Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 April	22 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis C: Egypt vs. United States[edit]

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

Apparent undergrad thesis masquarading as an article. Mass of original research. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from it being an essay, I guess it has some info about Hepatitis C that could maybe be incorporated (not copy pasted) into that article, but this is not a notable topic or something anyone would search for. Classic WP:NOT. Shadowjams (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an original essay. Why Egypt and why the USA? Carrite (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 26 April 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 Aidchild. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Dunigan[edit]

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

This article is written primarily self promotive, reads like an autobiography of the guy's life history, mixed with pieces of his resumé for perusal. A previous attempt to PROD this was countered by the author, who removed the prod template, - i was advised that the other route I should take would be AFD. The article is wholly self promotional and contains a lot of vanity language, which makes it in my opinion, unsuitable. MarkBurberry32 talk 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aidchild. I found a few references,[1][2][3] but they all mention Dunigan in the context of Aidchild, so I think on balance he doesn't pass the basic criteria of our notability guidelines for biographies. Also, his fellowships and awards don't look like the kind of thing we would need to prove notability, and I can't see any other reason he would pass the notability guidelines for academics. If we choose to merge, though, we should be careful, as I suspect (but can't confirm) that the text of the article was copied from one of the links in this Google search. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aidchild. Mr. Stradivarius found some interesting references, but is completely correct in his interpretation of those. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After rewriting, the article is less promotional. The Anderson and Vanderson citations could be taken as indicating notability per WP:BIO, but it is a marginal case. The best outcome is probably merge and redirect to Aidchild. – Fayenatic L (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes in format that have been made. I believe the additional notability issues have also been addressed. Can we please delete the discussion of deletion? --Ndunigan (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These things run for about a week. I don't think anybody else is satisfied re WP:NOTABILITY on any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Most of the info is still worth keeping as a new section of the article Aidchild headed "Nathaniel Dunigan". Also, the page Nathaniel Dunigan can be redirected there; that's what "merge and redirect" means. The page history would still be there and could be re-used if you become more notable in person, e.g. win a Nobel Peace Prize or your life story gets featured in the LA Times. Please don't take it personally; you sound a great guy, but Wikipedia has to be objective about your story so far! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the clarification on what merger means. I think it makes sense. How do we do that? And I'm not offended. There have been multiple stories about me in papers like the Sacramento Bee, Tucson Citizen, New Vision (Kampala), and multiple awards, but not yet the Nobel or LA Times. Anyway, I still wouldn't mind having my kids first, and myself second. Has always been that way in fact. Cheers.--Ndunigan (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see those at Google News, although they are pay-per-view, and no longer available at sacbee.com or http://www.newvision.co.ug. Anyway, let this discussion run its course; who knows, other editors might think the press coverage of your life is sufficient after all to justify keeping the separate article. – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I don't see the coverage that would justify a standalone article at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElevateDB[edit]

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

I found no coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability; created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEmpACT Staffing Software[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. A CSD was previosly declined. This sounds like an advertisement and the award does not appear to be significant. SL93 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that there is no extensive coverage in independent sources, so Wikipedia's standard for establishing notability has not been met. Google hits are promotional and passing mentions; GNews hits are press releases. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially unreferenced company article - the only 3rd party reference is a deadlink to an award for which the product was a finalist, not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountains City Church[edit]

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

I found nothing beyond insignificant local news coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. I could find no coverage except the local paper. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncited, spammy, and as pointed out, does not meet the WP:ORG notability standards. Not a reflection on the church itself or the community around it, but there are many many churches just like this one all across the world, and this one doesn't seem to stand out from the crowd. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, no claims or evidence of notability under WP:MUSIC joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterblast (band)[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ Per nom. Article does not assert any notability, whatsoever, and has no reliable sources to corroborate material used. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google news search came up with a big fat zero. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't get zero on Google web search, but the review was on the third page.Marikafragen (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. DocTree (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Bina Lagta Nahi Mera Jiya[edit]

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

Not notable at all. No reference establishing notability or even for verification of some scanty info that's present. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete /merge' to movie article. can't stand alone. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:41, 24 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slam dunk cinema[edit]

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

Radio show and podcast with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG or WP:WEB, from radio station of unknown notability. No signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently non-notable local radio show that fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. (Also, part of "The Rants' is an unsourced personal attack on a living person.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I've removed it per WP:BLP. Scopecreep (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DocTree (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Turek[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He has no fights for a top or second tier promotion, so clearly fails WP:MMANOT. The only sources are the usual pre and post fight coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete As per nom, the fighter has no fights in a top-tier promotion thus fails WP:MMANOT. Also seems to fail WP:GNG --TreyGeek (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant independent coverage and with no fights for even a second tier MMA organization, he clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dicky Ryan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about a fighter who does not meet WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. There's no evidence he was ever ranked in the world top 10 or fought for a major world championship. His IBC title is from a second tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There are no sources except for his boxing record. Since he doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers this seems an obvious decision. Astudent0 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reference. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Track Sites Trouble Ticket System[edit]

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

Product doesn't appear to have received any significant third-party coverage. ^Bongo_matic 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dont Delete': Its an eduacative material on trouble (problem) solving technique by trouble ticketing.

--Emabusi (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's spam about software with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another software. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs, no indication of notability; created by an SPA as possible spam/promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 10:58, 28 April 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 Nomination withdrawn. SMS ^Talk 08:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maira Amjad Ali[edit]

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

~~Non notable place with no mention in reliable sources.~~ SMS ^Talk 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nomination per the sources provided by Northamerica1000. --SMS ^Talk 08:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The place does exist. ~~It appears that the correct English language spelling for this place is "Maira Jamād Ali".~~ See: Mapcarta entry for Maira Jamad Ali

Found this source, significant coverage in an atlas:

"Maira Jamād Ali". Chinci World Atlas. Retrieved April 21, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – ~~Article has been renamed to: Maira Jamād Ali.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Northamerica1000, the name Maira Amjad Ali is/was the correct name and there is a village/town of this name in this region and there's no 'Maira Jamad Ali' here. Could you please revert to the original name and talk page? Thanks Khani100 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100[reply]

Done. Article has been renamed back to Maira Amjad Ali. I wonder why English language websites and sources refer to it as Maira Jamād Ali?

Mapcarta entry for Maira Jamād Ali
Map of Maira Jamād Ali at Worldplaces.net
"Maira Jamād Ali". Chinci World Atlas. Retrieved April 21, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

I don't speak Urdu, so I have taken the advice of User:Khani100 above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Government-recognized/census-designated populated places are inherently notable. The existence can be confirmed through sources on Pakistani Government website (example). utcursch | talk 05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Also see sources I have provided above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per utcursch. Perhaps the lack of info is due to having such resources in their native language. I'll ask WP Pakistan if they could help --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is Mera Amjad Ali. I belong to that place that's why I know. The name being spelled differently is due to the fact that many people shorten names during speech. Just as some people refer to "Geoffry" simply as "Geoff". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir aw (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu spelling is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir aw (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Gracophilus but there's a clear consensus here that this magazine isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion 5.0[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable magazine. The creator of the article may have a conflict of interest with the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was found on your talk page. "Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fashion 5.0, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals or newspapers. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)" --Gracophilus (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not being eligible for speedy deletion has no effect on this discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage and the two references in the article are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wetpaint.com is rated as the 1890th largest website in the world according to Alexa.com ^[1] --Gracophilus (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Gracophilus (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor appears to have a conflict of interest with the topic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fashion 5.0 cover models. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reference added to the article:

"Have No Fear, the Fashion Police is Here". MrMagazine.com. 2012-04-15. Retrieved 2012-04-15. --Gracophilus (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wetpaint.com is hardly a reliable source for notability purposes, mrmagazine (link above) is a wordpress blog. A blog hosted on the Fashon Institute Of Design And Merchandising talking about the ~~magazone cisiting~~ magazine visiting is I the same league. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC) comment fixed, damn you autocorrect![reply]

Comment please note the new reference as commented below. Your past inclusion of a citing from Deseret News, which is smaller than Wetpaint or MrMagazine, cited that it passes passes WP:GNG. --Gracophilus (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you comparing a reliable source (newspaper) to an unreliable source (a blog)? SL93 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Where does it say blogs are unreliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracophilus (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not use-generated content and passes. "Blogs... may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write... posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Mr. Magazine is the highest authority in the field and speaks only to the largest industry leaders. Operates as a portal under the University of Mississippi's Magazine Innovation Center, which he founded. --Gracophilus (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have read the entire section, allow me to assist, the section I was refering to states:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. (emphasis added on the portion that you must have missed when you were reading it, but did manage replace with ellipsis).

