Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 October	3 October >

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 redirect to Killer Sounds. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in the House[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for singles. Neelix (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Killer Sounds if you want, but don't delete it. Unreal7 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killer Sounds. I see no independent notability for the song, but a redirect to the album makes sense. -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I'm not finding sufficient coverage to warrant an individual article, and per WP:NSONGS, such songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist". Gongshow ^Talk 07:43, 5 October 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; article author requested deletion in this edit. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 United States winter storm season[edit]

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

Contested prod. Winter storm naming scheme that was created by The Weather Channel and doesn't seem to have been accepted beyond that. The only third-party reference is a Yahoo News article announcing the scheme. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of deleting everything people think doesn't qualify, help make it better. It is a brand new concept that has been introduced and information is limited at the time being. Please do not delete it, it is something that is important that should be added to Wikipedia. So what if there is only two references, I've seen pages with no references, and they have been kept for more than two years. I don't find that very fair, this has enough information to provide the public about the new concept. KEEP STO12 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you want to tell the public about a new concept, here in Wikipedia concepts must catch on before the Wikipedia article is created, not the other way around. What I'm saying is, this is way too soon for a Wikipedia article about a naming scheme that might get booted before it even gets off the ground. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Re-title to Northern Hemisphere Winter storms of 2012-13 to be consistent with other articles that exist (or use to exist). All wind storm season, like hurricane season, are inherently notable. Not everything needs to be deleted. There is no limit for the number of articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, why does it need to be moved to that? The Weather Channel is only naming systems that affect the United States, I don't think it should be moved to that. STO12 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The storms may be individually notable, but we're talking about the notability of the naming scheme here, not that of the storms themselves. Since the NOAA hasn't adopted this naming scheme, we'll mention it only if it's notable on its own. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't a set of winter storm articles, and IMO nor should there be. Wait to see if the names get some widespread significance before recreating, IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would wait to see if these names become of significance and if they're actually widely used (there may be consequences for the TWC doing this without NOAA's consent) before giving it an article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without NOAA's concent? They are a part of NOAA, they don't technically have to ask about it, and this is a one-hundred percent thing, they said that they "WILL" be doing this this winter season. STO12 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TWC is not part of NOAA. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Hink said, The Weather Channel is definitely not part of the NOAA. They are a private organization. And to be honest, it doesn't really matter if they say they WILL, they can easily be shut down if they don't comply. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there is no point in asking about it, there is no "national center" that tracks these events, the "National Weather Service" slightly tracks them, but the national weather service is dispersed throughout different states, so there is no major group organization such as the "National Hurricane Center" for these events (they are only tracking major snowstorms, not snow in general). STO12 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is the purpose of this article to cover the winter storms in the US, or is it mostly because of the naming list? If the former, than there is precedent for not having an article. Several "winter storm" sort of articles have been deleted in the past, largely because there is no definition for what constitutes that. Should a storm that dropped 2 inches of snow be included automatically? What about winter storms that don't get named by the Weather Channel? It's far too early to see if this naming list will become accepted. We should wait and see; perhaps then we could come up with a title that reflects the naming list. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Atlantic tropical cyclone has no definition for what constitutes that either. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tropical cyclone in the South Atlantic Ocean, and I don't see what that has to do with this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they both have on thing in common IMO. They kinda don't have a definition for what constitutes that as the SATL one AFAIk contains systems that were not widely known as TC's. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are completely different, and need I remind you that Other stuff exists? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a general comment, not really a deletion argument, so I guess WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST does not really appear to apply here (though it could apply to what I said above). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you used SATC as an example of an article that doesn't have a proper definition. For this article, there is no definition. Would this apply to winter storms affecting Alaska, for example? And what exactly is a winter storm? Something that produces snowfall in the United States? That's far too vague to be a legitimate article. If you limit it to only the storms named by the Weather Channel, then you run into the problem of placing too much emphasis on an unofficial list by a commercial entity. Furthermore, if there is a storm that produces a significant amount of snow but isn't named, would it be in the article? What about a storm that's named but produces very minimal snow? There is no way to be consistent, particularly with the emphasis on the Weather Channel naming list. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is always winter storms in Alaska, they just happen so often it isn't notable anymore. A winter storm is major snow event that produces several inches (and even feet) in snow, its not a couple snow flakes, it's widespread blizzard like what happened in Chicago not too long ago. Winter storms are predicted by looking at the current trend of weather; if all the conditions are right for a major snow storm, then snow storm watches and warnings are issued. It is not just "some storm that produces snowfall", that is just like calling a hurricane a little bit of wind and rain (and that's not what happens, is it). Major snow storms are major storm complexes that spread it effects throughout up to a whole half of the U.S.. The Weather Channel is now beginning to apply for acceptance from NOAA about these names by the way. A snow storm that produces significant accumulations will be named, there is really no "ifs" or "buts" about it, they'll know if it is that bad. Plus, snow producing systems won't automatically be named. Snow storms are kind of like how hurricanes form, a hurricane starts out small, but once it is larger (for a snow storm in this case when it gets larger and produces unusually large amounts of snow) they get named. STO12 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But nowhere in the title does it say it's limited to a "major snow event". And surely, Alaska gets several storms that gets several feet of snow. Aren't they part of the United States? Furthermore, how do you know how the Weather Channel will apply its naming procedure? Do you know for sure they will do so for a storm that drops several inches of snow? My point is that it's too early to know, since it's an entirely new procedure. We should wait to see if the public takes notice of the names, how they name them, and if there is a consistent title we can use. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to do this to STO12, but I think The Weather Channel has gone too far this time. I have said for a long time that I would watch a different weather channel if there was one. I can't even see a decent Tropical Update without them rushing it off so they can cover something that has poped up on Twitter or to review the same viewer-submitted videos every 10 minutes. Anyway, they are owned by NBC, which, according to David Letterman, stands for Never Believe your Contract (referring to Conan-Leno struggle). I don't think something that is owned by one of the major news media companies needs to stick their nose into naming storms. And like Hink said, they hardly say anything about Alaska, which accounts for a big portion of the country and have the most winter storms. United States Man (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, everyone's opinions is making me hate the weather channel now. I didn't realize how kind of "dark" it is behind the scenes. We can delete it until it is completely official. Conversation closed, i'll go back to tropical cyclones for awhile, I have a headache from all of this. :/ STO12 (talk) 03:34, 3 October 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 TBr and ley 00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Young & Talented School of Stage & Screen[edit]

