoming event (#20) to the list. I would also point out that the article for the organization is completely unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all I was unable to find significant coverage for any of these events and they all seem to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Wikipedia isn't a list of all trivial facts, only notable ones. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Some MMA events are notable. These are not. These events featured only a handful of notable fighters and the promotion is not top-tier according to WP:MMANOT. These pages primarily list match results, which is routine sports reporting that does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. There isn't a single reference that is independent of the subject that would suggest otherwise. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:10, 4 February 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:G3 Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 133 South Street St. Andrews Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Building with no evidence of notability; no references. Prod contested without explanation, possible hoax. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried and convicted on charges laid after his death? Yeah, right... tagged G3-hoax. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:03, 31 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. Wifione Message 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 Bangalore plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable crash doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. Private plane, nobody notable on board. William 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -William 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - misfueling accidents have a very long history, and this is just another one of them. Nothing notable here. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cant see anything notable in the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A tragic accident but not one that appears to be particularly notable or unusual. The one reference that does not come from immediately after the accident is the 21 September article from the Hindu, which uses it in passing as an example of systemic safety failings - not significant coverage - and even that is only a few weeks after the accident occured.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable. X.One SOS 12:12, 6 February 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 Sudan Airways hijacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable hijacking. Hijacker makes plane divert, plane lands, hijacker gets arrested without incident. WP:NOTNEWS would apply also. William 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -William 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)William 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 1 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems by all accounts to be a non-event Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:19, 9 February 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 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacred Heart University Men's Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable college sports club. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RU/N and a search for third party sources [64] doesn't give any indication of meeting WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Team play in low-level amateur competition. Not notable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:07, 31 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 Conan O'Brien. I'll keep the merge request open for a week, then redirect this article if the merge issue hasn't been resolved till then. Any other requests, please direct to my talk page. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conan vs. bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AfD'ed before with "no consensus therefore keep" but as the years tick by it seems to continue to fail WP:WEBPAGE. See old AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan vs. bear Ifnord (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Has secondary not trivial coverage in multible reliable sources, such as Buffalo News, The Arizona Republic, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Bradenton Herald, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The nom lacks of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 22:00, 19 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) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Conan O'Brien. A two sentence article? If the entire subject can be summed up so simply then merge into the reason theis subject has notability in the first place. --Falcadore (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Meh, its just a skit on a late night show. Sources support its mentino at the COnan article, not a standalone, permanent stub. Tarc (talk) 06:48, 22 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, SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge not worth an independent article. Brief mentions in a short time period in 2005. Nothing since. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge Two sentences? WTF? Wikipedia should not be a dumpster for every trivial tidbit that anyone ever found temporarily interesting. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Où sont les fads d'antan? In any case, the real Conan is more than a match for any bear. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Or merge. Persistence is unlikely to be forthcoming here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 31 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. Wifione Message 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Illuminations Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another producer and publisher of cultural media advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:44, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent evidence of notability. Only source is official site. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pseudo-advert, non-notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:05, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- N. S. Venkatakrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Notable, Hardly any references, References are not reliable, Not neutral Veryhuman (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom --Anoopan (talk) 17:53, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:47, 31 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 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to indicate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If someone wishes to merge to Sara Lee Corporation, request me for the deleted content on my talk page please. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Returnship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism, used by a single company as a sort of "brand" of mid-career internship. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Grillo7 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Sara Lee Corporation where it may merit a sentence or two. Not independently notable. If other corps start the same sort of scheme and call it the same thing it could make an article one day.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:01, 31 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. Wifione Message 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerry Junior Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Tagged for zero refs for over 3 years. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Three years should be enough to add references if they exist. Cloudz679 20:18, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. No references, so it fails WP:GNG, and has done since I tagged the article as {{unreferenced}} in April 2008. Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in the Republic of Ireland, and senior level games receive a lot of coverage. However, it's hard to find much coverage of the second level intermediate games, and the third-level junior teams rarely seem to get more than results listings in local papers. (for a list of levels, see Gaelic football#Leagues_and_team_structure). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 6 February 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. In view of the low participation, this is a "soft delete"; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request to any admin or at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerry U21 Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Violates Wikipedia's core policies. Cloudz679 11:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:46, 31 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 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 February 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. In view of the low participation, this is a "soft delete"; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request to any admin or at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerry Junior Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, incomplete and non-notable article. Cloudz679 20:19, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:45, 31 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 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 February 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 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2001 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Cloudz679 17:02, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. No independent references, so it fails WP:GNG. Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in the Republic of Ireland, and senior level games receive a lot of coverage. However, it's hard to find much coverage of the second level intermediate games, so I don't hold out much hope of a rescue.(For a list of levels, see Gaelic football#Leagues_and_team_structure). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 6 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Tagged for refs for over 2 years. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Cloudz679 17:02, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:44, 31 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) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not an article or even an attempted article, just a small hanful of unreferenced, unformatted score info. And I doubt it would be notable even if cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 7 February 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 04:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kalampadan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero refs, zero RS gnews hits, zero RS gbooks hits. Non-notable. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since 2010. Created by a 1-article-edited-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Veryhuman (talk) 17:52, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has been given plenty of time to develop and improve, but nothing here to make the topic notable.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I was unable to verify this. SL93 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found a few references to this surname online, but none of what I saw were reliable. It's verifiable, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 6 February 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 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sugar Mill (cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This drink -- supposedly created in Nevis in 2009 -- may well be an excellent one. But this not only smell like OR, I cannot find substantial, independent, RS coverage of it and its invention. Tagged for zero refs and for notability since the year of its supposed invention. Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:MADEUP. I can't find any RS coverage for this cocktail. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious delete. No sources. No attempt to establish notability. Get rid of this and move on.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero refs, zero indication of wp:notability. Also it calls for a particular brand of rum, so its advertising. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 31 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 Materials science. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trademarked non-notable neologism. Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article appears to be a coatrack to promote one particular manufacturer's method of 3D printing. Although well cited and backed up with reliable sources, the sources that are not specifically published by Objet Geometries appear to be more generic articles on the science of composite materials, and not about this specific technology. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:37, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is superficially impressive, but no real substance to claims of notability. Lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources. The Objet Geometries article needs looking at as well, the only independent "source" in that article is a 404 for me and is therefore officially "dodgy". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim back and Merge into materials science. There's some potentially valuable material in these citations, even if this article has some problems with lack of context and COI. Writing off published sources completely - I'm talking about the peer-reviewed ones - doesn't feel quite right. §everal⇒|Times 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge and redirect per Several Times. The current article is indeed coatrack spam promoting a particular business, and contains meaningless, promotional puffery (The way the DM code defines a 3D phase structures is analogous to the way the genetic code in living organisms is responsible for dictating the characteristics of a living organism.) but there are enough technical details to be preserved somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, that "somewhere" is hard to define, as Wikipedia's coverage of 3D printing and related technologies is already somewhat scattershot (see rapid prototyping, stereolithography, additive manufacturing, etc). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly why I think the best merge target in these cases is the most generic topic. Some of the other 3D printing-related articles may also be good merge candidates - at least until they have more sources. §everal⇒|Times 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just plain delete Sounds impressive, but, after a medium-depth read, it's just promoting and describing one company's particular products, methods and terminology.And then there are bio links to "people interested in this topic" !. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 3D printing per Several Times. I'm not opposed to tidbits ending up in different articles, but the scattered state of 3D printing shouldn't be a reason to delete this article. Obviously, not everything needs to be merged, but if only parts are merged and then a redirect can be made, it's a win. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 8 February 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 04:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rai RehamatKhan Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Even allowing for the weird redirect from Rai Rehamat Khan Bhatti to a mispelled article title, I can find nothing relating to this person. Maybe there are still more alternate spellings, but on the face of it the guy is not notable. Sitush (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Not a trace of notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:54, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteFails WP:GNG and WP:V. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 08:29, 1 February 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.