What they refer to in these instances, are for example, a New York Times journalist who writes a blog, hosted by the New York Times, which is subject to the same editorial oversight that one of there articles would. I am not questioning that Samir A. Husni is a university professor, I am not questioning his status as "founder and director of the Magazine Innovation Center", and I am not questioning that he interviews important people. What I am saying is that his personal Wordpress blog, which shows no affiliation with the university, and presumably has no editorial oversight (as it is his personal Wordpress blog), is not a reliable source when it comes to determining notability. I hope this has cleared things up for you. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So a magazine that exits print after a few years and decreases it's publishing schedule to an irregular basis (Eliza (magazine)) is notable, where a publication with notable celebrities such as Shwayze, Ali Fedotowsky and Alexis Bellino on the cover, as well as celebrity editor Tenley Molzahn, is considered non-notable? --Gracophilus (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks that way. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last two interviews on MrMagazine.com were with the publisher of Food Network Magazine and the President of Hearst Magazines. http://mrmagazineinterviews.wordpress.com/ --Gracophilus (talk) 11:57, 15 April 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I kept out of this debate, but as it's been relisted, just had a look. Trawled through Google for first 10 pages, found no significant coverage, but lots of blog references and passing mentions/nods. It's probably only a matter of time but at this moment, the magazine doesn't seem to be currently notable by Wikipedia standards due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. However, I get the impression that if it is given a year or two, it may well achieve the references/coverage required. But for now, it's a no from me, sorry. Mabalu (talk) 09:40, 26 April 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 does seem to be consensus, however, that the article is not in good condition, both on accuracy and structure. Hopefully someone can find the time to improve the article and more generally the coverage of the topic on Wikipedia, as this will be the best insurance against future AfD's, which will inevitably happen if the article is unchanged. It might be worth talking to the relevant wikiproject to get some help. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 18:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of conservation areas in England‎[edit]

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

This article was up for deletion five years ago and was allowed to stay assuming it would be added to and be updated. The list has been pretty stagnant for the last five years, and is really original research of an undefined sub section of conservation areas: the list is an attempt at urban conservation areas, but this is not an easily definable term. My own district is significantly wrong; claiming many more urban areas, but excluding the 120 odd village and rural conservation area. The article is not of assistance, contains errors and causes confusion and no editor has seen fit to try and fix it in the last five years. Warren (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned about how much of the evidence to delete in this AfD relies on claims from the only WP:PRIMARY source subtype that I ever had any misgivings about: anecdotal evidence of eyewitnesses; in this case, WP editors (other PRIMARies have quite rightly been allowed back into WP with qualifications, as they come from trustworthy sources). Where is the proof that the article is in error? Anarchangel (talk) 20:48, 21 April 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 April 13. Snotbot t • c » 13:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our explicit policy that articles may be incomplete or otherwise imperfect and there is no deadline for work be completed. If someone wants to update this list then official data can be found here. Warden (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The fact that no editor has wanted to contribute to the article in any meaningful way in the last five years is obviously a concern, but more importantly, it is based on the assumption that "urban conservation areas" can be defined, and then listed. An article this incomplete and erroneous can only be kept in WP:INCUBATION at best, if not deleted. Warren (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep It is our explicit policy that articles may be incomplete or otherwise imperfect and there is no deadline for work be completed" does not address article's notability. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment addresses the points made by the nomination which do not include notability. Warden (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic obviously has potential: look at how well developed List of conservation areas in Brighton and Hove is. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am inclined to think that this article should be kept, but that it should be (eventually) a list of lists. I would have thought that there would be lists of conservation articles for most of the areas of England, but I could find only two. See Special:Prefixindex/List of conservation areas. These would be worthwhile lists and I am quite surprised that no one has created such lists. Apparently there would be too many for one list, so it would need to by broken up be areas. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Warden presents an excellent official up to date link, there is no reason why an out of date, WP list should replace this. Thanks Warden for finding the link LibStar (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We delete articles when the information contained is not available elsewhere, not because it is available elsewhere. The opinion above flies in the face of our verifiability policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so should we put up bus timetables etc? WP is not a substitute for lists that are kept up to date and official. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment simply was simply pointing out the obvious fallacy in the argument that you made above, rather than an argument for keeping either this article or any potential posting of bus timetables etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bar is being moved so frequently that it ceases to make sense. Above, the rationale that there is no deadline for completion is pitted against an implication that the subject is not notable, when they are separate issues. Here, the no-deadline rule is ignored altogether, and Warden's reason to keep, an "up to date link", is used as a reason to delete. Anarchangel (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my reply above, Warden's source, and Phil Bridger's rationale Anarchangel (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(With slight regret) delete -- Conservation areas are generally small areas of a town or village. Where articles are linked, they are on the whole town or village. If we had articles on individual conservation areas (or Conservation Area sections in larger articles), an article listing them, thus identifying (as redlinks) articles that are needed would be useful. This could properly form the basis for a category or treew of categories. However, the majority of conservation areas are not per se notable, and most will accordingly not need articles. It follows that no list article is needed. My objection is not primarily about incompleteness or verifiability, as there should be no difficulty in finding sources on particualr conservation areas on Local Authority websites. My objection concerns the notability of the subject matter. My village has a conservation area, but it consists of the station and one street, perhaps 50 houses out of a couple of thousand. In my local town, much of the town centre is a conservation area, but the WP article is on the town, not the town centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no deadline, but readers do expect our information to be reasonably accurate. An inaccurate article is worse than useless. If we fail to maintain this article in a useful state for five years (and consequently for the foreseeable future), then we are better off not having it at all. Sandstein 07:55, 21 April 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure by splitting -- (slightly changing vote) This article is hopelessly overambitious. It is trying to fulfil a function that is much better done by a category. I would suggest one list-article for each county. These articles should each contain (in tabular form) a list of named conservation areas; a brief description of the area covered (or a link to the article on the Conservation Area itself), including what is special about it; the place where it is; and the responsible Local Planning Authority. As I said above, the town centres of Stourbridge and Bromsgrove are both Conservation Areas, as is Station Road, Hagley, but we have no article spcifically on any of these, only on the places of whaich they are part. These articles should all be in Category:Conservation Area lists. When the split is complete, this article should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, yet: who does the restructuring?Marikafragen (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I do not have the time; neverthless that is the best solution. The alternative is to keep it but tag it accordingly in the hope that some one will do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Americans United[edit]

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

Still non-notable; sourced almost completely to its own website, with the excuse that they are trying to keep a low profile. Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A Google search turns up a lot of nominal results but the ones from notable sources seem to be variations on "European American; United States", i.e. not referring to the group. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a fairly new, non-notable, fringe ethnic group. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 26 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Flight 1673[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH for a standalone article. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. No WP:PERSISTENCE ...William 15:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions....William 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:AIRCRASH: The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per The Bushranger, it does in fact meet WP:AIRCRASH, but the nom's point about WP:PERSISTENCE is also valid. Leaning keep because I favor specific guides over general ones. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the bird strike article's incidents section. I don't think this warrants an article of its own, but would be a good addition to the bird strike article, which at the moment has a lot of minor incidents mentioned without sources to back them. YSSYguy (talk) 07:08, 23 April 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, B music ian 05:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to bird strike, per YSSYguy, based on WP:MILL. While the loss of the aircraft is certainly regrettable, there are many crashes of aircraft with total loss of the airplane. How does this one stand out from the others?Marikafragen (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. We are not a collection of news reports about transportation incidents. Sandstein 06:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SERVOS Professional / Server Elite[edit]

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

Spam article about a non-notable Linux distribution that cites no third party references. The article was created by a WP:COI editor and it appears from his explanation on the article talk page that the article was created solely to promote the project. Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources in the article, and no evidence of notability anywhere that I can find. Unambiguously written for the purpose of promoting the operating system (though in my judgement not so blatantly spammy to justify speedy deletion, so I declined an earlier speedy deletion nomination). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:24, 23 April 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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuffnang[edit]

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

Delete. No indication of company's notability. (According to WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.) Pure advertisement.--Palaeovia^talk 03:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Article has been restructured and edited to include references and full citations of coverage from local and international media. --Fresh026 (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the references that have been added are either from the company's website itself or the blogs of the founders and employees of the company. This article was created by and mostly maintained by employees of the company and is essentially an advertising outlet for them. For example: the user above advocating the non-deletion of this article Fresh026 is or is a former employee of the company. A previous prolific editor of the article Pinkytham is or is a former employee of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.177.177 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My Factiva-obtained collection of newspaper articles about Xiaxue (whom I am writing a GA on) includes several articles which discuss blog advertising and Nuffnang in detail. I encourage the nominator and others to do more research, to avoid a deletion that would worsen systemic bias against Asian topics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a bibliography listing relevant sources. Otherwise you end up sounding like Joseph Smith with his golden plates. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 14 April 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) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. the article needs to be rewritten. It reads like promo material. 2. many references are from Nuffnang or their press releases. If those problems can be corrected, I would say keep. As it is? rewrite - specifically, depromo and obtain more and better references.Marikafragen (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I would strongly encourage people looking at this article to read the secondary sources (what few there are) featured in this article. There are nothing but trivial mentions of the company. I couldn't find any significant coverage of them whatsoever that wasn't a PR piece. There is nothing to be salvaged here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 (Austin Mahone song)[edit]

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

No sources, does not appear to have charted. Calabe 1992 04:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not at all notable Yash t 101 08:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 April 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) 12:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, no notability - nothing. And the article itself contains no information at all. HN81K (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it hasn't charted at all, which makes it fail WP:NSONGS. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 15:51, 28 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diane DiPiazza[edit]

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

Not notable former musician. Only claim to fame is she plays in The Misfits for a little while before Jerry Only joined. Never appeared on any albums. The bio about her is unreferenced and spammy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 02:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have been in the band for about the first month and that's it. Never gigged with them, let alone recorded. I find nothing in article or web searches to indicate notability, for music, design, or anything else. Fails WP:GNG and WP ≠ LinkedIn. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:42, 16 April 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) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Misfits. Plausible search term, no nontrivial indications of notability outside the context of the band. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, for the reasons given by Hullaballoo. Not really notable on her own, but she is part of their history.Marikafragen (talk) 02:14, 29 April 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) 16:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnected (Keane song)[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS: Unreleased material. Ben Ben (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is unreleased but has media coverage such as here and here, for example --flying idiot 02:51, 14 April 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) 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It's got a number of good sources at the moment, and it's likely to have more as the song's release date gets closer. It's already been announced that the song will be released, so it's inevitable that the article will be re-created if it's deleted anyway. Editor5807^speak 19:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The song was released per DD in the German Amazon Shop on 27. April 2012 De and is announced for May 4/8 for GB and the US. Is the song notable now, per release? WP:NSONGS? --Ben Ben (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Music video is also now out and is in particular receiving much coverage: [4], [5] etc. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:50, 29 April 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. B music ian 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Motorsport[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sabre Motorsport

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

WP:NOTABILITY. A Formula First team from New Zealand is very much amateur level motorsport. Fails GNG. Has not been expanded beyond this stub significantly since its 2008 creation. Falcadore (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - I'll have a quick search and see if it has anything to redeem it since there does not seem to be anyone working on New Zealand Motorsport at the moment. A couple of the team members are notable, but it may be only by association which is inadequate. NealeFamily (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search has turned up that Sabre Motorsport is more than just a Formula First team. They make a significant contribution to New Zealand motorsport by driver training, supporting one of the few significant driver scholarships, and design and manufacture Formula First cars. The article was completely inadequate, so I have done some quick edits and added it on to my to do list. Therefore, I am satisfied that they are Notable. They also fall within the bounds of WP:Notability (vehicles).NealeFamily (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 14 April 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) 12:13, 21 April 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) 12:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GTspirit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since I last nominated this article for deletion and opted to have it withdrawn to allow for improvement, almost four months on, looking at the edit, I wondered why did I bother to throw an lifeline to it in the first place when it could had left it to fend itself off with the wikilions.