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

Pure WP:ADVERT, utterly non-notable, no WP:RS, written by someone associated with it. The article even opens with a direct WP:SPAM link to the company's web page. Qworty (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 WP:COPYVIO of this page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:OR, WP:FORK, and WP:HOWTO. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly Accepted Rules and Terms Of "Dibs"[edit]

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

Contested PROD; per WP:NOTHOWTO - simply instructions for playing a game. Theo polisme 22:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and a content fork of Dibs. There is no verifiable information to merge, and the title isn't worth a redirect. I would welcome a "Rules" section in the Dibs article, but the content can't come from here. Braincricket (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as something made up in one day. I'm not sure how I feel that this is also a content fork of Dibs. Depressed at the depths to which The Project is falling, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more to add than the above. --JetBlast (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and the title is not worth a redirect. CtP (t • c) 15:00, 8 October 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 Closing as article is now a redirect. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Forrester (The Bold and the Beautiful)[edit]

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

Not very coherent article about a very minor character in a soap. Accuracy possibly doubtful, as she is referred to as 'he' throughout. Unreferenced. Prod declined. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams from My Real Father[edit]

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

Article and subject are nothing but WP:NOT-violating clap-trap. p b p 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is intended to be a balanced piece of information about a sensitive topic. Its only link to "clap-trap" is that it is about such a topic and therefore can't help but be odd. Adding any much more information would violate WP:SOAP. As for subject, see {{Conspiracy theories}} : Barack Obama. --Auric (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the claims section. All of those claims are patently outrageous and have been disproven a myriad of times, but that's not even mention. And this is after I removed the cast section owing to the fact that Michelle and Axelrod pretty clearly weren't willful participants in the movie p b p 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Please link to a reliable source showing that they have been disproved. Everything I can find is filled with rhetoric of some sort. As far as I know these are recent claims (4 months). I agree with the cast section. That probably comes from clips involving them being part of the film.--Auric (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More Campaign 2012 fooliganism. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps you could do the same for 2016: Obama's America? Same reasons.--Auric (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but Re-write - the subject clearly passes WP:GNG as far as I am concerned - there are multiple articles solely focussed on the "film" and responses to it. However, I don't think the article properly reflects the available sources at all. Almost every single source refers to the film as either a pseudo-documentary or a conspiracy theory (and not in very complimentary terms, either). Most of the stuff in the film seems to be obvious WP:FRINGE-theory stuff and even the responses in the sources provided highlight the fact that it was created on the basis of assumptions and theories, not facts or evidence. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a possible merge target? The nearest I can see is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories which peripherally touches on his parentage, or Early life and career of Barack Obama but we maybe shouldn't clog that with confusing lies and conspiracy theories. Or maybe we need another article on Obama conspiracy theories? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant coverage from reliable sources; I found this and this in a very quick search engine test. I do agree with Stalwart111 that the article needs an overhaul. ~~I would also recommend linking to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in some capacity.~~ Erik (talk | contribs) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this article is about the worst kind of scurrilous crap. No, I do not want to dignify it with a Wikipedia entry. But notability is notability, and this clearly passes WP:GNG, sorry to say. We don't get to pick and choose. Yakushima (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Make that Speedy Keep. I actually find the nom more embarrassing to Wikipedia than the article itself. The nom feeds the unfortunate meme of "Liberal bias on Wikipedia." If in fact hundreds of thousands of these DVDs have gone out, with millions more to go, and with mounting mainstream press coverage, the nom makes it look like Wikipedians are using bureaucratic proceduralism to suppress information about the film, at a time when Wikipedia -- simply by exercising WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:UNDUE -- could be acting as an excellent corrective to this trash. Yakushima (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: this passes GNG and must be kept. Remember that this is a NOT nomination (mostly based on WP:SOAP), not a notability one. NOT is a policy and NOTE is a guideline, so NOT trumps NOTE p b p 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:SOAP applies? The article as it stands talks about the topic, it does not push the topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obviously notable topic, per the readily-available reliable sources. WP:SOAP means that we don't publish propaganda, not that we don't publish articles about notable propaganda. I share Yakushima's concern that having a deletion template on this article can only feed the conspiracy theorists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OCTA （software）[edit]

