Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 11: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:46, 11 April 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 April	12 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Keep in mind that a clear establishment of notability is not a criterion of speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. Lindsay Embrey

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

no stated evidence of importance illogical pie (take a slice) 19:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. Developed the city Richardson, Texas, has a building and a scholarship named in his honor, donated millions to Southern Methodist University, world-famous for being home to the George W. Bush Presidential Center.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Well, the rationale would be applicable to the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Yet, clearly, this article asserts significance and importance as a member of the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University, chair of the Alumni board and president of the Alumni Association, member of the athletic board and the School of Engineering Executive Board, and endowment and building established in his name, recipient of the Mustang Award, and honored as a member of the Hall of Leaders and recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award from the School of Engineering. Honestly, I find it troubling that this article was nominated for deletion. Notability is clearly established. Cindy(need help?) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. This was nominated through Page Curation, by a non-Texas user who has just a little over 1,000 edits. Are you kidding me? Let us Texans decide who is notable in Texas. Sheesh! Embrey's death prompted a Texas State Legislature House Resolution. Southern Methodist University certainly thinks he's notable, since they named J. Lindsay Embrey Engineering Building after him. This should have never, ever been nominated for deletion. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article at time of nomiation looked like this. I could see how it might be questionable at that point, but even then, it had a reasonable claim of notability. TROUT NOMINATOR liberally and strongly suggest that they lay off the Curation button since it had only been created less than 20 minutes earlier. Hasteur (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Clearly a notable person. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly, Embrey is of vast importance to SMU and the article makes that clear. Ducknish (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like the nomination was premature. Needs a little fleshing out as far as notability outside of the local area, but confident that sources will be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. —Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Aditya Dev Sood

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

Promotional editor has created this article at least four different times now. It has been deleted under two slightly different names, on March 19 [1] and on April 8 [2]. As a further affront, this time the spammer recreated BOTH versions of the article, as seen at Aditya dev sood. The subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Delete and salt all versions of his name, including Dr. Aditya Dev Sood, Aditya Dev Sood, and Aditya dev sood. Qworty (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete S/he blanked the page...doesn't that qualify as a WP:CSD#G7? She is the only major contributor. Go Phightins! 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and any future versions. The fact that an editor has created this article four times now is a cause for concern. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all versions of his name: Pure self-promotion. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. KAS^(talk) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Creative

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

Delete for lack of notability and references. Previous AFD in March 2011 failed for lack of discussion.

No references/sources to this for-profit company in the copyright registration business. A notability template has been placed on this article for a long time with no improvement, and no signs of improvement. It appears to be primarily a promotional piece, although much of the promotional language has been cleaned up.
The only contributor of content has been the page creator (User:Oneras, separately notified of this discussion); other editors have contributed clean-up and content removal of biased information.
All mentions of this organization appear to be in conjunction with businesses otherwise affiliated with this for-profit service, with the sole exception of Plagiarism Today, which is a blog (& business) that covers plagiarism- and copyright-related businesses.

An article might be written about this industry (copyright registration assistance) in which this content could be merged, but I don't see any notability in this company otherwise. Lquilter (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (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/2013 April 11. Snotbot t • c » 18:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, it's been a long time since I've AFD'd an article. Please forgive delays while I re-acquaint myself with the various templates/procedures. --Lquilter (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (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/2013 April 11. Snotbot t • c » 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also references from Creative Commons besides PlagiarismToday, and also from WIPO official study on private online registries. Also I've added new references appearing in most prominent media in Spain, including National TV RTVE, about agreements with both official Spain Registrars and Movie Producers Collecting Society. --Oneras (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. the sources are small mentions only. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep borderline notability ; Plagiarism Today, tho in format a blog, is a responsible publication--the deciding factor for me is that this is an an appropriate length non promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DaVatrice Lindsey

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

Self-promotional article about a musician and poet who fails to meet WP:BAND or WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Zoke (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party discussion found about the subject and her works. Fails notability on all criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is promotional junk that fails to meet WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-promotion. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as obviously notable. Non-admin closure. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School Street School

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

Five years without any additional information besides the name and location of the building and its addition date to the NRHP list. Not enough information to create an encyclopedically useful article. MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A building on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places? Please see WP:BEFORE. Cindy(need help?) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and I already found nomination information to expand it with (and that's not even the main listing, which should have more references). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on NRHP. Swampyank (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was clearly notable when it was nominated, nomination did not state a valid basis for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As all have said above, it's clearly notable due to its listing on the Register. Ducknish (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Also temporarily salted due to repeated re-creation. —Darkwind (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Bell

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

Previously deleted at afd. recreated seemingly to push a book - the editor who created it seems to have added the book to several articles under at least 3 similar user names. Bit part actor who compiled a book - which does not appear to have had much independent coverage, and Amazon.co.uk currently lists as unavailable. noq (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it can be verified that the subject compiled a book for The Royal British Legion, no evidence has been found to contradict the 2011 AfD consensus that he is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to be deleted is it not worth adding a page on the book rather than the author, for educational significance as the book is held in the british library and the imperial war museum collections for the purpose of free educational or study aid. The book as already been accepted by wiki as notable in the bibliography of another wiki page and this might contribute to developing general information about the book. --Will peace (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is WP:notable about the book? And as explained before your having adding it into another page has absolutely no significance in making it notable in any way. Being in a library is not notable - especially the British library as that gets a copy of all books published in the UK. noq (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading about a particular person on wiki and I see they have taken part in a particular book, usually I wish to know more about that book, without leaving the wiki site ie i click an internal link rather than hitting google in a new tab or the isbn link. obviously i assumed wrongly, that this would make the content of wiki more comprehensive to me and others like me as a wiki user. As i agreed with you previously, been on another wiki page does not make something notable but for the reason just mentioned it seemed a natural extension of interest and practicality. The book seems to contain notable contributors and references and captures a specific point in time, in our history, i find that interesting and notable im sure many others do. As I understand it the Imperial War Museum only requests items for their collections unlike the British Library who receive copies by default as you point out. Also for your own reference amazon don't stock the book but Waterstones do http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/ni+bell/in+the+footsteps+of+war/8864001/ and have it available to order. And a kindle edition is available from amazon here http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Footsteps-War-Remembrance-ebook/dp/B00A44ZHQE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365774311&sr=8-1&keywords=ni+bell+90 again I provide this for your information only as your own search didn't seem very extensive. To conclude I can only provide sources that are out there and why I personally looked to expand the content on wiki as it was something of interest to me and possibly others. Sharing the great pool of information out there and all that. Obviously not this time round and I completely understand your reasons for doing so and your explanations given for deleting the page. --Will peace (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NBOOK for what qualifies as a notable book - being available for sale or in a library does not meet those requirements. noq (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your qualifications for a notable book already. I think you need to read the whole discussion again and your own comments to see that I only answered the points you raised and corrected your information. At no point did I say a book being for sale made it notable in anyway. As for it being available in the British Library I already addressed that point. And I agree the page should be deleted based on what Wiki stipulate and my reasons why i thought it was of interest, which conflict with wiki. It's now becoming tiresome and a waste of time. Delete the page. --Will peace (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources for both author and book. Both fail all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biggest claim is have two editions of a book released, which are self-published. SalHamton (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes hold no weight as no reliable sources were provided to estabilsh notability. It is noted for the record that sources do not have to be online to be used here, so no prejudice against re-creation with appropriate sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purappadu