Since then, this editor have not bothered to make an effort to improve its notability since, the only form of notability this website can manage to claim is having a picture credited to them submitted to be show on Fox News website, which is nothing new. As this seems to be an despite attempt to get an Wikipedia article here rather than look for more reliable third party sources to make this article notable, this why it I thrown it back to the Wikipedia Ring of Death again for the reason that it failed WP:WEB and that I feel the editor is taking the Mickey as I said on the talk page which he did not bother to address the issue. Donnie Park (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Donnie Park (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must first of all state that I am one of those people that doesn't find a single car I've seen on their site the slightest bit desirable. (OK, I would accept any of them as a gift but would try to sell it as quickly as possible...) I think there could be notability in the subject, but it would take a set of proper references to prove it. The current lot look impressive at a glance, but if you look closer they mainly come from their own site, and the rest don't exactly do much. I'm not knocking the site - it's well done and looks fine for those who like window-shopping and are impressed by BHP and $$$. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, these cars to boys are like fashion to girls, another overindulgent things we can do without should the next economic apocalypse be around the corner. As for notability, has this editor made an effort. Donnie Park (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they've tried, but don't understand WP:RS - may not have heard of it. Might be an idea to contact them and explain. Makes us look fair, and may end up with a better article. Me, I'm off to prove that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs (assuming I've got eggs in the fridge...). Peridon (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've gone back through the article and added references by other media outlets in relation to content that has proved their popular. I do however feel that personal opinions on the websites content shouldn't be a factor on whether the article stays or goes. Of course its not to everyone's taste or appeal, but nothing on wikipedia can say that it is. At the end of the day I saw that similar sites had wiki pages and thought I would create one in the same mold as theirs e.g. Jalopnik, where most of their references are to Jalopnik's website hence not referencing to other sites until now. Any suggestions on how to improve the article via WP:RS are of course welcomed as it's not something I fully understand.Dave logic (talk) 14:58 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Because there is a Wikipedia article about a website with questionable notability, does that mean you should create an article about a similar website with questionable notability? Looking at the article since I opted to withdraw the nomination, first of all, looking at the references, none of the picture credits there counts as notability as all they are, are nothing but mere mentions, references to the website that is associated with the website does not count as reliable third party sources. Because these edits made it look like another non-notable car website without any third party coverage to make it look notable other than picture credits, this is the reason why as well as that because I made a comment on the talk section some times ago, that was ignored even after the 1 April warning, therefore for that I felt that my request was taken for granted, I had no choice but to drag this back to AfD with the understanding that this was never a notable website in the first place as there is no proof of notability for a start and don't worry about Jalopnik, because this is under consideration for deletion nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the WP:RS policy. Basically, reviews or articles mainly about the site are needed, but not in blogs, forums, wikis, your own site or anything else connected to it, or anything that uses subject-supplied info - like AboutUs, LinkedIn or press releases (including PRWire and the like). Things that just mention the site are no good - needs a good paragraph at minimum and not just the owner giving an 'interview' that is a disguised plug. My disclaimer about the cars was intended to bolster my feeling that there could be notability, and to stress that I wasn't just saying that because I am a fan of that sort of motor. I have driven Bentley GT, Porsche Carrera and the like - and honestly prefer the battered Vauxhall Magnum 2300 I once had. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just looked at the refs. What we DON'T need is anything about the cars themselves - they can be linked to their articles here. References that only talk about them are a waste of space when notability for the site is the question. I like the Koenigsegg one a bit - it's not a review but it shows to me that they value the site. It's the site that needs the reviews or similar. Peridon (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - as per many of the above comments, there is nothing at all of note in the sources about GTspirit. Is is almost entirely referenced to its own website or press releases, for example the Koenigsegg link. The Telegraph article is a report of the Fox News article (also cited without dates) which only briefly mentions GTSpirit. What is needed is proof of other reliable sources talking about GTSpirit in-depth. A lot of the article should have been removed by now, for example the grand uncited claims in the opening lede paragraph! Sionk (talk) 13:32, 14 April 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) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I completely agree with the WP:N and the WP:IRS criticism, the article also appears to me to have been easily tagged for WP:SPEEDY as G11 WP:Promo Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by sionk and BusterD, as well as self-marketing ad copy. I suppose if the article were fixed it'd be okay, but... nothing on Google news but the site itself.Marikafragen (talk) 02:23, 29 April 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. In the sense of "not delete"; AfD is not the forum for proposing or discussing redirections or mergers. Use the article talk page for that. Sandstein 06:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Su Su Su Super Ki Re i[edit]

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

Recently blanked and redirected by TenPoundHammer with the comment "not notable". However our policy is that we decide such things by consensus, not the actions of a single editor. Accordingly I bring this (and the other album articles) to AfD - although I have no personal opinion either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, only charted very low in Japan with little to no sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the article says, where only 20 or so singles by foreign artists reached the Top 20 between 1995 and 2003. That makes it notable. Actually Tenpounder didn't blank the page, he redirected, which is in accordance with WP:SONGS which says, Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI, here is a link that confirms its chart position on Oricon, the main Japanese chart. Given that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" is one criterion for notability at WP:NSONG (but not a sufficient one)--without specifying what level of ranking--one would assume no. 16 is not a problem. I have not yet found a source to confirm the claim "only 20 or so singles by foreign artists reached the Top 20 between 1995 and 2003," though having long lived in Japan, and knowing how few foreign records chart on the main Japanese charts, I would not be surprised if it is true. Michitaro (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 14 April 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) 12:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. This is a discussion over the suitability of a redirect vs an independent article, which is not an AFD matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 22 April 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. postdlf (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language The Powerpuff Girls voice actors[edit]

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

virtually empty of useful content, entirely unsourced, nothing to suggest this can be a legitimate article Jac16888 ^Talk 22:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the A3 someone'd tagged this with, but what content really exists here that cannot be merged into the main article on the series? Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While we are at this, we might also want to consider the following pages, which have been linked to from the "See also" section:

List of non-English-language Johnny Bravo voice actors

List of non-English-language Dexter's Laboratory voice actors

List of non-English-language Ed, Edd n Eddy voice actors--New questions? 05:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Actually, we might want to consider most of the pages under Category:Lists of voice actors by series--New questions? 05:54, 14 April 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) 12:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At a glance, well over 90% of the entries seem to be listed as "?". No sources. No encyclopedic value outside of just listing the voice actors. JIP | Talk 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Most of the list is ? and has no sources.Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable, and I can't imagine of any use to our core readers. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no sources. Hm. we should consider all that category mentioned by New, as well.Marikafragen (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. B music ian 05:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bush (playwright)[edit]

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

noability seems to be based on a single successful show in 2007-2008. no evidence of sustained achievement or fame SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject appears to meet the GNG, and the notion that a lack of "sustained notability" justified deletion is inconsistent with the principle that notability is not temporary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — evidence of notability, awards, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 April 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) 12:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You only need to write one thing to be a notable writer, per WP:WRITER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person. Lots of reference. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. B music ian 05:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Compton[edit]

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

apparently unpublished as writer. main activity in a few fringe shows, but details unclear. suggest delete or merge into Belt Up Theatre SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 14 April 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) 12:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the the sourced stub and expand it further per the citations provided in the article and the others available. I'd never heard of this guy before today, but it does not matter if he may not be a published author, just so long as his work as a playwrite, stage director and theater producer can be determined to meet WP:CREATIVE and his body of work can be argued to meet WP:ENT through coverage of that work that meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 23 April 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 Move to user space - number of sources suggests it may be notable but lack of page numbers or other context does not allow outsiders to verify these claims. Amount of content makes merging impractable. User should be given time to flesh out the subject matter to prove it is a significant political concept and not OR. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article can now be found here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War of Words (right-wing extremism)[edit]

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

This a nebulous and discursive essay/discussion rather than a proper article about something notable. There are lots of debates about things in the world – eg who’s the best ever FA Cup/Super bowl winner; what makes a party left- or right- wing – an encyclopedia has pages about the underlying things or concepts, not about such meta-debates, unless that debate is particularly notable in itself. The name “War of words” is also not a term generally or commonly applied to this particular "debate"; it’s simply a generic phrase, taken as the headline/title of one paper written by one academic. We don’t need articles titled after and focused on every single academic paper and journal article, whether then fleshed out with vaguely related material or not. N-HH talk/edits 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator, for reasons above. N-HH talk/edits 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWell sourced/--Deathlaser (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having quite a few footnotes is not the same thing as being "well sourced". Do those sources relate to the topic and title as presented? Is the topic notable in the first place? Etc etc. All the sources cited might well be useful additions to the article on right-wing extremism. They do not justify this article, which is the point here. Can AFD debates ever focus on the reasons put forward for deletion, and rise above counting footnotes and leaving a pithy "keep" justification? N-HH talk/edits 16:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC