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

Non-notable government-funded software project. None of the refs appear to be independent. There is no native-language wiki page to steal refs from. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [1]. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 3 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feroze Mithiborwala[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theorist and general purpose Islamist crackpot. Largely promoted by holocaust denial, antisemitic, hate site countercurrents.org and so does not suit WP:RS. Tried to promote an anti-Israel terrorist attack largely seen as a dud by the civilized world [2][3][4]. Supports the false conspiracy theory that Jews were behind the Islam-critical film Innocence of Muslims (from his rather ranty blog here). Media whoremonger largely glorified by low grade Indian media outlets without any proper justification. Does not satisfy WP:BIO or basic common sense. Handyunits (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he is definitely a radical and has a lot of very fringe theories and he has received a lot of media coverage - The Indian Express, Gulf News, The Milli Gazette, Tehelka, etc. - he absolutely deserves have a page. (As of now, there are 34 references.) I am not arguing in favor of his politics or that he isn't a radical. Rather, I am just supporting this information about him being represented. The subject of an article, according to WP:BIO, should be 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'. I know we can all agre that he is certainly interesting and unusual enough. I think the problem you're having is with his theories as well as things that he has said and done. Instead, we can work on the page and help to paint it as an accurate picture of him. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 04:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of media coverage that Mithiborwala receives are either from conspiracy theory websites or Indian newspapers. Indian newspapers are notorious for poor fact checking, plagiarism (including from wikipedia itself, see User:YellowMonkey/Times of India) and broadcasting of fringe viewpoints (see Zakir Naik, for instance, who receives disproportionate Indian media coverage despite his militancy being repudiated by mainstream Islamic clergy). Thus, Indian newspapers should be taken with a huge sack-o-salt.Handyunits (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course they are not ideal sources, though they are the best we have for the area. . But in any case that they cover him extensively is enough to make him notable. In other respects, your argument seems to be that it is a shame he is notable., which is irrelevant. WP covers the world as it is. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Very Strong Keep'.He is working with many religions and organizations and one of them is Save India Movement. The people of different religions have supported him in his Palestine movement.What makes him radical or moderate depends on the attitude critics.He is claiming to fight the rights of weak and helpless Palestinians against Zionist atrocities,that does not make his page legible to be deleted. Shabiha 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, a lot of cleanup, but notability seem to be fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG. He's in many news sources, but a first mention of him is in Times of India October 10, 2001, Just after the September 11 attacks where Mithiborwala noted, "The Taliban is the creation of the U.S. They used it as long as it was convenient for them. Now, when it turns against them, they launch a global war against terrorism. This is absurd." and that "Afghanistan was situated very advantageously, in terms of geo-politics. 'It will suit the U.S. wonderfully to set up a puppet government there, and then use it as a base to influence the politics of West Asia as well as south-east Asia." 11 years later - no U.S. Afghanistan puppet government (I think) and al-Qaeda was the basis for global war against terrorism. The U.S. Taliban support was a 1980s thing against the USSR. Still, Mithiborwala thinking was close to how things turned out. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:53, 10 October 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. Sources could be used to develop the article, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Television American Series 1970–1999[edit]

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

Non-notable book, PROD denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? By WP standards, as applied commonly, a book by a notable author and published by a notable publishing house should be notable. By the standards as they should be applied a book about which secondary sources have said nothing beyond its existence should not be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found two medium-length reviews, in Reference & User Services Quarterly and Booklist, both respected publications. Just enough to meet notability guideline. No idea what "Chiller Magazine" is can't find to determine reliability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's your typical horror magazine akin to Rue Morgue, but far far more under the radar. I remember seeing this around when I was a teenager and it was the epitome of a cult magazine. It's one of those things that is listed in various books as a source for the interviews they managed to snag, but never really got any mainstream love. ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) I'd consider it to be a RS because it's held in relatively good esteem (those were just a few of the sources I found under GBooks), but it's just unknown enough of a quantity to where someone could argue the point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient evidence from the two previous commentators. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 9 October 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 Closing as listed at wrong forum. Page in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists/Survey. MfD is the appropriate forum. Michig (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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

I probably should have just created this in my userspace. I made most of the edits, and there's not much of value in here. A lot of the issues are outdated and wouldn't be relevant. Tried to get it speedily deleted, but it was declined. Seems excessively bureaucratic that I'd have to put it to the community to delete it, but here we are. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 2 October 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 October 2. Snotbot t • c » 16:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused. This AfD does not appear to relate to the article linked or the old AfDs listed on the right. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 2 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorik[edit]

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

I can find nothing in the English language to verify this guy ever existed. There are plenty of refs to Dorik/Doric architecture and languages (the -k being an archaic spelling) but ~~this is Greek, not Indian~~ those subjects are Greek and our article is Indian. Given the vast English-language literature on the various castes who allegedly claim descent from him (including the 40-odd volume survey produced by the Anthropological Survey of India), I consider this to be a non-notable person. Sitush (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree, no sources -> no notability -> no article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources and I think no sources exist at all. --Anbu121 (talk me) 02:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if a "vast number" of castes and tribes consider him their ancestor, perhaps a descriptive DAB page would be in order? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find that many do. Of the four clans listed in the article, the claim of descent is made only in two cases and in only one of them is it sourced, The source is a self-published work written in Marathi. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nothing wrong with Marathi sources, of course, provided they comply with the usual WP:RS and that WP:NOENG is borne in mind. The one noted fails the first of these criteria, and I've been unable to locate any other non-English sources so far using my off-wiki contacts. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw #2, I've just worked out what Crisco intended: they've misread my nomination. What I intended to say was (a) there is a vast amount of English language reference material for the major castes of India, which include those named in the article; and (b) despite that vast literature, there is no mention of Dorik. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article reads, "Dorik was a Hindu king of Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) in the ancient era. The modern Maratha clans Bhoite, Bhosale, Ghorpade, and Sisodiya claim descent from him." The only reference I found regarding a king and Chittorgarh (in Rajasthan) is this, which appears to be about Rawal Ratan Singh. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:37, 11 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actix[edit]

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

One giant advertisement for a company of questionable notability Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this has enough reliable secondary sources to pass notability guidelines. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: all google hits seem to be fairly old, making the industry leader claim suspect. In addition its borderline spam and completely unintelligable.TheLongTone (talk) 21:25, 2 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horses and the Handicapped[edit]