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

Created by a blocked sock puppet, no third party sources provided or found. PROD removed by editor asserting notability but when asked to provide verification of the claim said ""its hard to find any coverage on the internet." While the IMDB entry shows that it is a film, mere existence is not sufficient rationale for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JK (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Though there is no coverage on the internet unfortunately, the film was distributed and exhibited all over Kerala [3] [4]. Also the people involved in the film including the director Jeassy and actor Mammootty are very much notable. JK (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Apart from the links provided above, You can find the full movie uploaded in Youtube[5], with 100,000+ views. This was a successful commercial movie released in Kerala and the people associated with this movie are notable personalities, including Mammootty, Suresh Gopi, Parvathy, Ouseppachan, ONV Kurup, etc. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 03:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: With no coverage in reliable independent sources provided, and apparently none forthcoming in the forseeable future, we have no evidence of notability whatsoever, regardless of how many times it may have been watched on YouTube. Article can be recreated in the future if sourcing is found, but from the discussion I've seen, I wouldn't hold my breath. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Andrew

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

Individual is not notable. She just runs a Facebook page. Wikipedia is not for the biography of every single blogger Jahor (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all 2602:306:BCD8:9DD0:5D5B:8FC6:2FDD:4685 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.80.78 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This woman has mention in several mainstream, high-quality RS and in a whole bunch of lower quality RS. Seems to me that she would pass notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - this is not just some blogger, this is a person who runs a notable blog and who has been interviewed and/or profiled repeatedly by various segments of the science press. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
easy keep - passes GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick scan of the refs immediately suggests notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets general notability guidelines. Puzzling why this was nominated. Cindy(need help?) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking Keep This. Handily meets GNG with many appearances in media—dedicated coverage describing subject's life and career. WP:Trout for the disruptive SPA nominator. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She runs a Facebook fan page. She isn't curing cancer. Waste of space article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.216 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this, "Elise Andrew (born 1989) is a British blogger, social media specialist, biologist, and webmaster. She is the founder and maintainer of the Facebook page "I Fucking Love Science"; a hobby which has had her called "the Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook".[1]" Let me quote that again, "the Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook". Does this really sound like the person who deserves an article written about them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.216 (talk • contribs)

Keep. significant coverage of her blog, and independent acknowledgement of her popularity. note: she got a lot of flak for being a female science blogger. of course she doesnt meet WP:EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND EARTHSHAKING CONTENT WHICH MUST BE WORSHIPPED, but thats ok, not everything here is of top importance.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein should be deleted, he didn't try to cure cancer. SarahStierch (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes general notability guidelines. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily able to find significant coverage amongst reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I hate doing this, but I have to admit that she has been covered enough to be notable, even if her only claim to fame is running a facebook page. Ducknish (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having received in depth coverage in independent third party sources but falling fowl of WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would prefer an article about I Fucking Love Science than one about Andrew? Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only if there are reliable sources on it that don't relate to this event. A quick google suggests that we're not exactly drowning in such sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What event? Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The event in early 2013 when it emerged that it was run by a woman, some people made sexist comments and those sexist comments recieved wide media coverage. See pretty much every independent reference in the Elise Andrew for details. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That event, the revelation that the blogger was female, and the near-immediate nasty responses, received wide media coverage. What would you do with those sources? Make an article called Reaction to 'I Fucking Love Science' being run by a woman? Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I would apply WP:1E, as I said above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        1E assumes at least one article is written to cover the reports in reliable sources. Which article would you write? I Fucking Love Science? Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Black Caucus of State Legislators

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

Originally tagged as {{db-corp}} which was removed by Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) claiming that "this is full of indications of importance/significance." I have re-reviewed the article and there are no reliable sources to back up that claim. The only sources listed on the page are sources to the organizations own sites. This article has been tagged {{Refimprove}} since Feb, 2011 and no attempts have been made to do so. There is simply no evidence of notability. Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources (mixed in with the press releases) at GNews, HighBeam, GBooks, etc. E.g. [6][7][8][9][10][11], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider the Google sources reliable (except possibly the Gbooks one, but putting the book up like that seem copyvio to me). That leaves the one Highbeam source. That also seems kind of copyvio to me as they seem to be simply quoting another source. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources linked by Arxiloxos are published by the Lodi News-Sentinel, The Baltimore Sun, The Milwaukee Journal, The Dallas Morning News, The Columbus Times and State University of New York Press. All perfectly acceptable reliable sources. And even if we were to accept the clearly misguided claim of copyright violation that wouldn't detract from the fact that such sources have been published, establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the list of numerous independent sources. Not sure what User:Technical 13 is talking about; just because a source is indexed by Google does not make it a "Google source". (Nor does quotation equal copyright violation.) Also, under WP:NONPROFIT, please note that #1 says notable if national or international in scope; this organization is national. This organization is also long-lived -- more than 35 years since founding in 1977. --Lquilter (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing these sources, yet again, I retract my nomination for deletion as I was under-informed (Too many dang discrete sections to too many policies) and missed that section of the policy. I apologize for any inconveniences or aggravations this nomination may have caused. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Stewart Laurie