Keep In my module on the extreme right taught by Dr Matthew Goodwin at the University of Nottingham the debate is termed the war of words. I realise Wikipedia doesn't privilege expertise by its very nature. Quickbeam44 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we generally credit academic expertise of course; but not, I'm afraid, pseudonymous editors' accounts of what they are told on their courses. There are also issues around notability when it comes to creating entire articles about one-off phrases, whoever utters them. In any event, did your tutor simply say there is a war of words about this; or did he say this debate is formally known as "The War of Words"? The former is self-evidently true, as it is about 1001 other issues; the latter is a very different point, and there appears to be no evidence that it is so known more widely, or that it stands under that name as a significant issue above and beyond the issue of right-wing extremism per se. N-HH talk/edits 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Mudde's article there is Goodwin's article Beyond the War of Words? The Extreme Right Paradigm in the Twenty-First Century. The 'war of words' is also referred to in Luther, K. (2000), Austria: A Democracy Under Threat from the Freedom Party, Parliam Aff (2000) 53 (3): 426-442 a journal currently co-edited by one of the academics from my department. Once this hopefully survives AfD I shall continue to flesh out the article Quickbeam44 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess Goodwin's is a response to Mudde's original article, or perhaps simply a use of the generic phrase. We just don't know. Again, I still don't see that this creates notability. Are there any thrid-party sources that specifically assert what the article asserts in its opening question - that this is "a name given to an academic debate concerning the most appropriate way of defining the ideologies of right-wing extremist parties"; and that such debate is notable above and beyond the concept of modern right-wing extremism itself? If Academic A published a paper called "The Big Question: who was to blame for the Cold War"?, and Academics B & C briefly responded to that using the same term, would that justify an article under the title "The Big Question (Cold War blame)? Or would we look to integrate that material into one of the substantive Cold War pages? N-HH talk/edits 17:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were being obstinate I might expand this article to the extent it can't be reasonably merged then :-) Quickbeam44 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into the currently rather threadbare Far-right politics, which covers much the same ground but under a far more obviously notable title might well be the obvious solution. Not least because your more recent additions in particular say nothing about any supposed "War of Words" meta-debate, but simply list various suggested defining characteristics of right-wing extremism, which one would have thought more obviously belong in that main article, along with a more detailed history of extreme right-wing movements. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The naming of groups on the extreme right is a matter of considerable dispute and is discussed in most texts on the right. For example, Pippa Norris writes, "standard reference works use alternate typologies and diverse labels categorising parties as 'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant', 'neo-Nazi' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', or 'neoliberal', 'libertarian' and so on". (Norris, Pippa. Radical right: voters and parties in the electoral market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 44) But the article needs work. Is it referring to "far right" parties like the BNP, or does it include right-wing populist parties like UKIP? TFD (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are disputes over definition and categorisation, as there are with many topics, but surely most articles define their topic, and deal with any such disputes, in the main article? Indeed, isn't that in part the point of any article? Unless we need to spin material about the debate off from the main article due to the significance of that debate itself, what we have is surely a rather blatant content fork. And, if we have a separate "naming dispute"-type article, it should certainly not be under this name, since there is no evidence this is a common or standard term for it. It's simply a generic term applied briefly to this particular debate in a couple of instances. N-HH talk/edits 18:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the basis that this article would be a section of the far-right article eventually... the main article would presumably focus on more than definitions. 92.15.153.16 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're Quickbeam, logged out? Anyway, if the above is the case, why didn't you just start it as a section of that article and why are you now arguing for it to be kept as standalone piece, under this name? As noted above, the main far right page is the obvious place for this information. By your own admission now, you're basically using main article space as a sandbox and/or creating a content fork before the main article is even full. N-HH talk/edits 12:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unable to access Mudde's 1996, article, but click here for full access to his 2004 book The Dark Side of European Politics: Unmasking the Radical Right. See pp. 6 following. By "extreme right", he is referring to the terminology developed by Klaus von Beyme who used the term to describe parties to the right of traditional conservatism, liberalism and christian democracy. It includes the far right, right-wing populism and, in the United States, the radical right. The terminology is a matter of dispute because, unlike liberals for example, extreme rightists do not call themselves extreme and sometimes do not call themselves right-wing. Unlike socialists for example they do not necessarily identify themselves with other parties in their group, a shared history or core set of beliefs. That is why their naming or even existence as a single ideological family is a matter of discussion. Incidentally in radical right, a number of editors are now complaining about even mentioning that most recent scholarship places the Tea Party Movement within that tradition. TFD (talk) 20:12, 6 April 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, ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This strikes me as an original essay. Still pondering these things. Carrite (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does strike me as a combination of original research and the (not particularly notable) work of one scholar, this Mr Mudde. There may be some substance to it that could be used in some articles in some form, but as an article, it falls short of our inclusion requirements. Sandstein 07:46, 21 April 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) 12:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite as a condensed subsection of far right. Some of the information in it can also be distributed in the far right article. Mudde's original article "The War of Words" was cited 156 times according to Google, which is relatively high, and I can find numerous references to it in the literature on the extreme right. But I don't see that this merits an article of its own. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Rant I’ve stopped working on this article as a) it has an AfD tag on it and therefore I might be wasting my time – this only helps it attract delete votes as I’m not editing to make it less essay-ish b) Wishout wishing to sound arrogant I don’t think any of you are qualified to judge whether to keep this article given you haven't had you head in this literature for months (read that back that sounds arrogant doesn't it?!) Anway, my aim was to write two articles which would eventually branch off of the main far-right article. This one dealing with definitions and another dealing with drivers of far-right support - Wikipedia’s coverage of the academic theories relating to the later is nil. My plan was to first write the articles then having done that I would begin working on the far-right article and build that up with these articles branching off it as sections. If this survives I shall continue my efforts on this topic. Quickbeam44 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the principle that dispassionate and disinterested contributions are often the most appropriate ones, I'd argue precisely the opposite - ie that while someone who has "had their head in this literature for months" might be well-placed to contribute material on a notable and discrete topic, or even write a very good essay, they not be the best person to argue about notability and due weight for a WP article with a proper sense of perspective in the first place. And in any event, Wikipedia doesn't work on the basis of what people think they know, however well-informed or well-read they might genuinely be, but on the basis of clear, verifiable evidence. It would seem most people commenting have a fair grasp of the broad issues around right-wing politics, but dispute the need for this specific page, under this specific title. If there was indeed widespread literature and multiple sources that affirmed that such a thing known as the "War of Words (right-wing extremism)" existed as a distinct and significant theme - under that proper name - you of all people would surely be able to point the rest of us to them? N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it is potentially notable, as there are plenty of sources, but as is now, it's a bit weak and rambling. Incubate or userfy? Bearian (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am willing to compromise so as to prevent this article becoming a victim of AfD deletionists

1)I wish to write an article on definitions that will be too big for the main article 2)Most textbooks in this area begins with a definitions chapter engaging with semantic quibbles relating to the nature of certain labels 3)Leading academics in this area such as Cas Mudde and Matt Goodwin call this debate the war of words but the problem with Wikipedia is expertise/credentials means nothing. I give up! - how about we rename this Right-wing extremism (definitions) Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in some way with far right; let Quickbeam44 build Glossary of Right-wing extremism from it. Of course, since "right-wing" ideas vary from country to country, that might need some definition too. As far as notability is concerned, this article addresses some serious concerns. I agree it looks a bit on the "original research" side. I'd agree with incubate or userfy too.Marikafragen (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be original research given I've referenced content to peer-reviewed academic articles and relevant textbooks? Some of the academic literature engages with the whole issue of how universal definitions can be given what can be considered left/right varies across nations. If this stays I'll keep working and add to the article, if it doesn't I'll give up. Either way can a decision be made as I've been prevented from working on this article for 23 days now! Quickbeam44 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 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) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Vyent[edit]