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

A minor non-profit organization that has a great goal, but no widespread notability. I'm coming up short on looking for sources. Aside from the group's own page, which is unusable as a reliable source, I'm only finding the groups name listed in general directories without any actual in depth coverage, and very trivial mentions in articles about other things (for example, mentioning that someone used to work there). I also found a couple of false leads, which were actually about a magazine article that just happened to have the same title as this organization. Rorshacma (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, there are a number of news articles that come up that are pay-per-view, however, these are all extremely local papers ("The South Florida Sun" and "Boca Raton News" being the two most prominent). And while these papers do seem to like writing about the group a lot, as they are purely local coverage there is not any indication of any widespread notability. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of people out there trying to use horses for healing, including treating soldiers with PTSD. The problem is that most of the people who need help don't have the money for expensive, nontraditional horse therapy. That is one reason this business has not risen to notability. As it stands, this is pure WP:SPAM without any WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 27 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as run of the mill. There are dozens of such nonprofits, hardly any of which are notable, e.g., Mending Hearts. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 10 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Cup Danmark[edit]

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

Unreferenced, self promotion/advert with no evidence of notability Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Both the Danish and English articles are hopelessly promotional and, despite cleaning, the article continues to read like an advertisement. To my disgust, the article read like promotional trash prior to last month's cleaning. To my additional dismay, the article has existed since October 2007 and has remained the same, with no significant change. Google News found one result here (the first result) but it was a dead link. I attempted to retrieve it from mva.org and web.archive.org but with no success. Google Books found one result here (scroll to the bottom of that page) but it reads like an advertisement. Google Books also found one small mention here. Honestly, considering that both articles have been heavily edited by people affiliated with the group, the Danish article needs to be rewritten and subsequently translated. It is possible that reliable sources may be Danish and not English, but it's not easy to tell, and it appears that there is no existing Google Danmark news service. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas promotional and non-notable. I would consider G11, but considering the article in the Danish WP, it would be a ebetter signal for them if we do it formally. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 9 October 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 Speedily deleted by User:Boing! said Zebedee under criterion G6. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gođevac[edit]

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

Disambiguation page consisting entirely of red links. Senator2029 • talk 12:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G6 (generally for DAB pages). This set index serves no purpose and DAB/Set Index pages are not supposed to be prompts for creating new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion As noted above, I have now tagged the article as G6 with "This disambiguation page contains zero links and never indicates significance and is therefore useless" as the reason. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 2 October 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. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Shift[edit]

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

I don't think this book/concept is notable as far as the guidelines at WP:BK are concerned. See talk page for discussion. I flagged the problems with the page in June, and nothing has been done yet. Only discussion in a reliable source is one article on BBC News. Everything else on the internet seems to be self-promotional. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Added sources and edited for PR'ish stuff). Note this link[10] shows the book being used as a primary text in a classroom setting which is one of the criteria for notability. There are also now sources from the The Futurist, NYT and BBC which meets the ~~two~~ multiple sources criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per The Futurist article (see article for info.), NY Times article, BBC article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 4 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Edge[edit]

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

Should be deleted as non-notable. All references on Google are to subject's own blogs or entries in LinkedIn, etc, except for Wikipedia references which all seem to have been made by the editor who created the article. No reliable citations for notability or to substantiate any material in the article, E.g. 'authority on Mozart’s autograph manuscripts and an accomplished pianist'. Whilst subject appears to have written a few articles and to hold an academic post, these are not sufficient criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. Smerus (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seven articles archived in JSTOR is far above the norm for a musicological researcher; his articles are heavily cited there and he's extremely well regarded in Bach/Mozart circles, being invited to nearly every major conference I can think of there. On the weak side for musicological notability, he doesn't have a permanent academic post (though being a senior appointee at PHI is almost significant enough itself). Musicology is not a discipline where you can expect to find free evidence and articles on the web. Reading through the journals in the field makes it clear that Edge's output and notability is clearly above the average for the field. I went through the list of Cat. American Musicologists a few months ago for a discussion on WP:PROF and identified 8 that I think should be brought to AfD (I'll send the list offline, if anyone'd like) and several borderline cases, but Edge was not an "edge case" by any means. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Qworty -- how does he fail? it's not a vote, it's a discussion. I had gone with Smerus's assessment that there's nothing online but blogs and LinkedIn entries, but googling I see that even on the Net, there is some evidence of notability: [11] (OMI, btw, is the premiere seller of musical books and doesn't make full pages for just anything); [12]. I think it's significant that even those making far out of mainstream arguments feel they need to refute/cite Edge: [13]. Library of Congress lecture [14]. Board of Directors, Mozart Society of America [15]. Citations in Google Books and Israeli online journals; citations that he is responsible for a "changed consensus" around Don Giovanni. I think the notability is well-established even with FUTON sources. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks Michael Scott Cuthbert doth protest too much. 'Seven articles archived in JSTOR is far above the norm for a musicological researcher'....what is exactly is this norm, and who has calculated it? Seven articles in JSTOR makes 'notable'? Says who? - In that case thousands of people (including in fact myself) would be 'notable' and eligible for bios on Wikipedia - let's be sensible about this. In the context of aboslutely nothing out there except the comments gleaned up by Michael Scott Cuthbert, Mr. Edge is not notable 'notable' in any normal understanding of the word - or in Wikipedia terms. Please look at Wikipedia:BIO#Academics or Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) and check if he meets a single one of the crtieria there.--Smerus (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are thousands of people eligible for biographies in Wikipedia -- aren't there? (988,000 in Wikiproject Biography). :-) But leaving that aside, are seven articles in JSTOR in the humanities (which represents only a fraction of important journals in the humanities) really that little? Your argument involves the personal reflection that by that criteria you'd be eligible -- the leading question is do you have seven in JSTOR? I couldn't find them (that's not a slight, David -- I think that your excellent Cambridge University Press book which I enjoyed reading and have heard spoken of very highly would make you notable by the WP:Prof guidelines [which I do know well, having organized the votes in the latest discussion for rewriting]; the wording of the summary criteria we decided on was not is this person a superstar, but (as you well know, but others might not) "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" I think of Dexter Edge as one of the leaders in the field (not at the pinnacle, but quite high, so that might be why I protest muchily. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that flattery can get you (almost) anywhere :-} but remain unconvinced.--Smerus (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought - though it is true than on the basis of what you write I should be unlikely to protest so much as to flag for AfD an article which anyone wrote about me. :-} --Smerus (talk) 11:12, 30 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the two important editorships are enough.` DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and because of Worldcat holdings, he passes the Prof test. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 10 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmood Nazir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG on the ground that significant coverage is not reflected in the sources and does not appear to exist, at least in English; it's conceivable that secondary sources do exist in other languages, but I don't have the capacity to investigate that. Batard0 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any WP:RS on the guy. Qworty (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 27 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Judging by my English search results, I haven't found any additional sources to establish notability and it seems that he may have only been known for the 1991 film Swarg Jaisaa Ghar. Google News archives found an irrelevant Nazir Mahmood here, a Pakistani terrorist. As mentioned by Batard0, it is possible that reliable sources may not be English but I doubt it, considering that it seems he hasn't produced any recent work aside from the 2003 talent show. I also searched with his alias, Mehmood Munniraja, but found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The single source in the article is just a passing mention. I couldn't find any other source. --Anbu121 (talk me) 03:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Notability showcased. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:31, 8 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Study for a Caricature (Leonardo, Milan)[edit]