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

I couldn't establish his WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can: You realise this is going to be WP:SNOWed don't you? Or roes CBE and inclusion in Who's Who really mean nothing to you???? Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Can't see why this guy is notable. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit torn on this one actually. They certainly don't give CBEs out like Blue Peter badges, but at the same time we can't really reasonably keep an article that can never (verifiably) be expanded past a couple of sentences. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that? Just because it hasn't been so expanded yet doesn't mean it can't be. -- -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has long been accepted that the CBE counts as a "well-known and significant award or honour" under WP:ANYBIO. He also has an entry in Who's Who and a reasonably substantial obituary in The Times. The latter, at least, is also generally held to confer notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the CBE really a "well-known and significant award or honour"? It strikes that it probably is inside the UK, but probably not elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes see WP:SNOW. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, all Commonwealth countries, since it's been awarded since 1917. And WP:ANYBIO does not specify that it has to be "well-known and significant" worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources, and very little likelihood that sufficient coverage will be found. As for the award, it is the third grade award for the Order of the British Empire, with about 9000 recipients. That is not selective enough, in my opinion, to fulfill our notability requirements. The higher grades, GBE and KBE, yes, but not a CBE, as it does not confer knighthood not does it entitle the bearer to participate in all of the functions of the order. For the time period pertinent to this article, they were often routinely handed out to well-liked non-combatant officers for simply serving without any major demerit. It isn't an award for valor, and at this grade, not for extraordinary service, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment minor point but his CBE was for political services in the 1960s not his war service. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fear you know little about the British Honours System. The CBE is certainly not "routinely handed out to well-liked non-combatant officers for simply serving without any major demerit". You have to be pretty senior to be awarded a CBE. It is rarely awarded to officers below the rank of colonel or equivalent and is more commonly awarded to officers of brigadier rank or above (i.e. people who would usually qualify for an article under WP:SOLDIER). Only about 200 CBEs are awarded every year and fewer were awarded in the past. The claim that it is not awarded "for extraordinary service" are false. Your comments could apply to the MBE and OBE, but not the CBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both of Necrothesp's comments. I've also added another reference. Dalliance (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a stockbroker who was also a master of a livery company, deputy lieutenant and high sherrif and a bit of wartime service in his spare time. I have expanded the article with additional info. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the various actions and honors this person did and achieved, there's more than enough here to estaiblish notability. Being short is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the CBE, Who's Who, and lots of coverage in the London Gazeteer show notability. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Darkwind (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Coyle

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent sources relate to some comments he has made, not amounting to notability. I agree that WP:TOOSOON may apply. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that he is a "major local political" per WP:POLITICIAN. SalHamton (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and WP:OUTCOMES. We have specifically deleted councillors' biographies before. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sevyn Streeter. Some merging of content can also be done. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Like It (Sevyn Streeter song)

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

Lacks evidence that it is notable. Koala15 (talk · contribs) previously redirected the page to the article Sevyn Streeter, but a user reverted this. I think that it should be changed back to a redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NSONG note. Zoke (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information to the Article. Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My position stands, all that was added was her own description of her song, and the fact that it was featured well on some obscure Canadian website. Zoke (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I highly doubt this song will ever hold any notability, and if we just redirect it then someone will come along an un redirect it. Koala15 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 more references and chart information have been added to the article , also the song peaked at #3 on the Billboard Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Chart, [12] and has received 1547 plays, 8.037 audience on the BDSradio charts [13] Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: Relisted to allow discussion of new sources. —Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song has reached #27 on the iTunes Top 100 R&B Songs Chart. [14] and can be downloaded on iTunes. [15] Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sevyn Streeter. All I'm finding for the song are brief mentions [16][17][18]; nothing there I'd consider in-depth coverage. That said, information like the song's release date and chart appearance are certainly reasonable enough to add to the artist's main article. Gong show 08:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sevyn Streeter. Despite its chart appearance, the song is not notable except in the larger context of the artist. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 both. Secret ^account 04:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Borough Council police and crime commissioner election, 2012

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

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

These articles are not about the full elections but the result in just one of many districts that were combined for the vote. Localised figues only exist because of the way the count was done. There's no need for a plethora of local breakdowns and the information is covered by England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012#Thames Valley Police and South East England (European Parliament constituency)#Election results respectively. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Pointless articles - the results from Reading are meaningless as they are not the entire constituency for either of the elected posts. Number 5 7 13:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both – even though the results are not entirely meaningless, as they show how electors in that area voted on that day, which is of some psephological interest. It would be nice for each European electoral region (which en.Wikipedia calls "constituencies") to have the results by council area in the style of United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Votes_by_state or fr:Résultats détaillés de l'élection présidentielle française de 2012. But I don't suppose anyone is going to collect the information so let's delete the two anomalous Reading pages. Sussexonian (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too provincial in notability. That none of the people named in the article have articles of their own is telling. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolf Alice. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (song)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. In the previous AfD, everyone voted delete, and the article was eventually moved to userspace and deleted as U1. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to band the only thing that has changed since the last AfD where there was insufficient sourcing for a stand alone article is that the article for the band itself now exists and is fairly established as meeting N and as such is an appropriate landing page for a redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and revert the band article back to including the full details of the single, making this article redundant. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Unfortunately, the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that is necessary for inclusion just isn't there. The best source in there is an Economist article which mentions the automated creation of articles; it appears that the Volapük Wikipedia is hardly known for anything but this event, and even that is precarious. Many of the "keep" !voters attempt to make a case for WP:IAR, and indeed the content is of interest to Wikipedians, hence the following solution. I am moving the article to Wikipedia:Volapük Wikipedia without redirect, while creating a redirect at Volapük Wikipedia to List of Wikipedias. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük Wikipedia