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

Fails GNG Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he can't have it his way, then he wants it deleted. Wikipedia is an entity for everyone to edit. Try to nominate Wishology for deletion too. 74.101.6.158 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Stricken comment from blocked sock. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I can't help it, but the sock has a point here. Destroying articles because a sock is working on it, is not the way. Assuming that everyone working on the article is a sockpuppet, as you did with me, goes too far. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never said YOU were a sock. I made an inadverdant undo. I apologize. As for the AFD, it has nothing to do with the sock, but rather the notability. You made a somewhat rationale case to keep below, and did make some improvements to the article. I still am unconvinced this passes GNG. Consenus will decide. Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, appeared on one magazine cover of Vogue but not much else. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –BuickCentury Driver 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She appears to have had a period of fame in the early 1990s, I don't want people to overlook that based on the current poor article. I noted the following sources, [6] (quote not available via source link, but is via google book search results for subject: "Louise Vyent, a striking half-Dutch, half-Surinamese model, has graced 15 covers — including Vogue's."); [7] (New Woman: "Louise (Vyent is her last name), this month's cover model and one of the most sought-after models in the world"); [8](Glamour: "Louise Vyent, for instance, right, is half Dutch, half Surinamese. Kara Young's father is white and her mother is black..."); [9] (Ebony: "She and fellow Black models Louise Vyent and Kara Young were profiled in an article titled "The New Top Models" ") (Ebony mention 2: [10])--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is Dutch, so notable But I think the addition of sources is a more convincing reason. The original article was bad, and I am still not proud on the present article, but I really think she is notable due to her career in the pre-Internet period. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? She is notable because she is Dutch? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read everything after the smiley, a reason is given that addresses WP:BIO; the smiley shows that the Dutch part is a joke. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having reflected on the articles I and others found, it does appear she crossed the threshold of notability. If there is some content debate over what should be in the article (there was some edit about whether her children should be mentioned i think) let's resolve that through editing, not deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be maintained. Ms. Vyent reamins active as a model, she is continuing her career as a photographer, and she has many new projects in her photography career "in the pipe." She is a member of a group of Montclair, NJ artists and she may be having a special exhibition soon - but that latter point is speculation for now. Nevertheless, she is a highly respected person in Montclair, and it's not her fault that she's not as well-known as her fellow Montclair resident Stephen Colbert! (Please keep it, as more biographical data on her will utlimately be available.)-- Captain Caveman • ^hasspoken 03:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources to back your claims. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you claimed she appeared on one cover when it was actually at least 15.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the sources exist, why not add them? That would end this AfD fairly easily. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable 80s model and still has an active dual career of modelling and photography. UnderGODsHelp (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — UnderGODsHelp (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet. Calabe 1992 22:05, 20 April 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 08:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is lousy and its sourcing is inadequate. However, articles like this NYTimes piece [11] are written in a way that indicate her name would be recognizable to a general audience, and she is discussed often enough in pieces concerning the relative success/marketability of female models of color. Seems to be a case of limited online accessibility to coverage rather than lack of coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I'll move to keep, and tag the article appropriately. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, if there is still any doubt. A cursory look at Google Books reveals lots of articles from the late 1980s that argue the subject was of historic importance in truly integrating fashion modeling. Tons of sources, from Ebony and Jet to NY Times to Richard Avedon shoots. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - why is this still here?Marikafragen (talk) 02:53, 29 April 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shaltout[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:BIO, even in the few references given at the bottom, all but one of which are primary sources. He is mentioned very briefly in the linked Youm7.com article on the funeral of Ibrahim Al-Feki, where he's named as a "human development expert", and quoted about Al-Feki, apparently a former colleague. I can find nothing online supporting the assertions made about his significance as a public speaker and trainer, and no significant coverage of him from WP:Reliable sources in English or Arabic, just lots of entries in social media and a bit of blogging. Scopecreep (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG and lack of acceptable sources. This could probably have been handled by WP:BLPPROD but at this point we might as well continue the AfD instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 24 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aryanna Strader[edit]

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

PROD removed by Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) who was also the page creator. Original PROD rationale stands: Candidate only, does not meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN.

Removing user stated: I added two additional media sources (not affiliated with her). I believe she does meet WP: Politician and possibly also WP:GNG.

Strader hasn't held an office, so that leaves #3 on WP:POLITICIAN, which leaves it to WP:BIO/WP:GNG. She does not pass that, the current coverage is all for a single event.

So I also say, delete. There's no reason this article can't be created after the election is over; between now and then, it'll simply be a soapbox. tedder (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, closing admin, I created this article. I feel that there is significant enough media coverage to qualify her under #2 of WP:POLITICIAN which states that major local political figures are deemed to be notable. Strader is running for a Federal office, therefore I feel she's a significant enough local politician, at least for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, there are three newspaper articles which mention her candidacy (two from Lancaster Newspapers and one from the Reading Eagle. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a politician yet. The "common outcomes for politicians" states: "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls". tedder (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- Create section District 16 at United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012; merge brief synopsis, then redirect this to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012#District 16. Wasn't notable before nomination, and as yet has not met WP:GNG or WP:N. Dru of Id (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as a non-officeholder. As for WP:N (the general notability criteria), run-of-the-mill coverage in local newspapers of a candidate's run for office does not qualify as "significant". ... discospinster _talk 01:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 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 07:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a voter guide. Currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 14:17, 21 April 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 and userfy - Can now be found here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mariano[edit]

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

Not notability, "Actor" plays only uncredited roles. Alrofficial (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Actor" plays only uncredited roles <----- Maybe you should read his IMDB page again. Tom Mariano out of 9 acting roles 7 of them has been credited and 3 have been uncredited. Not counting that his paintball reality paintball show is still going. Also he has more acting credits then some of the actors here on Wiki. I really don't understand why u say his not an actor when I didn’t see your name on IMDB nor did credits for any acting you. Seem you just want to delete to delete and that is not nice at all. --Sadanoops (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S again for someone you think is not doing much in the acting world or film world here is a list of more credits Tom Mariano has belwo and here is the link to those credits http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1863451/ Producer (2 titles), Cinematographer (1 title), Sound Department (1 title), Miscellaneous Crew (1 title), Director (1 title), Camera and Electrical Department (1 title), Editor (1 title), Self (2 titles), Stunts (2 titles), Writer (1 title) --Sadanoops (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and WP:USERFY back to author. Sorry, Sadanoops... but as much as he is doing, Mariano curently lacks the coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or the depth of work in notable projects to meet WP:FILMMAKER. While we need not deny his acting in minor descriptive roles, their being minor fails W:ENT. If and/or when Behind the Mask Show: The Story of the US Mercs Paintball Team and Naughty or Nice (2006 film) get enough coverage to themselves meet WP:NF, then we might consider a return under WP:CREATIVE as their producer. Notability is found through reliable sources discussing the man or his workss in enough detail. These are lacking, and much of the article cannot be verified in reliable sources... and this give us a problematical biography of a living person. That's why the article is being discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was being discussed, but seem to me people or should i say admins on wiki just delete because they have the power. Seems to me Mariano has a lot going on and yes he might not have as much as other. But does have more then some people on wiki and they are still up. Sad when people have the power and they just delete because. --Sadanoops (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mak Yuree[edit]

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

Self promotion and really not that notable. Multiple memberships in self congratulatory soke councils don't impress Peter Rehse (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the discussion at WT:WPMA it seems that his world record is not sufficient to show notability and there's no other indication he meets the notability criteria given at WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments both here and at WT:WPMA. Holders of records aren't automatically notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 27 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovering God in America (film series)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NF -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) (As Nominator)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps the info could be expanded on in a section of the Gingrich article? dci | TALK 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rediscovering God in America. As this is a multimedia production it makes sense to cover the various formats together under the common title. Warden (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book article at Rediscovering God in America#Film series where the films NOW have mention and sourcing. While it is through multiple reliable secondary coverage that this film topic passes WP:NF, I opt for a redirect. Both topics have independent and sourcable notability, but the book and the documentaries are intricately related and so deeply intertwined that is best to have them all togerther at one location. Improving the articles will simply require a bit of work... and lacking editorial attention to either of the articles is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Fails WP:NF as Nom'd, it is clearly not notable. It also has WP:IRS issues as does the book page which is also nominated for deletion. Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain yourself. Why does this merit a strong delete in block capitals? How is this clearly not notable? See the links I give below. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep Rediscovering God in America. Taking book and series together they are clearly notable; taken apart either may be notable though it's more arguable. Film may be notable per[12][13][14][15] but coverage in joint article may be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: more than enough sources to establish notability.– Lionel ^(talk) 13:09, 24 April 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. Notability. Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. (While PORNBIO is admittedly under rediscussion, it's clear that that guideline is heading towards tightening or elimination, any possible changes there aren't going to save this article.) joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sledge Hammer (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

So this guy was a pornographic actor, and died in an altercation with police, but this just fails ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:BIO1E Mt king ^(edits) 03:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:PORNBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the listed reason for nomination, WP:BLP1E does not apply to deceased persons. -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been WP:BIO1E. Mt king ^(edits) 07:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:PORNBIO WP:PORNSTAR This guy isn't even notable in the adult entertainment industry.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom, subject fails PORNBIO and his death is a BIO1E. I'm also struck by the remarkable differences between the accounts of his death given in the mainline news media and in the porn industry sources, which ought to give great pause to those editors who uncritically claim that the industry sources generally satisfy WP:RS and are suitable for bio and BLP use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give examples of the differences between the mainline news media and in the porn industry sources? Epbr123 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the XBIZ and the AVN reports say that "Hammer" was tasered into unconsciousness/cardiac arrest by police after he got out of the ambulance which had come to his home and refused to get back in it; XBIZ quotes his girlfriend as saying he was "peaceful" and "cooperative" and "didn't fight them at all." The LA Times, however, says he broke free from restraints while the ambulance was traveling to a hospital, and "became violent with paramedics," forcing the ambulance to stop, somehow got out of the vehicle, and remained conscious after being tasered. HuffPost similarly reports that the incident occurred while he was being transported. NBC News reported [16] that Hammer was "stunned twice with a Taser during a struggle that began inside the back of an ambulance" and added the details that he had been handcuffed by police at his residence and had attempted suicide five years earlier. The Daily Mail report[17] says that "Hammer" "reacted with such force that he broke the gurney free from a floor lock and broke the handcuff, which led police to Taser him. The XBIZ/AVN reports don't even mention the fact that his girlfriend had had to take a knife away from him. They present the story as "gentle giant" killed by police overreaction, as opposed to the mainline version of a suicidal actor getting violent in a moving ambulance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. To be fair, his violence is mentioned in other porn industry articles, [18][19]. Epbr123 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duhh, there would be a difference especially given in a controversial recent death. "A department spokesperson has been providing the mainstream media with what is presumable the responding officers' version of events, the description of which gets more detailed with each telling." As long as you have proper attribution, I'm fine with sources presenting different perspectives of what may have happened. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per BIO1E. Dosen't even pass the depreciated ex-guideline PORNBIO. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Xiaosheng[edit]

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

And also:

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

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

New editor just created several articles about films made in Hong Kong in 1946—all of which are unreferenced and star an assortment of Pokémon. Looks like a hoax to me. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to err on the side of deleting all to be safe. On brief inspection ghits for Bai Xiaosheng are inconclusive. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta speedy delete 'em all as blatant hoaxes (in the case of the two film articles) or non-notable, and will now tag them as such. No hits for "Vigilante Swordman" at all, while a search for "Court Secret's" gives only five inconclusive hits. As for Bai Xiaosheng, as noted above, a search is inconclusive. How can 1946 films starring Pokémon even exist if Satoshi Tajiri was born in 1965? As for the Baidu link in the Vigilante Swordsman article, it links to an unrelated 2011 film of a similar title. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:26, 21 April 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 via WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Beading[edit]