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

The page should be deleted because it describes a minor drawing, which cannot be positively identified in the Ambrosiana's catalogue of works by Leonardo, his students and imitators. I have searched for the artwork described, looking specifically for a profile resembling in some way that which Carravaggio is supposed to have copied. No leonardesque drawing, either by him or a follower is sufficiently close to be identified as the drawing described. The heading "study for a caricture" is itself nonsense. A "study" is usually a more detailed work than a "caricature". Renaissance artists did "studies" and they also did "caricatures", but since a caricature was not a "finished artwork", no-one did a "study for a caricature". It is either one thing or the other but not both. The vast majority of caricatures in the Ambrosiana that are associated with Leonardo are listed as either "School of leonardo" or "Imitator of Leonardo". Basically, this is a stub about an unidentifiable and un-notable sketch of which there is no illustration and for which there is no reference. Amandajm (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ham 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to imagine how this article could be of any use to anyone. Ewulp (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources for this concrete drawing seem to be based on the Wikipedia article, an example of how unverified and unverifiable articles from here find their way to the outside world and spread rumours or incorrect information. What we do find in the sources is a more general indication, e.g. this book states "The careful analysis of the servant's features is reminiscent of Leonardo's studies of grotesque people". This general remark seems to have been transformed into the very specific article we are discussing here. Fram (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All four book are from Wikipedia, it saying that in their descriptions when you click on them. [16] If it was real, then surely some book would mention it somewhere, or the museum's website would have it listed. Dream Focus 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether or not a book or website somewhere would or does mention it might help us decide if it exists, which is not the question here. The article is unsourced. I am unable to find any reliable coverage, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. (Theoretically, it is possible this study exists but is known by another name. That said, if we cannot find the "correct" name for it, no one looking for the article will ever read it and the article will never be sourced.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I verified some of the information in the article. "The first cartoons possibly were painted by Leonardo da Vinci in his study of caricature."^[1] "Caravaggio may have been inspired by da Vinci's caricatures for a character in his 1599 painting Judith and Holofernes."^[2] However, I wasn't able to verify the most important: "Caricature features an old servant woman who has cabbage leaf ears, is toothless and grimacing." I found something on Five Character Studies [17] by Leonardo da Vinci, which shows old servant woman toothless and grimacing, but I'm not sure about the cabbage leaf ears, which could be the caricature portion mentioned in the article.

^ Rhonda Walker (March 2003). "Political cartoons: now you see them!". Canadian Parliamentary Review. 26 (Spr '03): 16-21. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
^ Linda A. Koch (June 22, 2007). "Caravaggio, Guercino, Mattia Preti: Das halbfigurige Historienbild und die Sammler des Seicento". Renaissance Quarterly. 60 (2): 549. Retrieved October 6, 2012.

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is about one specific study. The sources you are providing refer to "cartoons possibly... painted... in his study of caricature" and "da Vinci's caricatures". The article you are trying to save was about one subject and your sources are about two other topics which may or may not be related. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I post "delete" and that I wasn't able to verify the most important information in the article, you read that as an article I am trying to save? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amandajm's the AfD nominator and has 600+ edits to the Leonardo da Vinci article.[18]. If Amandajm doesn't know of this drawing, it is very doubtful that it exists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement! But I can assure you, I am surprised all the time. I have searched for this drawing, without finding it.

Maybe a general article on Leonardo's caricatures would be the next step. I'm sure that the subject warrants an article. Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 7 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria gallifuoco[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger with no secondary sources.Google turns up no significant coverage beyond blogs etc., which is odd for a "media personality". Harry the Dog WOOF 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any reliable third-party sources to establish notability, despite searching with both Google US and Google Australia. It is possible that my Google Australia results may have missed something but I slightly doubt it. My last resort, using Google search, also provided nothing reliable, unsurprisingly. Considering that any Twitter or Facebook user could be a blogger, she is not any different. Maria Gallifuoco is not notable to Wikipedia standards at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Harry the Dog, despite her alleged 28,000 followers, she is a blogger and has not achieved any notable status. Initial searches on Google revealed that she has never been mentioned in any reliable media and her fame is limited to social media websites like Facebook and Pinterest. These are not classed as reliable sources by Wikipedia and do not denote notability BarkingNigel (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. Looks entirely promotional. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:ADVERT with serious notability issues. -- WikHead (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:13, 8 October 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 Snowball keep due to the insufficient and tainted case provided by the nominator. Additionally, their contributions show that their only intentions are to vandalise the film's article. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Season (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the page should be deleted. It is faik and will never be released as deniro will die. Thank u god bless america.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 2. Snotbot t • c » 10:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep: apparent bad-faith nomination by a WP:SPA vandalism-only account.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:46, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince And The Program[edit]