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

Four years after the first discussion, which ended in no consensus, with most keep votes based on "it's a large Wikipedia version", but none actually adressing WP:GNG, this page still has not a single reliable, independent source. That it has so many articles is mainly due to bot-generated articles; but there is nothing that makes this a notable website, and applying different rules for Wikipedia-related articles than for other ones is not correct. Fram (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep I had a good search around for sources, but couldn't find anything better than this Times of India "source", which isn't actually a source at all. Not every Wikipedia is notable to have an article, so there's no real shame in this one not having one either. People will still find it if they need to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sourcing is weak at the moment, but Languages on the internet The keenest Wikipedians discusses this wiki with a good bit of depth and may tip the scales. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding that, would make a good source for our list of Wikipedias, and makes it clear that the Volapuk Wikipedia is a bit of a scam, as it is bot generated content good for basically nothing and no one. It's more than a passing mention, but not really sufficient to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. 13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Now that is has reliable sources there is no rationale to delete. Also, it's one of the better written articles about an individual Wikipedia. --MarsRover (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship. Nitpicking this on the basis of sources is shortsighted and amounts to the worship of rules and regulations at the cost of common sense. Rather than kowtowing to the lower-level guidelines, we should keep in this case in accord with the higher level policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is Wikipedia improved by ignoring rules that apply to all articles but not for a bot-filled other Wikipedia version? Nepotism isn't really what WP:IAR was created for. If you consider this article "a solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship", move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Articles that are for 99 percent sourced to internal sources and blogs are not really an improvement for an encyclopedia. This has little to do with common sense, but then, that isn't the reason that you appear at this specific AfD of course. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised at the implication of, what?, that I have some sort of fundamental beef with you and am following you around or something. No. I'm a consistent advocate of Wikipedia documenting its own history for future scholarship. If that means that we let some articles slide that are internally sourced, my feeling is "tough tits — as long as it is accurate." Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just using common sense, which seems to be infallible in your opinion. It isn't, of course. Fram (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into Volapük or List of Wikipedias. This is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Colonel Warden. Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we all get carried away with "Snow keep", I feel I need to point out that a number of sources are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which here is a primary source, and not significant, independent coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Similarly, other sources are from Flickr images or forum posts - which are self-published sources and cannot generally be used either. While Tarc's source is a good source, I don't really think that's enough to tip it over the notability guidelines, so at the moment, all I see is a non-notable subject with not many sources turned into a non-notable subject with lots of unsuitable sources. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the aforementioned source does not tip the scales of notability, the following certainly should. The Volapük Wikipedia caused undeniable stir within the Wikimedia community, even getting attention from key Wikipedians Jimmy Wales and Chuck Smith. The reference to a self-published Flickr page is necessary to illustrate the case in which Volapük was featured as well as other simple facts about the event not published elsewhere (location, date, etc.). All other "non-notable" sources used in the article (Wikimedia Foundation, Volapükalised, etc.) are either references to statistical facts about the edition or to discussions about it between prominent volapükologists or Wikipedians, for which there are no alternative sources. Several other articles make generous use of references to primary sources published by the Wikimedia Foundation or to similarly relevant "self-published" mailing lists, including Wikipedia and OpenBSD. Yet they are good/featured articles! WP:PRIMARY explicitly states that "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.", so it is inaccurate to call them "unsuitable sources" on this article. Anyway, the Volapük Wikipedia did get independent, third-party coverage required to pass WP:GNG on the Internet (PC World Poland [19], Libera Folio [20], and The Public Domain Review [21]) as well as in at least three books. Summa summarum, it still has more references than one would expect from an edition of Wikipedia in a language with as few speakers and as little public awareness in the last century, and I strongly believe that both WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE would suffice to grant this article rights to existence given its historical impact on the Wikimedia community alone. Since "our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers" and because "the principle of the rules is to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive", I say "keep". Just my two cents as this article's main contributor. --Iketsi (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no - WP:IAR does not apply here. The problem with keeping this article without proper sourcing is that you'll be puffing it up to make it more important than it really is - which fails WP:NPOV. The article should talk about Volapük Wikipedia from a disinterested layman's point of view, not a Wikipedia fanboy's, and if you don't have the sources to do so ... you'll need to wait until you have! Anyway, fortunately you have supplied some sources which contribute towards notability. The PC World source looks good, and so does that the Libera Folio, but the Public Domain Review is about the language, with a brief passing mention to the Wikipedia, so I wouldn't deem that acceptable. So we've just got about four sources that are significant and independent to tip it into WP:GNG. I'd remind people that the state of the state of other articles is never a convincing argument, and a primary source can be used to verify facts, but it fails WP:GNG on the "independent" criteria. Uncle G's notability essay is a good one to read. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are some really awful sourcing issues there. Whether there is a real article in there trying to escape I am not sure. Let's try removing all self refs and primary refs and see what is left. --John (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Still need a bit more time to evaluate the quality of the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, I don't understand the issue here. There are 96 articles about Wikipedia language editions. Most of them don't mention any source but Wikipedia itself. This article is more informative and lists a much higher number of sources. As for notability, I remember there has been an entire programme about this subject on the Dutch national radio a few years ago (I was asked to participate, but couldn't). Obviously, the sources used in this article are not the New York Times, but please, people, let's not overdo it. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on it having over 100,000 articles. I think those with over 100,000 are typically worthy of coverage.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Delete Based on Aymatth's findings that it is an obscure wikipedia with mainly bot generated articles and a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took the 51 citations, cut out all the wiki sources, blogs and articles that do not mention the Volapük Wikipedia or just note its existence. That leaves four sources.

The Economist mentions the 119,091 auto-translated articles
An academic paper about Wikipedia also mentions the over-100,000 auto-translated stubs
The Esperanto "Libera Folio" magazine has a full story on the auto-creation bot and its author
PC World (Polish) briefly mentions the auto-creation

So when we cut out all the self-published stuff, we just have this one news item. The story is more about Sergio Meira, the bot creator, than about Volapük Wikipedia. If the article were pruned down to the information provided by independent sources about the Volapük Wikipedia it would read, in its entirety:

The Volapük Wikipedia is a version of Wikipedia in the Volapük constructed language. Until recently it had less than 1,000 entries. In 2007 an enthusiast for this language used a computer program to automatically generate over 100,000 articles, mostly very short.^[1][2][3]

For comparison, imagine an article that reads:

TenisBwrdd.cy is a Welsh-language website about ping-pong. Until recently it had less than 1,000 entries. In 2007 a ping-pong enthusiast used a computer program to automatically generate over 100,000 articles, mostly very short.^[1][2][3]