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

Delete. A non-notable magazine published by a non-notable company ~~in a non-notable country~~. oops.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ Per nom + No references; no notability; no place on Wikipedia, at this stage. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:21, 22 April 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) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of American non-fiction environmental writers[edit]

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

Delete per the sentiments of WP:LISTCRUFT, and because the actual topic, from which the list strays, can be handled by a category. WP editors seem to have a fixation for lists of all sorts regardless of whether they are of use to readers. An article relating to the topic with actual prose may also be an idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the list does not stray from the topic, and, secondly, the extra information in the other columns and the sortable wikitable are both features that can not be handled by a category. Also, statistics show that some lists are useful to readers.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THere are six columns. A list is a single column. The stats for the List_of_environmental_lawsuits page is higher than I would expect but it is not comparable. Also, is that a test for notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, a list can have the format of a sortable wikitable, although it seems to me that calling it a table is more accurate than calling it a list. The statistics indicate interest.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove unnecessary statements. A list would allow for a presentation of this idea, and in order to meet this end, yes, prose should be added, but the list kept and revised. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 01:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is it useful to readers? Is it worth maintaining until the end of civilisation as we know it? I would answer with a resounding "NO". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CLS tells us not to delete lists to favour categories. Warden (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An I am saying that we should favour actual prose. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a standard and sensible index of articles on a discrete and notable topic, which complements the category system for navigation and provides further information in annotations. AL has made it clear that he does not like lists, but it should also be clear to him that his understanding of relevant standards in this area is idiosyncratic and not reflective of community consensus by a long shot. Continuing to nevertheless make such deletion nominations tends towards being disruptive and POINTy rather than constructive. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I do not like lists. I create them and I promote them, but if they are of no use I ask for them to be deleted. And please assume good faith. A difference in our judgements on what articles should be included in WP is no reason to make the bold claim that I am out of step with the community or being POINTy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is one exemplary list that you have started, and what desirable feature(s) does it have that this list does not have?

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A discriminate list of notable writers. See also: WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid list per WP policy. If you think this topic additionally merits an actual prose article, write one, but don't delete it just because an article is theoretically possible - where is the logic in that? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much original research. list includes any author who the creators have found to have written a book which touches on any environmental subject, thus we have authors who are primary SF, like asimov, included for having 1 book (though it may be a good one). the inclusion criteria are too vague. would you include an author who wrote one essay on the subject, or wrote a testimonial for greenpeace, but was not the author of a scholarly work?. also, the term "environmental writer" means "environmentalist writer". this list includes books by Anti-environmentalists as well, like glenn beck. thats like have a list of christian writers which includes anti christian writers. having a typical book for each author is also original research. I also feel that this list is not truly useful to readers, per Liefting. I dont think it works as a parallel guide to a category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it that Category:American non-fiction environmental writers is not irredeemable OR, but List of American non-fiction environmental writers is? postdlf (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same would apply to the category but that is not what is being discussed here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd also disagree further with the equating of this list to "environmentalist writers", which would be about the writer's identity, not the content of their works; the entries of this list clearly show that it is targeting writers by what they write about. If there is a consensus that the title is unclear on that point (though with "non-fiction" also in the title, I don't see how it could be; "I am a non-fiction environmentalist" makes zero sense), a rename can be discussed on the article's talk page after this AFD closes. Likewise, if there is consensus not to include people for one-off books about environmental issues (such as Asimov or Beck), such inclusion criteria are to be determined on the talk page in the first instance. At minimum, it's simply not credible that none of the writers listed should be included, as there are indisputably writers who are defined by their work on this topic (such as Rachel Carson). As for the "typical book" column being OR, I don't quite get that claim. The titles are obviously verifiably written by these authors, and choosing one to represent their work in this area is in my view no more problematic than the editorial decision of what select works should be named in a biography's lede out of the writer's larger bibliography. Again, that's an issue for talk page discussion and not relevant to deletion here even if the consensus were to rename that column or remove it entirely. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - All this is why I suggested an actual article with actual prose. A category and a list {to a lesser degree) cannot give any indication of "scale". Asimov is in a completely different "category" to, say, Paul Hawken. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – lists are useful navigational tools, often easier to use than categories. Perhaps it needs rebuilt, but deleted? Nope.Marikafragen (talk) 02:56, 29 April 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. Adding a redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capacitive gestures[edit]

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

Delete because I don't like it..... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete messy how-to, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have several related articles and the closest of them seems to be Multi-touch gestures which has some nice graphics. There's a clearly a need for a good article on this topic and so we should keep these drafts for further development per our editing policy. BTW, have you ever tried to edit Wikipedia using a touchscreen interface rather than a mouse? It's not easy... Warden (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden frequently recycles the editing policy argument, it carries no weight in advancing or establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not just about notability. The actual argument of the nomination is "I don't like it" which seems to be neither policy nor guideline. Warden (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment in the nomination was tongue in cheek. There may or may not be a policy based argument for deletion but Afds are all about getting a consensus on inclusion. WP policy and guidelines don't always help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I work in this field and this is so poorly written, it would be a much better solution to the Colonel's points to expand/edit Multi-Touch and possibly redirect the title of this article. Although I have never heard anyone use that terminology. All touch screens are capacitive, whether they are multi touch or not. I can attest that editing Wikipedia on an iPad is AWFUL.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you vote Redirect, then, or Delete? Can't have both. Anarchangel (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other types of touch screen technology besides capacitive such as resistive. The method of sensing has some effect upon the types of gesture which can be made. My impression is that we have numerous articles and so it would be good to review them all and then try to organise them into a coherent structure. Warden (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multi-touch gestures You know, of course, when one attempts to create a new article that has previously been deleted, there is a dirty nasty big old pink sign, of the color of tube socks that were left in with red clothes, that gives a very strong hint that perhaps no one should create this article ever again. "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." Chances are, a person remaking such an article has absolutely no clue what the previous article was like, and no way of finding out without contacting the deleting administrator in any case. Admins that are convinced of the deficiencies of articles enough to delete them usually prefer to avoid talking to people about restoring; I have never gotten a reply on such a subject, although I admit I gave up after two or three times. I think that is the wrong message to send some well-meaning techie who might actually know how to write this article, on a subject that is obviously worthy of inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience warnings given to editors in various locations serve no purpose. They are universally ignored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect; the article as written is nearly useless. Chidon01 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 1063[edit]

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

NOT Notable per WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWS and too much WP:RECENTISM ...William 01:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions....William 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions....William 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely routine, not remotely notable.Not even newsworthy, really. See avherald.com, for examples of how this sort of thing is extremely common and routine. Skrelk (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "An aircraft took off, ate a few birds, safely landed. In other news, a man completed the Monster Cheeseburger challenge at MJ's Greasy Spoon." Both events rise to about the same level of notability with regards to Wikipedia, which is to say, none whatsoever. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~because WP has enough articles~~ per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Damage to a single engine is usually not an incident that puts an airliner in all that much danger. Coverage is likely to be transient only for an event like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plea. Please, please, please, do not attack the author with comments like "Very poor understanding of the criteria for inclusion by the creator of the article", and "Why did the author bother with this. I wonder." Neither of those votes addresses the notability of the article, instead it bites at the author who is a newcomer trying to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. Knowledge of the inclusion and notability guidelines is gained by experience, and almost everyone here have made errors in judgement in this area. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added welcome template to user talk page to help. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Definitely not notable, accidents like this happen very frequently indeed.--Mark91it's my world 10:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per William, The Bushranger and Mark91. Thee is nothing further to add. YSSYguy (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor understanding of the criteria for inclusion by the creator of the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete A Germanwings airplane I was flying in in 2006 hit some birds on the way to Germany. I see no Wikipedia article about it. Same applies for this airplane. Osarius Talk 15:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An aeroplane hitting a few birds but suffering no damage doesn't seem a particularly noteworthy event to me. JIP | Talk 16:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why did the author bother with this. I wonder?Petebutt (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to avoid AFDing this article by making it a redirect[20] via WP:BOLD but the article's creator reverted[21]. So I had no other choice but Afd it. We have ten editors who agree with my nomination and not one single dissenter. Isn't it time for WP:SNOWBALL to be proclaimed and this discussion be closed?...William 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was riding in a packed school bus many years ago, when the driver became violently ill and began vomiting. In those pre-cell phone days, it took hours to sort things out, several athletic contests were cancelled and couldn't be rescheduled, and the outcome of at least one state championship was probably affected. It therefore was a more notable event than this, and I am prepared to write an article about it, which strike fear and dismay into the hearts of any editors considering keep !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor accident that fails WP:AIRCRASH. I suggest a WP:SNOW closure. B music ian 14:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one died, it only lost one engine, and it landed just fine in an airport. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable as far as I can see. Pretty much a WP:SNOW and clear consensus right here. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 22 April 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 G4 per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Devann_Yao_(2nd_nomination). --Michael Greiner 03:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devann Yao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated deleted PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Wilkes (theatre)[edit]

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

apparently unpublished as playwright. merge into Belt Up Theatre, as already suggested, or delete SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~because I am more notable and don't have an article~~ per WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources on this person. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:42, 27 April 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. Lack of a valid deletion rationale (WP:NTEMP). (I note, however, that since consensus can change, in a closer argument I might have hoped for specific discussions of sources and how they relate to specific notability guidelines from both sides.) joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Seaward[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD four years ago on notability grounds was a weak keep, but the subject seems to have vanished since then. Refs all from a burst of activity in 2008. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources tells me notable. also WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which sources? Did you actually look at them? LibStar (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was notable four years ago, the fact that he hasn't become more notable in the interim isn't a reason to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability, once established, does not vanish simply because it has not continued. Once acknowledged and sourced, we do not expect nor demand ongoing coverage or continued notability ad-infinitum. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, if there are no new sources, doesn't mean that this article needs to be deleted. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anaman Yogiji[edit]