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

Non-notable book that does not appear to pass WP:NBOOK and was added by a SPA. The sources currently on the article are not reliable sources, all of which are primary sources of various types. A search for sources did not bring up anything to show that it has really received any coverage in sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Article has been tagged with speedy under promotional contexts, which were declined. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News hasn't provided any relevant sources so it's possible that the book never received news coverage. As mentioned, the current sources are primary, two of them being press releases. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The press release repeats a number of places, no apparent independent reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:09, 5 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoSoSys[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. It is referenced but it is a small company (in global terms) that has nothing of interest for an encyclopaedia. Also, having this article gives the company an unfair commercial advantage. It is essentially spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see significant coverage in reliable sources. That's what counts, not how big or how small or how interesting it is. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we take that stance don't you think WP will become top heavy with article about companies? BTW, a blog is not a reliable source. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Is there a ration or world shortage of disk space? If it passes WP:GNG it can stay. As for your blog comment, a textbook argument to avoid per WP:JUSTABLOG. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Sufficient coverage exists to make the company's Endpoint Protector product notable. Whether there is enough about the company itself is less clear. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article initially since I am a user of this company’s product and noticed that it didn’t have an article, but its competitors did. Since I found many independent references I thought it to be notable enough for a WP article. When time allows I will add more references and develop the article. --Contribute23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 4 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Jonestown[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by an IP without addressing the notability issues. Concern was: Fails to meet notability criteria for books at WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I updated the page and hope it meets your standards. I plan to add more original material (photos, documents, links) as time allows. Thank you.User talk:Tessdav18:20, 2 October 2012 (originally posted in error by article creator at the talk page for this individual afd)
Speedy Keep, searching for the book, the first 2 links are reviews at two major US newspapers. AFD is not for articles which dont have refs, its for articles which CANT have refs. Author is notable, works are well reviewed, subject is extremely notable. Article does need cleanup, i added the two refs in the most cursory manner, I may fix up at a later date. I moved creator comment to this AFD as a courtesy. please, do NOT add original material, like photos, unless you are the photographer and release them under the appropriate license here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor article but noteworthy subject. --Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Queens Head[edit]

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

0. fails WP:CORP no sources 1. No assertion of notability 2. notability is not inherited 3. advert 4. COI Widefox; talk 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Keep hats off to Chiswick Chap! just keep the ghost side under control - this isn't a tourist rag! Widefox; talk 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is. However, if as suggested, the pubs does date back to the 1500s we are in a different ball game, but I doubt this is the case. As a venue, not particularly notable. Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, and no evidence of notability. As for dating to the sixteenth century, the article sources this fact to that well known Reliable Source Rumour. "The pub is said to have existed....") In any case, the article goes on to say that the pub was rebuilt in Victorian times, so at the most it is a nineteenth century pub on the site of an older one. Being a nineteenth century pub is no grounds for notability, nor is being built on the site of an older building, let alone being "said to" be built on the site of one. (Note: The article was created by a single purpose account, now blocked, that did nothing but write promotional articles about pubs all belonging to one company. A PROD was removed without any explanation by an IP that has never made any other edits.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a grade II listed building. Whilst not every grade II building necessarily warrants an entry, public houses and similar buildings generally do. Unfortunately, I could not find any suitable sources online to support the present article - the official pub and company websites are unsuitable even as primary sources. But I admit I did not look very hard. The obvious thing is to take an axe to the present article and substitute a brief piece sourced from the English Heritage list. But there is probably something in London reference works such as the relevant volume of the Buildings of England, so perhaps somebody else would volunteer to do this? --AJHingston (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks AJHingston for the suggestion, which I've taken. I've removed the spam-text and ref, summarized the Grade II listing, added a little of the history and legend with refs. It just needs a nice photo now, but I think it looks worth keeping. Could the closing Admin note that the "Delete" votes above applied to the earlier state of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten by Chiswick Chap --AJHingston (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only takes a moment to find a source which was writing about this establishment in 1835: Walks through Islington. Kudos to Chiswick Chap for exerting himself to save this historic topic. Warden (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i also agree with Chiswick Chap --JetBlast (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Even if this pub did verifiably date back to the 1500s, there are no sources available that prove that or that even mention this pub in any independent sense. Material pertaining to this pub is restricted to sources that do not meet referencing requirements. BarkingNigel (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be referring to the earlier state of the article? The article now has very reputable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with thanks to Chiswick Chap for the good work. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and improvements to the article. This topic at the very least meets WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 5 October 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 San Francisco Foundation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Duval Phelan Award[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. unreferenced for 4.5 years. 2 gnews hits. very small mentions in university websites [19] LibStar (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should note that Google News archives provided additional results, but they appear to insufficient and require payment. Google Books also found one mention here (scroll to the bottom of that page). I should also note that the content "Applicants must have been born in the state of California but need not be current residents. The unpublished work-in-progress submitted may be fiction (novel or short stories), nonfictional" appears to have been copy and pasted from this book (Foundation Grants to Individuals, seventh result from the top).SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to San Francisco Foundation. Merge is already complete, along with Joseph Henry Jackson Award and Mary Tanenbaum Award for Nonfiction. Not enough sources to support these awards on their own, but the SFF as a whole has enough. Opened discussion at Talk:San Francisco Foundation#Merge if there is contention later. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to San Francisco Foundation as per Green Cardamom, and I agree with the merge of the other two awards. I have also put a sentence about the awards into the article about their namesake and founder, James D. Phelan. (The fact that he was the founder and namesake was omitted from this article, but I found the information here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING, or if to save face, merge. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 10 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promid[edit]

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

My primary concern is the lack of notability -- nothing in the article implies notability as per WP:NMUSIC, and none of the sources are sufficient for WP:GNG.