One minor event is not enough to warrant an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out that the Vükiped is not the only Wikipedia edition that used bots to create massive amounts of articles. Several other projects (for example Italian IIRC) have done the same, and my own home project (Dutch) is full of them, too. Personally, I am kind of fascinated by all the reactions. I am pretty sure that if the Wikipedia edition in, say, Amharic or Irish, had done the same thing, reactions wouldn't have been as sharp as they are now. The only possible conclusion is that the reason why so many people were/are upset about this, is that Volapük is a constructed language. Which makes the whole discussion quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. Same thing here: Category:Wikipedias by language contains articles about 97 different projects, of which I just opened 15 of them randomly (both bigger and smaller projects). And guess what? Most of them link ONLY to Wiki[p/m]edia pages, and only a very small amount of them contain links to so-called "reputable news sources". The article in question is both more elaborate AND better sourced than almost all the others, which, again, makes me wonder why we're having this discussion about this very page. I'd like to note that the fact that WP.VO has 119,000 articles does not make it notable in itself, but all the discussions about that, both on Meta and elsewhere, do. Secondly, it should be mentioned that the recurring number of 20 speakers shouldn't be taken for granted. If you look at the Volapük mailing list and the number of people who have contributed to WP.VO, it is more than obvious that the actual number of active Volapük users must be many times higher. At last, if we take the number of 107,000 bot-generated articles for granted, this leaves us still with 12,000 user-created articles - quite a respectable number by any standard. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles on Wikipedia languages editions are worse is irrelevant. We are in the position of a company or politician that finds itself in a conflict on interest. We must be scrupulous in following the rules that we ourselves have set. Internal discussions cannot possibly make a topic notable. The only relevant question is whether the website has been sufficiently discussed by reliable independent sources. It has not. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it isn't because it has 119,000 articles that's it's notable, but I was under the impression that we generally accept articles on other wikipedias on here, especially those with a reasonably number of articles so I just assumed it is probably notable without looking into the sources. But if most articles are practically empty and bot generated and the wikipedia really has a frighteningly low number of decent independent sources then I think Aymatth has a valid point for deletion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites only four independent sources, all about the one stub generation incident. No source has written anything else about any other aspect of the Volapük Wikipedia, which is not surprising since it is just another obscure Wikipedia. The article relies almost entirely on internal self-published material, not acceptable for any article. Maybe the Home Hardware 4" Standard Ardox Spiral Nail is an important product to Home Hardware, the subject of various internal memos. That does not mean it gets an article. We should follow our own rules, particularly with articles about Wikipedia. They have to meet standard notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, have to meet ... guidelines is kind of a contradiction. Notability criteria indeed are just guidelines, not rules. Verifiability on the other hand is. And it is nonsense that discussions on Meta about the Volapük Wikipedia cannot serve as primary sources, because that's precisely what they are. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article in Wikipedia about an aspect of Wikipedia, such as this, should conform to higher standards then most. The fact that this article is about one of our websites does not mean we can ignore all our own rules. We should be particularly careful not to give ourselves special treatment. The bulk of the content should derive from reliable independent sources. There should be enough independent coverage to establish notability. In this case, there is just one minor story on stub generation. That is not enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In that case, I suggest moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. That's what the German Wikipedia did. Iketsi (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving the article to the WP namespace. Even though the topic does not meet our general notability guidelines, it does seem to be of interest to editors. The subjects of bot-generated articles and auto-translation are certainly significant within the project, even if broader public is not particularly interested. Not sure what the best location would be... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mainspace. It's time we stopped applying an especially high standard to topics related to WP. I'm saying essentially the opposite of Aymatth2. Everyone expects us to cover aspects of our movement, and moving them to WP space, tho better than nothing, is not necessary . What matters is that what we write be objective. Objectivity and NPOV is important--whether or not we have an article much less so. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article would never survive if it were about any other website. It would not have a snowball's hope. The sourcing is atrocious and cannot remotely be considered objective or neutral. Hardly any independent sources have paid any attention to this topic, and they only discussed the incident of the auto-generated articles. It is appropriate for us to present our views, principles, policies, approach etc. in our namespace. It is completely inappropriate for us to present this in the form of an article. If any other company tried to pull a trick like this, we would boot them out right away.

The analogy is an online newspaper. They will have an "About" section that talks about their management, philosophy, finances and so on. They will have clearly identified editorials and blogs. But if the main news and information sections are full of uncritical blog-type articles about the publisher, they destroy their credibility. We should not make that mistake. Mainspace articles should be based on reliable independent sources. What we say about Wikipedia outside mainspace in our "about" and editorial sections is a different question. Let's not confuse the two. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. I must admit I naturally think having an article about any of our wikipedias is fine in principal and as DGG says, you'd expect us to cover them. The article itself I think is useful and it would be shame to delete, but as Aymatth2 says, technically the sourcing is atrocious and most sourcing is self referencing. If we are to treat it fairly as an encyclopedia article I think it doesn't have the coverage in independent publications which would make it acceptable. I think the question we really need to ask is would wikipedia be better off having it deleted, and I'm not sure it would in terms of information.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of December 2012 there were 634 million websites, with 50 million added every year. This is one of the most obscure, only used by a handful of hobbyists. A decision to keep this blog-sourced article sets a precedent for keeping any article on any website regardless of whether any independent sources have discussed it. The only reason we are considering it is because it is "one of ours". Not a good reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I took the 51 citations, cut out all the wiki sources, blogs and articles that do not mention the Volapük Wikipedia or just note its existence. That leaves four sources." And significant coverage in four reliable sources is enough to tip it over the edge of WP:GNG and change to a "weak keep" vote ... just. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is of one event, the mass-generation of stubs, and does not discuss the website. The sources do not even give significant coverage of the event - they just mention it casually. Thus: "... languages such as Volapuk may have fewer than 30 speakers, but more than 100,000 articles, most of which are stubs created and edited automatically." This essay relies entirely on internal or self-published sources for all other information about the website. Is the event notable? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could blow up the whole article and start all over from the best sources and see what you've got left. A small stub, but still enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. Volapük already includes a description of the stub-generation event (unfortunately citing Wikimedia as a source). The event could perhaps also be mentioned in History of Wikipedia#2007. But giving it an article all of its own seems a bit daft - it really is obscure. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of good sources already in the article - a reliable book about Wikipedia, a government website, amongst others. Per DGG, if we don't cover Wikimedia topics, who will? Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book says "... Wikipedias exist in constructed languages (Esperanto [eo] and Volapük [vo]) ...". The "Open Government" source says the same: "... in Kunstsprachen (Esperanto, Volapük) ..." Neither discuss the website. If no independent sources cover a particular Wikimedia topic, it is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficent stuff here to sway me to keep - the sourcing might be minor and the language obscure, but I believe if nothing else this falls under WP:IAR - readers will expect an article on other Wikipedias. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is such an article: List of Wikipedias. If readers were interested in detailed coverage of this subject, independent sources would discuss it. That is how we determine notability with any other article. If Wikipedians are interested, which is clearly true from this discussion, but the general public is not, which is obvious from the lack of independent sources, it can be covered in the WP: namespace. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stray thought - Has anyone checked to make sure this website is for real, not just an elaborate hoax? It exists for sure, at http://vo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cifapad, but does the content mean anything? How exactly does this stub generator work? Just a stray thought. I am sure there is no problem... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. :) (unlike the Siberian Wikipedia). --Iketsi (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that question must have come up before. But it is surprising that the German Wikipedia has no article, when most of the Volapük enthusiasts seem to be German. What were the reasons why they moved it out of mainspace? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Volapük enthusiasts used to be German, over a century ago, but that is not true anymore. The modern Volapük community is spread out around Europe (mainly in the United Kingdom) and the Americas, with the Vükiped's most prolific contributors being Brazilian. I did not find any discussion on the German Wikipedia about their decision to move it out of the mainspace, but they also did it with other Wikis that had limited sources. See de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie. --Iketsi (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see some rather scathing comments about the Vükiped Wikipedia quality, e.g. de:Diskussion:Volapük#Frage zur vo-Wikipedia, but nothing about the reason for moving the article that describes it. Still, the sourcing on de:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie/Volapük-Wikipedia is indeed hopeless. The intro to the page de:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie makes a great deal of sense. The namespace is designed for articles about Wikipedia that are useful internally to people involved in the project but do not meet the criteria for articles for the general public. The English Wikipedia should have a similar namespace, where we could spread ourselves on topics of purely internal interest, like this one. Perhaps the next step is to set one up, then to move this and similar articles over to it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An attempt to summarize the discussion so far follows.