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

In short, the Anaman Yogiji topic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain a stand alone article. Failis WP:GNG. I searched under Anaman Yogiji, Darrell Andre Clark, and Siri Shiva Singh, but didn't find much. I searched "Urban Yogi Movement" and "Urban Yogi", since he is self-titled the "Urban Yogi." Nothing on the movement and the "Urban Yogi" was for a general urban yogi concept [22], [23], [24] not for Yogiji. In fact, the US Trademark for Urban Yogis belongs to Anthony Biduck,[25] not Anaman Yogiji. There is a COIN report on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and move on to next issue. Deletion is not permanent - it can always be recreated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:25, 21 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hwang[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of an individual. A good reference for the appropriate individuals to be included is detailed at WP:MILPEOPLE. tedder (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum- in reality, this doesn't need deletion, it needs to be a redirect to the Mackay Trophy, but I created the AFD because I swear this biography has been dealt with, but I can't find record of it, so a binding AFD is better than simply redirecting. tedder (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember seeing something about speculation he could become the first Korean-American general officer; I'll try to source it. Dru of Id (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USMC David D. Yoo already nominated. [26] Dru of Id (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article cites reliable sources including a published book and two newspapers. For comparison another recent USAF colonel noted for his victories has an article Cesar Rodriguez (USAF pilot). Boortootle (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonels are not presumed to be inherently notable after the US Civil War. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, an argument to avoid. Were that article challenged, while it as yet does not include his awards, they are displayed in one of the references and include the Legion of Merit, 3 Silver Stars (one for valor), and the Bronze Star Medal, and would therefore likely be kept. Dru of Id (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the decorations awarded to Col. Rodriguez, Col. Hwang earned the Mackay Trophy, the signature prize of the USAF. Boortootle (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the Flying Cross was the pinnacle as a flying award. By no means is it "[the] nation's highest award for valour" as necessary under WP:MILPEOPLE. tedder (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Distinguished Flying Cross is an award for valor. In a separate track of achievement, the Mackay Trophy is again the signature prize of the USAF. It looks like the page you linked offers some points for guidance but isn't a strict formula like a necessary test. Reasonable interpretation should be used based on the guidance points and I believe this article falls into the ambit of that criteria. Boortootle (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Army awards the DFC solely for valor; I find no reference which confirms which was awarded to Col. Hwang, and like the Silver Star, it would require multiple valorous awards; one item I lost in my post about COL Rodriguez, he additionally has a DFC with V, meeting the multiple valorous awards. Dru of Id (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mackay Trophy. The Mackay Trophy, unfortunatly, isn't the sort of award that confers notability - it's often awarded to groups, and, frankly, for simple, non-notable things ("a flawless deployment of 72 F-4 Phantom IIs...without a single abort", while laudable, isn't Wikipedia worthy, for instance), and "shooting down two enemy aircraft in one mission" is not the sort of thing that confers notability. Colonel Hwang's actions, even though the brass decided to give him a trophy for them, were WP:RUNOFTHEMILL when it comes to combat; he has to be judged on his other merits with regards to the WP:GNG, which come back with a verdict of "WP:TOOSOON - come back when he gets stars on his shoulders". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bushranger's analysis. and, while it's not terribly pertinent to this discussion, I'm compelled to note that, by current/recent Wikipedia community standards, Col. Hwang's achievements pale in light of those of, say, Nicole Sheridan[27]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that be an WP:WHATTHEINTERNETISFOREXISTS argument? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 22 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

On reflection and after discussion the result was Delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Dragon Prince[edit]

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

Since proposed deletion was denied, I am nominating this for AfD. Please note: I do not mean to cause anyone offense through this AfD, so please let this be known in advance. In any case, my rationale is the similar to some other AfDs that I initiated recently:

Through a recent lengthy discussion about the notability of fictional places, an editor Juhachi came to me with a concern that fictional locations with no "real-world" notability probably fail the general notability guidelines. Now, I do not know much about Dragon Prince; please forgive me on that. However, while I have found that other articles about lists of fictional locations do have some reasonable secondary sources that establish its notability, there are no such secondary sources here―only primary sources directly related to the series, but that, of course, does not establish its "real-world notability" that is independent of the source. Dragon Prince may be notable, but since notability is not inherited, I do not know of why this has notability in itself. In any case, while I myself am not completely certain of the merits of Juhachi's reasoning, there are others that have voiced similar reasoning, so do think that at least this line of reasoning is reasonably backed in policy. New questions? 05:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that the best common outcome for these is to merge as a section of the parent article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per failing WP:GNG, having no primary or secondary sources. Notability is not inherited. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just excessive plot summary, i.e. fancruft, that belongs on a fan site rather than in a general purpose encyclopedia, per WP:WAF. Not independently notable and would make the main article excessively long and in-universe-y if merged. Sandstein 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all - as has been noted is no notability without verifiability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunloy F.C.[edit]

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

No apparent notability, no independent coverage and no participation in national cup according to RSSSF. Cloudz 679 08:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 08:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages under the same criteria:

Cloudz 679 08:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all.(inculding ones below) Haven't participated in national cup therefore fail WP:FOOTYN, nor do they pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Iveagh United, Immaculata, Crumlin Star, Kilroot Recreation as they particapticed in this years Northern Irish Cup. Iveagh United & Immaculata in 4th round Crumlin star 3rd round & Kilroot 1st round Delete - Broomhill & Dunlop, Haven't participated in national cup therefore fail WP:FOOTYN, nor do they pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages under the same criteria:

Cloudz 679 08:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Iveagh United, Kilroot Recreation, Crumlin Star and Immaculata. Delete Dunloy and Broomhill. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broomhill & Dunlop, Keep the rest as playing in national Cup. Giant Snowman 09:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flush, But if we are deleting Oirish intermediate teams, shouldn't we toilet a few teams from "ra Juniors" in Scotland? Unless we're being our usual selves: massively biased, double-standards using, BIGOTS. Obviously. 94.12.119.134 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Iveagh United were in the early stages of the Irish Cup this season [28] [29] as were Immaculata [30] and their opponents Crumlin Star [31] not to mention Kilroot Rec [32]. I can find nothing for Dunloy or Broomhill however. Keresaspa (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would be easier to vote keep if there had ever been any media coverage of the team that was referenced. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iveagh, Kilroot, Crumlin Star and Immaculata as they meet WP:FOOTYN. Delete Dunloy and Broomhill, as they do not. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which is needed to meet the General notability guideline. GNG takes precedence over any local rules invented by enthusiasts on projects.--Charles (talk) 21:21, 28 April 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 Outline of Judaism. Anything of note can be merged to there from the history. Sandstein 06:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History and branches of Judaism[edit]

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

What is this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall creating this page. I think this was a subpage of another page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - this looks like a list article created from another overview article about Judaism. All the items on the list are blue-linked, therefore of some note, but the list needs an introductory explanation of its scope. Really this AfD has been created eroneously because questions like "What is this?" should be discussed on the article's Talk page. Sionk (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A list article giving a comprehensive overview of Jewish religious movements could be a valuable addition if it is substantially more than a mere list of wikilinks. The present article has no added value next to the articles Jewish history and Jewish religious movements and the corresponding categories such as Category:Jewish religious movements. --Lambiam 09:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I agree with Lambian. If soemone is willing to rescue this, and work on it soon, I would support keeping it. If not, then delete. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth salvaging and there is already Jewish history and Outline of Judaism and a host of other related articles. It is also more bad bias by editors creating lists instead of actual useful prose. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Alan Liefting. The Determinator p t c 03:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judaism because this is neither fish nor fowl, meaning it's neither a "list" nor an "article" nor a "category" about Judaism, it just duplicates what can be simply found in the {{Judaism}} template and in Category:Judaism. IZAK (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need a redirect? WP has an excellent search facility and other forms of navigation as you have pointed out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Yes, I am curious as to why we would redirect this: it's an implausible search term... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Outline of Judaism. There is no particular content, and its not a stand alone article, but the Outline article needs a section on History. A quick check shows many or most of the terms here are not included in the outline, and they ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And then delete? I think you will find that there is not a lot to merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - merge. I copied the content of this article locally, and I'll be adding it to Outline of Judaism sometime soon. No warranties on time, but sometime fairly soon. It alone is Not Nearly Enough (esp before common era timeframe), and I need to search for more stuff on Judaism's history, so requires more time than simply cut/paste. If someone gets to it before I do, I don't mind that either. Marikafragen (talk) 03:13, 29 April 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jurii Kirnev[edit]

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

Film director. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Google News turned up blank. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This person is already notable. Reference Cleaner75 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That blog is not a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was notable in 2009-2010s, though all the reliable sources are two or more years old. I suggest keeping this article... for now. But if we won’t hear from him any news in couple of month, then we will re-open this discussion. HN81K (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Was notable?" WP:NOTTEMPORARY --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this director. Additional sources welcomed, of course. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he was notable two years ago, the fact that he hasn't become more notable doesn't mean that the article must be deleted. WP:NTEMP Jared-Phill (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not contain the kind of references required by WP:GNG. There's two brief articles about a film of his, rather than about himself, and then there are ony blog-type sources. It's not clear what sources the assertion above, "He was notable in 2009-2010s", is based on. Sandstein 06:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Wherry Brass[edit]

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

Could find no indications of notability despite a good faith search Dpmuk (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant notability. HN81K (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This brass band is not notable. Maybe it will become someday, but for now there is nothing significant about it. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brown fox code[edit]