The sources listed are all primary sources, links to where the music was played, links to where the music is available for sale on iTunes or Amazon, and other similar stuff. None of the sources provided are independent, reliable sources.

The article itself can be whipped into shape with a little peacock trimming and some copyediting, but if the subject isn't notable... —Darkwind (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article were salvageable, the issue of notability would remain and I have found zero appropriate sources despite searching with both Google US and UK news. The only nearly appropriate reference currently listed is the BBC "Top 25 of 2009" which wouldn't be enough to establish notability, considering that it was simply compiled by a reviewer. Aside from this, the other references are either Wikipedia, primary or simply song listings. At this time, it seems like a case of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources establish notability. It's that simple. Jschnur (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article creation appears to be a cut/paste from somewhere else. The article creation included maintenance tags. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe that the tags may have been transferred if the user copied the infobox from another page. This isn't the first time I've seen this, especially if the user is new and inexperienced. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSIC, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTO, etc. Also, please block the guy who created the article, as he keeps vandalizing the AfD tag and harassing other users [20]. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 09:56, 9 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attila Juhasz[edit]

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

Attila Juhasz is a very poorly written article covered in external links, no references. The primary editor of the article is the subject of the article itself which causes it to read like a sad promotional advertisement. I believe the subject fails wiki tests of notability. The publications he's written for are not wiki articles. Companies he's connected with are not wiki articles. His one book is not notable and not known well to the populace. --Hutcher (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - five years without a "References" section; and it seems unlikely a decent one can be created, as a search reveals no sign of notability, the only sources seeming to be pages created by the subject, social networking and IMDB. There is some interference from other people of the same name, but there are in any case very few candidate sources. I think we can conclude "No WP:RS". Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is indeed promotional at this time and would need a significant rewrite, but what concerns me is that I haven't found any significant third-party sources to establish notability. I found one relevant link here but it is a press release, the other results I have found are to an irrelevant Attila Juhasz, a politician. Unfortunately, the article appears to have remained the same since September 2009, when an IP replaced the redirect to the politician's article. Two of the users, Attilaj and Acwllc, strongly suggest that the subject himself or people affiliated with subject have edited the article. Additionally, it seems that the article has never received any useful edits and nearly all of them appear to be, as mentioned, the subject himself or people affiliated with him. I strongly suspect that the four most recent IPs are the subject as well, two of them range to Arizona and the other two range to Japan. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 3 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salem-News.com[edit]

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

Questionable encyclopedic fit under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, which is also mirrored in this essay on the notability of news sites. It's effectively a blog of questionable merit (and design).

Note there was a discussion about the redirect of salem-news.com. That's tangential to the content of this site, however, so the whole thing is a little confusing. Anyhow, see the history, note the the first edit was this site of dubious importance- before it was turned into a redirect to another region.