The website described can be read by less than 20 people. It is mostly maintained by one individual, Sergio Meira. Almost all the 120,000+ articles are very short, with no cited sources. There is no evidence that the website is a hoax, but individual postings may be suspect.
The article relies almost entirely on Wikipedia or sister project editor and blog comments. There is minimal discussion of the topic by external sources. What there is talks only about one incident of automated stub creation. Based on quality of sources and lack of independent coverage, the article does not qualify for retention.
Most editors feel the article should be kept anyway regardless of technicalities since it appears to give good coverage of an interesting and important subject and readers will expect Wikipedia to cover the subject.

Is that a fair summary? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Several users contribute regularly and Smeira is not one of them (since 2009). He did write most of the articles, though. --Iketsi (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. Just one minor event (the bot-created articles) was mentioned in a few reliable sources. If this were about any other website but a wiki, editors here would tumble over each other screaming "spam", "no sources", "not notable". --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe (hairstylist)

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

Notability is not inherited from famous clients. A short mention in this book doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Atlantima (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Christophe really is a famous hairstylist, although I am not sure he passes GNG. This article is missing any mention of the most famous incident of Christophe's career, when he cut President Clinton's hair on Air Force One while the plane sat on the tarmac at LAX; it was then widely (and incorrectly) reported in the media that air traffic was delayed while everyone waited for Christophe to finish the haircut.[22] Although the reports were debunked, the media kerfuffle was prolonged. See, e.g., the section entitled "A $200 Haircut at LAX" at this Frontline collection of anecdotes about the Clinton administration [23]. Additional background here: [24] This incident is mentioned in a number of existing Wikipedia articles. [25] By itself, this one incident is probably not enough to satisfy GNG, despite the voluminous coverage, but if some other evidence of substantial coverage turns up, it might be. Searching for an individual with a single common name isn't easy, but GNews does have lots of references to Christophe as a top hairstylist.[26] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The info already in the article asserts notability, especially that he is known as a stylist and has his own line of products sold in major stores. If some of the articles linked in the post just above were added as sources this article would not be questioned. BigJim707 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BigJim707. He's right, if the sources listed were used as citations, this article would be fine. Mabalu (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not even meet the basics. Trivial coverage at most. Mootros (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just realised that the name is misspelled - technically, it should be Cristophe with no H. However, the sources clearly refer to him both ways. The list of Google News archive hits that BigJim found clearly demonstrates general notability, more so than for many hairdressers. I realise that some people do not consider hairdressers notable, and certainly, Fiona "Fluffy" Tweakfollicle from Cut'N'Blowdry, Pasadena certainly isn't notable, but this guy has received extensive coverage and mentions in many articles beyond Clintongate. If you search for the same string with "Cristophe" correctly spelled, you get even more hits and news results, e.g. [27]. Totally passes WP:GNG. Mabalu (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now added a number of sources to the article, including at least one relatively recent source to show that Cristophe's notability has continued well beyond the Clinton haircut incident. (Also, additional, paywalled sources appear to exist that discuss his cosmetic line at CVS, among other things.) So I think he overcomes BLP1E concerns, and I'm moving my !vote to keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable in his field.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable enough for inclusion. I knew who he was when I saw the name, though I'm not in that industry (and have no interest in it, either). HillbillyGoat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improvised Action Collective

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

Apparently non-notable organization. Tagged for notability since 2008. Atlantima (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one blog source doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG... unless somebody can dig something else up. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group and it doesn't seem likely to become notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG: no RS, not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. czar · · 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against creating a redirect to whatever suitable article is found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State v. TAPP

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

Non-notable court case. Google search finds no indication that this case has served as a precedent in any other case, or is in any other way significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case is included in the book cited in the article (Constitutional Law by Kanowitz). That book looks like a casebook and is available in Google Books if you want to check it. I suggest that State v. Tapp may be suitable for merger with, or a plausible redirect to, whatever article deals with the area of the law to which the book says it relates (compulsory self-incrimination). James500 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other than its inclusion in that text (in which it may well serve as an example for a constitutional law class) I can find no references to this case. No other case cited it as a precedent. No law journal commented on it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, the case has been cited in textbooks (see Google), but it seems to be run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United states v downs

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

Non-notable court case. Article was PRODed and seconded by two editors who could not find any significant mentions of this case. This editor could also not find any significant mentions, and so bringing to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of importance or significance. It is present in legal databases[28] but doesn't seem to be discussed elsewhere. Even with press coverage it would probably fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable case only mentioned in a few places. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is sourced to a law report (the cryptic abbreviation that follows the name) and a book by Kanowitz (see my comments in the AfD debate for State v. Tapp). James500 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it's barely notable, but it is a 7th Circuit case, has been cited widely within that circuit, and could become notable in the future, if relied on by SCOTUS. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists of approximately one sentence (I say approximately, because it has grammatical problems that suggest it could be more than one with missing punctuation) and has no secondary sources. The article doesn't indicate the court's judgment, nor is it sourced to any book by Kanowitz. It may be possible to write a decent article about this case, but this is not it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:RHaworth under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Translations, Inc.