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

This is kinda neat, but it is really just an example for a substitution cipher. There is also no indication that this example would be particularly noteworthy (e.g., a common textbook example). Nageh (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Code is mentioned in this abstract from ACM[33] but I don't have full text access. Also covered in Boys' Life Jan 1994 on Google Books.[34] Close to notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that ACM book also includes the notable User talk:Ciphergoth/One-time pad code, and actually each and every cipher from the English Wikipedia. Absolutely notable! It is covered in one comics magazine for boys, and in one schools book by Miller, which given as a "reliable" source in the article. And note that two or three sources are not significant coverage in reliable sources as required by our notability guideline! Think a bit next time before you are commenting!</rant> Nageh (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why so angry? I suggested sources that might establish notability but that I wasn't able to read, and I didn't vote one way or another, but if it is content copied from WP then obviously that's not independent. If you want to post idiotic abusive comments on other people's work why don't you fuck off to the YouTube comments section? And read some Wikipedia policy documents on the way: 2 or 3 reliable sources are "multiple sources", which is all the WP:N says - show me where it specifies a number. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go fuck around somewhere else. Maybe on the Youtube comments section. There it might not be necessary to read the links you provide. And maybe you don't even have to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Good luck! Nageh (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just an excerpt from the link you didn't even bother reading: "all there is to know about Encryption right away, covering: [...] User talk:Ciphergoth/One-time pad [...]" All that was needed was that you'd read your own links. No full text access needed. Nageh (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that this is given as something that the paper covers, rather than as a direct reference. Certainly a careless thing to do, but not necessarily an indication that the paper is reliant on Wikipedia somehow. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"not necessarily an indication that the paper is reliant on Wikipedia somehow". What??? Yeah, sure. Nageh (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without contesting anything you said, could you please be WP:CIVIL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Cooling off. Nageh (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If, like me, you've yet to gain full access to the paper, then your divining its contents from a snippet of the abstratc is roughly as productive as your attitude on this AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to you, Chris, I am spending countless hours on improving articles in the area of cryptography and within the WikiProject Cryptography. In contrast to you, Chris, I am spending considerable time and research on determining whether articles are indeed of questionable notability before putting them up for AfD. In contrast to you, Chris, I am checking deeply for sources before putting a specific article up for AfD. In contrast to you, Chris, I am investigating whether an abstract of a book is just coincidence (how can it even? you explain!), or whether customers of books by this author complain all over the web that his books are just mere collections of Wikipedia articles. In contrast to you, Chris, I am trying to come up with substantial criticism. Thank you for your productiveness, Chris! Nageh (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have mistaken me for some other editor who exhibits various traits you dislike. Much like the advice to leave the snark and flaming out at home, you might be best leaving off that as well. Anyway, yes, if there is significant rather than circumstantial evidence that the source in question simply copies out own content then it's obviously invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, agree with nom that it is kind of neat. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, it is kind of neat. Not particularly notable.Marikafragen (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hui 7[edit]

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

I can't find many references for this group, it's not clear why they are notable. KarlB (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are primary, and I can't find that there is any extensive coverage in independent sources. Google hits are incidental uses of "hui 7", and have nothing to do with the subject of this article. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Seems like a direct commercial. Jared-Phill (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Car Acronym[edit]

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

Unsourced affair what looks like original research. Due to the high number of red links, doubtful if it is a useful article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. The article was cloned as Trim level acronym (also at Afd). Not only are there many red links, but also many of the blue links (not even counting the blue-linked initialisms) do link to something entirely unrelated. Is there potential for merging some of the material to Car model#Trim level? --Lambiam 09:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim level acronym has now been A10'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a big sea of confusing redlinks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Assuming this is not copy-vio, it is potentially a useful compilation. However, most of the red links need to be delinked and replaced with a couplew of lines of text, explaining the significance of the designation. The author seems to have omitted DL - De Luxe. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is original research at worst, extremely dubious sourcing at best. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:41, 22 April 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 Risk and strategic consulting#List of firmsRisk and strategic consulting#List of firms. Editors felt the existing incarnation violated WP:NOTDIR (presumably point 4), but that a subset of the content could be constructively merged. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of risk and strategic consulting firms[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This is just a directory of businesses (almost all redlinks!). Joja lozzo 23:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming none of the redlinked companies merit articles, then we have just five articles on notable businesses/organizations in this field (one of the six bluelinks in the list is undisambiguated and so links to an unrelated term). These can easily be listed at Risk and strategic consulting. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs redlinks removed. Could then either merge or keep, but don't delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Risk and strategic consulting - I removed the red links and copied the remainder to Risk and strategic consulting#List of firms (which already existed and used to just point here). That eliminated the only article space link into this page. Joja lozzo 00:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jojalozzo. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:39, 22 April 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. Recent additions of references show that this book passes WP:GNG. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovering God in America[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Naturally, because the author is Gingrich, it has been mentioned in news articles, but more about Gingrich than about the book itself. Could be redirected to Gingrich. Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Rediscovering God in America (film series) into this. EDIT: Some more references: Here's the Publisher's Weekly review of the book.[35] This NYT article has 3 paras on the book[36]. There's multiple mentions in Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, Volume 1 by Roger Chapman. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't notice the series article, or I would have nominated it for deletion also. The series is no more notable than each individual component.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Who is Newt Gingrich???... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT bestseller. The worst case is that we'd merge into one of the articles about the authors or their production company. Warden (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT bestseller. It is through reliable secondary coverage that this topic passes WP:BOOK. Although closely related to the film, any topic has independent and sourcable notability determined by coverage, the book and the documentaries are so deeply intertwined that is best to have them all togerther at one location. As for notability, the connected topics have the expected extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources, so soucable notability is not in doubt for either topic. Improving the articles will simply require a bit of work... and lacking editorial attention to either of the articles is not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear, I did search Google News and I looked at the hits, or I wouldn't have phrased it as I did in the nom. Perhaps my search should have been broader, although I'm not sure I would have accepted some of the sources you've found and added to the article as reliable sources (biased blogs and op-eds). I have no objection to keeping the article if that's the consensus, but I didn't nominate it for lack of quality or lack of sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No aspersion toward the nominator, only a statement for those who will visit this AFD later. My comment was toward the article sitting far too long unimproved, and to address that when something can be improved, it serves the project to do so. Per WP:GNG, there is no requirement that the book or film be the sole topic of any source, just so long as the topic is written of in a more-than-trivial manner.. and "mention" of other aspects of Gingrich's life would most certainly be expected considering his background. I looked beyond hits before working on the topic. In looking only at what was used to expand and source the article (so far... and there are many more)... American Thinker is a conservative online magazine. The Anderson Independent-Mail is an newspaper in South Carolina. The Harlan Daily Enterprise is a paper in Kentucky. Politico is an American political journalism organization founded by John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei formerly of The Washington Post, and Variety is THE source accepted as suitable for information on films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so and to show the results of my few edits. The article first created in 2007 and the unsourced, two-paragraph stub, as originally nominated did not look too promising. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom,the book nor the series meet notability requirements of WP:NBOOK,Gingrich is of course notable, but not at the level that every book he's ever written should be on WP, nor every media project he's ever been involved in. The sources recently added are biased blogs and op-eds as the nominator pointed out, these are serious WP:IRS issues. Especially with these sources : American Thinker, Politico Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the instructions at WP:NBOOK#Criteria it passes WP:NBOOK, in that this New York Times bestseller has itself been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, and these include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. If you find flaws with two if the article's (so far 20) sources, take issue with them at WP:RSN to determine if they are suitable or not in context to what is being sourced (along with Independent-Mail and Harlan Daily Enterprise, the American Thinker source simply cites "is a book written by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with photography from his wife Callista Gingrich", and Politico sources "...second book in the series premiered in September 2009 at the Washington Visitor Center, hosted by the author and his wife", and none of these are used to cite commentary or analysis), but know that both sides of a "politcial spectrum" are required for netrality and balance. We are speaking about a bestseller by a conservative Republican politician, so naturally sources will speak about the man and his ideology in their analysis and commentary about his works. I suppose we could dig and find German or Italian or French non-American sources to help cite the article. We do not write about EVERY book or project with which Gingrich is connected... but when one of them catches enough atttention of the media to meet WP:GNG, we can and do. And no... I am not a Republican, nor a fan of things Gingrich. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added even more references. This book has been covered in a wide range of publications and has spawned films and a series of conferences. It keeps cropping up in discussions of Gingrich's work. The book is notable on its own, but together with the media coverage of the adaptations and the wider interest shown in the subject, it is even more notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Major kudos for the additional work! I do agree that book and films have enough independent and sorcable notability, but they are so deeply intertwined, I felt it best to encourage and support them being covered together in one location, figuring it best to have one comprehensive article than two that are less so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: great job with expansion. More than enough sources for notability, NYT bestseller. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NYT bestseller, lots of news coverage, clearly satisfies WP:N. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)— 202.124.75.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Notable author, notable book. Tons of reference. Jared-Phill (talk) 12:04, 27 April 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. GB fan 02:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobikade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed the last AFD as "no consensus" because I felt that none of the 2 participants provided a policy based reason as to why this article should be deleted. Since then I did my own web search to see if this article meets WP:WEB. The only thing I found aside from press releases and such was this which is already in the article. Now this looks like a supersource but WP:WEB and WP:GNG require multiple supersources. Now my "google fu" is not strong so if somebody can find 1 (but preferably 2 or more) just like it, then I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. I also reviewed the first AFD and while it was a unanimous "keep", none of the !voters seemed certain about whether or not the sources in the article were reliable and the first "keep" !vote actually looked more like a "delete" argument. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already, no sources found beyond what the nominator dug up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I saw a couple sentences here, but not enough more than what Ron already noticed to evidence WP:GNG has been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Decker (talk • contribs)

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

^ *Comment.

[1] *Comment.

[1]