So, what this boils down to is we need a community consensus for the encyclopedic fit of this news site/blog. The strongest claim is edit summary that (site owner and author) Tim King is notable and "award winning", though I can't determine what those awards are. The next claim can be seen by scrolling through the vast list of staff, some of who have some level of awards or notability. I haven't been able to find any substantial awards, nor have I found cases of salem-news.com being cited in major sources. tedder (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search, lists War Correspondent Tim King's awards "holds awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing from The Associated Press the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, the Oregon Confederation of Motorcycle Clubs, Electronic Media Association and The Red Cross In a personal capacity" If the Huffington Post has a wikipedia article, and it does not even have the worldwide reporting that Salem-News.com has provided since 2004. DavidMinhPham (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doing a Google search reveals this phrase is from King's website itself, and mirrored in a few other places, none of which appear to be reliable sources. If King were notable, it's possible his website would be notable but I'm not coming up with any Independent, Reliable and Third-Party sources on Salem-News or King. Also "Worldwide reporting" is not a criterion for the notability of news sources, so comparison to the Huffington Post, which is clearly notable, is a "other stuff exists" argument. Can you come up with any independent, reliable, third-party sources showing that Salem-news is notable or that cites the notable awards (bearing in mind that awards are only one aspect of notability, per these guidelines) won by King or the website? Examples of notable journalism awards are here. Valfontis (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation Just like any article that is on wikipedia, give it some time to develop, a HELP tag would help for wikipedia community to join in and add to the article. Why is there such rush to delete. As any Internet News Media they all start with a readership and grows over time, just like Huffington Post, just to name one. There are a few more growing Internet News Media websites that have gathered alot of news that readers from around the world are interested in such as Salem-News.com. Simply look through the website and the writers that are listed as you can see that it is a newsworthy Internet News Media website that has content not a talk forum. DavidMinhPham (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to help grow or promote anybody's website. If the website is notable now, please expand the article with cited neutrally worded information. If sources do not exist, then we don't need an article on the website until such time as the website becomes notable. Please read about notability and offer arguments based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines about why this article should not be deleted. You might want to read about Wikipedia's deletion process also. Valfontis (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis, When did I write above that we should PROMOTE a website ?(refer: "Wikipedia is not here to help grow or promote anybody's website") Is Salem-News.com selling items on their website ? I said "give it some time to develop, a HELP tag would help for wikipedia community to join in and add to the article." I have read the wikipedia rules and understand them very well, if I do not I always ask for help of other members or I research the rules to understand them. DavidMinhPham (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the website Islammattersnow.com, that has verified the information about Tim King and Salem-News.com and posted it on their website: http://www.islammattersnow.com/islammattersnow.com/Tim_King_SalemNews.html DavidMinhPham (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party News interview of Tim King posted on youtube: [21]DavidMinhPham (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from what I can see, this is not a "newspaper", in the traditional sense, but a blog-style news website run by two people who used to be journalists elsewhere. That's fine, not really relevant to this discussion but I think we should be clear about what the website is - basically a more involved blog from two people who might have more substantive journalism credentials than your usual bloggers. I'm not sure the islammattersnow.com site could be considered an independent reliable source - it looks to be either owned by a group which includes the Salem-News "team" or at least has very close ties to the Salem-News "team" (essentially, their blog just re-posts stuff written by Salem-News). Either way, one article that mirrors content from the site cannot possibly be considered "significant coverage" enough to pass muster. That youtube video is from "Aldin Entertainment" - the group that publishes islammattersnow.com (or is a subsidiary thereof). Essentially, those sources are both very closely connected to the subject (and are from the same people), as far as I can see, and thus really couldn't be considered independent. On that basis, the subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I'm concerned. But I'm happy to consider any evidence to the contrary that other editors might have. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I live 45 minutes south of the city where this site is based. I've never heard of it before, never seen reference to it before in either my local paper or the state newspaper of record, never encountered a reference to it anywhere. Which doesn't mean much, other than to emphasize that this is NOT a huge news entity. In fact, if I may be so bold, I call bullshit on the assertion that there are over 100 employees of this website. There are no way that a few internet ads by local tattoo parlors, etc., would cover the expenses of more than 1 or 2 employees, at best. So: a little verifiability please. Which means, a little sourcing, please. Looks like a GNG failure on the face of it, but I'll stand aside. As an aside, I'm pleased to have learned of the site and will bookmark it and read it for a few days for my own edification. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't even notice that before. 104+! Sorry, but that's total rubbish. The "Director" Tim King has his direct line on the site and there's only a mention of him and the co-founder as actual "staff". The other "98 staff" (still not sure how we get to 104) are freelance writers from around the world from whom the subject site has agreed to occasionally take some work. They are not "staff" by any stretch of the imagination. The guy from Australia, for example, is a freelance travel writer. He would just as happily sell his work to me (I imagine), for the right price. Suggesting he is an employee of the subject is patently untrue. Am going to go ahead and edit that info-box. Find me a source that says they have any more than two actual employees and we can go from there. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an eminently reasonable edit. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. tedder (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched carefully and I cannot find any reliable sources that mention the Kings or their website. The only mention I can find of any awards won by King (I can't find any reference to awards won by the website) is King's website itself or what appear to be self-penned bios for reprints of his Salem-news pieces. (And these are all minor local awards, even the AP ones.) In fact, most google hits one gets on "Tim King +Salem +Oregon" are from Salem-news itself. There appears to have been a pretty concerted effort at self-promotion by the Kings but nobody else is writing about them. It should also be noted that although the website is based in Salem, Oregon, it is not really a Salem news source, and it appears the website's mission has changed from when it was initally named salem-news. It is probably hard to get coverage of your website if it covers unpopular or fringe views as it appears Salem-news is doing, but until the website is notable enough to be covered by other notable websites (which are also articles about the website, not articles reprinted from the website) it does not belong on Wikipedia. Valfontis (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My personal preference is that Wikipedia would have a brief entry on a site like this, but that preference is not supported by policy. The various arguments for deletion above are compelling. -Pete (talk) 15:43, 9 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ogle[edit]

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

The Thomas Ogle described in this article seems to be a non entity on google, with a mere 27 unique hits on Google, but this rises to a mighty 318 if you search for "Tom Ogle" (hits that actually reference this Tom, and not any old Tom Ogle, of which there seem to be many). And those hits that do appear are of the lowest quality for purposes of demonstrating notability. Looking at the companion article sin French and Spanish, the only good sources are a brief spurt of local news coverage when he announced his invention. He also invited a US Congressman to look at a demonstration of his invention, but, shit, I can do that. Oh, and someone shot him, and then a while later he OD'd on drugs and alcohol. Anyway, neither his life accomplishments nor the available sources show any notability (not even the wild claims that the oil companies killed him to keep his invention suppressed). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - article should be deleted. The subject is non-notable, not to mention that there are no reliable sources. Robinr22 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. The context for this in in the Charles Nelson Pogue article, which has a considerable fuller french version. A neutral article can be written. Alternatively, add some of the basic information to the Pogue article and make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused, DGG. You're saying he's notable because he tried to improve an already notable invention? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please I have searched Thomas Ogle and would prefer to read Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.219.169 (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Wikipedia can't accept an article simply because you like it, see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view. If an article fails the notability guidelines and there are few to no sources to support, it will be deleted. If you want the article to stay, please improve it or search information about Thomas Ogle elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fringe sciencey advocacy piece, which means a high bar for GNG in my book... To be fair, a Google search of "THOMAS OGLE" (exact) + "gasoline" returns nearly 5,000 hits — clustered on such sites as www.deathofgasguzzler.com, www.alien-ufos.com (no shit!), and YouTube. Fails even low bar GNG, it would seem. If sources do materialize, they should be used for a full rewrite, because this piece is a POV disaster. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no objection to fringe advocacy provided that it is well-sourced. But this is not and is full of wild conspiracy theories that are unsourced also. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. -- 202.124.74.60 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing there to salvage Bhny (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails not only GNG but WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Rhonda Walker (March 2003). "Political cartoons: now you see them!". Canadian Parliamentary Review. 26 (Spr '03): 16-21. Retrieved October 6, 2012.

[2] Linda A. Koch (June 22, 2007). "Caravaggio, Guercino, Mattia Preti: Das halbfigurige Historienbild und die Sammler des Seicento". Renaissance Quarterly. 60 (2): 549. Retrieved October 6, 2012.

[1]

[2]