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

American translation company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Prod removed without any reason given. Funny ^Pika! 13:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete an ISO certification and being a certified women owned business are not assertions of notability. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't appear to be any sources out there that say anything more than the company exists, like this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. L Faraone 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa society

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

I am unable to find any reference to this society on the Trinity College website or on Google generally. Search for "Medusa Society"+Trinity comes up with one relevant result, mentioning that someone was a member. The books that are used as sources are of mainly local interest, which casts doubt on this organization's notability. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are the books, which are published by the university itself, and thus do not demonstrate notability. No other sources means that the article itself is not notable, per nom. Richard Ye^talk 08:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Express--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird by American Express

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

No sources, no independent notability. Everything here is already covered in American Express and and perhaps this should be redirected there. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without prejudice to creating a separate article if and when there's more material. Right now the paragraph at American Express#Consumer cards seems to cover it sufficiently. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the article - I think it's probably sufficient if it's captured under American Express Ademkader (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 09:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. to Ghostbusters (franchise) Secret ^account 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin's Spirit Guide

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

This article is about a fictional book from Ghostbusters. There's several titles with this name on Amazon and a PDF file available at a fan website. I don't think the book meets the notability guidelines as it does not meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Dianna (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not technically a book as much as a plot device, but fails WP:GNG anyways. Zoke (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. While this plot device does not have enough notability to merit its own article, it does have enough available sourcing[29][30][31] to be at least mentioned and sourced where readers might expect it to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage amongst secondary sources, both in books and news articles, over a sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. Failing that, I lean towards deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. It is a well known term, however with so many terms and Ghostbusters lore not included at Wikipedia, this article sticks out like a sore thumb. As noted on the talk page to the article, it was created to promote a published non-official (but claims to be official, with content stolen from fan projects) book. If the article had been about official sources and written better, we may not have arrived here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. I've speedy deleted this because it was created by a sock puppet of indef-blocked user User:Kelly Denis. One of the sock accounts used for this article was indef-blocked by checkuser on Commons - see here. This person has been using sock accounts for self-promotion quite regularly for the past month or two. INeverCry 17:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly denis/Kelly Dénis

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources (WP:Notability). All of the sources provided in the article are to social networking sites. Contested proposed deletion. ... discospinster _talk 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Zoke (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, and this edit -- article is being created by a single-purpose editor. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Images of subject claimed as "own work" also suggests autobiography or spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Given the new sources, I withdraw the nomination; that's enough to pass GNG Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Quiz Association

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

I looked through both Google Web and Google News, and I only found one WP:reliable source that discusses this group ([32], and this is only about a single event they held, not the group itself). Without additional, detailed discussions in RS, this does not meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. It sounds like an interesting group, but without evidence of notability, it can't have an article here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am aware of the two newspaper article in the EL section, but neither significantly discusses the group itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: KQA has been featured in Hindu more than once here, here and here. Nayvik (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. The policy based consensus is clear here as the topic, while it "might" barely meet WP:GNG, it is perfectly covered in other articles and doesn't deserve a split on its own. Many of the keeps is WP:INTERESTING territory that ignores the sourcing conserns explained by DC and some of the later rationales (I discounted the last delete as a IDONTLIKEIT). Considering the sourcing issues and a prime target for BLP violations, I'm deleting this article and redirecting, but if someone gives me a plausible reason why to keep the content on a subpage, let me know. Secret ^account 04:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human–goat sexual intercourse

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

There has recently been edit-warring over this article, with attempts to blank it and turn it into a redirect without any consensus or discussion. I have no particular views on the matter myself, but purely as a procedural matter I have brought it to to AfD for discussion. I expect the parties to put forward arguments themselves on why it should be kept, deleted or redirected. Please note that the article must not be blanked or redirected while this discussion is underway. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with full protection until consensus is reached on article talk page. Zoke (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Comment was intended procedurally, does not reflect my position on the worthiness of the article. Zoke (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reason that this article should be kept instead of being redirected to the Zoophilia article, with any of its content being merged there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to zoophilia. Not an encyclopedic topic, this is a smorgasbord of trivia. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

......... Make that poorly sourced trivia...., per Delicious C. below. Carrite (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expected it to be baaad, but it is surprisingly well-referenced and wide ranging. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You should be trout-slapped for that one. However, I'm too lazy to actually go through with it. Consider yourself trout-slapped in spirit. Zoke (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-referenced and wide-ranging article demonstrating significant coverage in secondary sources over a period of time. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Might there be a better topic buried here? Notice that in the infamous sculpture of Pan doing the goat, Pan himself is portrayed with distinctly goaty features. (Pan isn't a human.) The theme in classical mythology isn't about "zoophilia" as such (that is, it isn't about an actual desire to mate with goats), but about the contiguities of human-animal sexuality, or sexuality as part of our animal nature. It's why satyrs have goat features. So while there is certainly a legitimate theme of "goats as tropes in the representation of human sexuality" (note "representation"; not sex acts per se, which goes to zoophilia), I have no idea what such an article would be called, or how to establish its scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the sources indicates a special or heightened notability for specific species. It can be covered in zoophilia. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no reason to arbitrarily lump together all the articles you possibly can under an umbrella where they will then be said not to "fit". The topic is notable, though as has been pointed out some of the sources may not have been up to par. What remains is sufficient. You might make a better argument for merging "Sudanese goat marriage incident" into this article (as was proposed in the talk) because there will be room for the content, and nobody actually looks up "Sudanese goat marriage incident". Wnt (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. I don't see why this topic should be elevated from Zoophilia. --Conti|✉ 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This is a valid search term and should redirect readers to the main Zoophilia article. As it stands now, however, it is nothing more or less than a collection of trivial mentions of human-goat sex and not an encyclopedia topic. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Expanding on a comment I made elsewhere, here are some specific problems with the current lede:

The statement "Human–goat sexual intercourse is one of the more common types of bestiality" is completely unsourced.
The statements "Of male zoophiles, 28% admitted sexual attraction to goats, ranking fourth. In female zoophiles, sexual attraction to goats is very rare or non-existent. Actual levels of sexual use of goats were lower than this however" are sourced to a document on a zoophile website which purports to be a report of some kind from a sexology conference (although one might question whether it is an accurate copy of the source). Upon reading this source, one discovers that these figures come from a single, small study. The generalizations are inappropriate even if the numbers are accurate within the study.
The statement "The act is usually performed by a male human upon a goat of either sex; male goats do not commonly take the initiative to copulate with a human female, although some cases have been reported" is sourced to an essay by Havelock Ellis, written in the 1930s. It appears to be a misstatement of Ellis' summary of a comment by Herodotus.

Any suggestion that this article is well-referenced is nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, where's the hilarious naughtiness with that sort of attitude? It has some footnotes and a picture, it must be an encyclopedic topic, yes? < /s > Carrite (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Doesn't seem to be seriously discussed as a subject unto itself. Most mentions cover instances of this occurring or being depicted so any article would effectively become The Men Who Have Sex with Goats, rather than an actual encyclopedic work on this form of bestiality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article explains why it fits general notability guidelines and it seems to be backed up by reliable sources. If you want to delete it you need to come up with better reasons in my opinion. Pass a Method talk 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a valid argument for keeping a sub-page of another article. You have to explain how this subject is independently notable of the main subject of bestiality/zoophilia. If you can't then the appropriate response would be a merge or redirect to the main article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Every article is a sub-article of something else (or multiple other things). So either WP:GNG actually describes what we have an article about, or else the only guideline is "whatever I feel like deleting is toast". Wnt (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The association of goats with Satan and Pan puts it on a somewhat more notable level than other critters. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The reasons given for deletion seem to be insufficient; any article can indeed be seen as a sub-article of something. A Google search reveals several incidents along the same lines in Malawi in recent years, well-documented in the local press and court proceedings (the Sudanese solution of marriage to the goat not being considered, apparently). Oculi (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has disputed that some humans have had sex with goats. What we are discussing here is whether this is sufficiently different from the general sexual abuse of animals covered in Zoophilia to merit its own article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken the liberty of collecting some of these citations - by no means do I believe I have them all. [33] Zoophilia is a huge article and it doesn't have room for this kind of blow-by-blow analysis of one kind of zoophilia in one country; nonetheless, it is only by collecting and viewing the actual data that we learn that most of the time the people prosecuted are having sex with others' goats while they're tied to trees and are caught because of the unusual bleating. These details belong in an article specifically about the phenomenon of goat sex. I know it sounds silly but silly doesn't matter! For example, if you're going to make decisions about whether your state should actually pass a real law that will really allocate money that amounts to the entire livelihoods of multiple taxpayers to put a few silly people in jail, you should know all the details, understand how it works in countries that do it. If someone at the CDC is looking at a new STD they just isolated yesterday and puzzling out how it might have jumped into humans, they should be able to brainstorm on Wikipedia for ideas and have our best effort waiting here in response! He shouldn't be left scratching his head for three days saying "I wonder if anybody really does that?" out of somebody's sense of propriety. There is simply no topic too ridiculous that we shouldn't allow ourselves to look into it dispassionately and pull out the data. Wnt (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, I've removed that section. If you think it's a good idea to list individual cases of people arrested for having sex with goats, you are crazier than I thought. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that removing data from an article while you're trying to get it deleted is an abuse of process, except from what I've seen of these things the past year I'm feeling like as a matter of procedural policy it is an integral part of the process - I wonder how things would get deleted without it. I do, however, note that covering reports of crime is within WP:WELLKNOWN. Wnt (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article is up for deletion, under construction, or appearing on the front page, I'm going to remove blatant BLP violations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a look here after I saw the discusion on AN/I and on Jimbo's page. It seems to me that you do have notable incidents where people have sexual intercourse with goats. Not all of these incidents can be classified as cases of zoophilia. The impression I get from reading this article is that the typical cases involve lone farmers who just use goats as a masturbating devices. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cirt put a note about this discussion at the ancient Egypt project talk page, presumably because of this passage in the article: "In Ancient Egypt, at the temple in Mendes, the goat was viewed as the incarnation of the god of procreation. As a ritual of worship, the male priests would use female goats for sex, and the female priests would do likewise with male goats." Regardless of whether the article is deleted, I'm concerned about this statement. The source is a sexological study (not a historical one) that deals with ancient zoophilia only as background, and its source for this claim is unclear. A web search turns up only one remotely credible source (this website about ancient Egypt, written by a well-informed amateur), which refers to this same study. It also mentions two ancient sources: one mention in Herodotus of a single instance of human-goat intercourse in Mendes, and a passage in Pindar that suggests Mendes had a reputation among the Greeks for such activity. But that website also mentions the suggestion, from a 1949 book on sex and religion, that the "goat" involved in these incidents may have been a man dressed as a goat. So the notion that "As a ritual of worship, the male priests would use female goats for sex, and the female priests would do likewise with male goats" is dubious, to say the least. Unless some other source is out there, it's a serious exaggeration of vague statements in Greek sources. A. Parrot (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Meets WP:GNG without any question. Qworty (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You offered the same reason for reverting my redirection of the article to Zoophilia - what do you think is being censored here? Is this a conspiracy to hide the the fact that some people have sexually abused specific types of animals by pointing readers to the article which discusses the general subject in depth? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY. There is no way it fulfills GNG. Scattered old artworks depicting the act and a few modern news stories do not constitute significant coverage of it as a concept, any more than 'falling down stairs' or 'crossing a fence' are notable because they are occasionally portrayed in art and reported in historical sources. The only cited study of it, as a concept, is as part of a larger survey of bestiality or even of sexuality in general, and not as a stand-alone topic of analysis. The entire article synthesizes scattered references to sex with goats and is not based on a secondary analysis of the subject. Agricolae (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricolae. Insufficient sources to establish notability. Those arguing "keep" aren't producing good sources, and those arguing "delete" are able to show why the sources are insufficient and misrepresented. For instance, the source used for the reference to Pan and the goat doesn't meet RS standards for ancient art, sexuality, myth or religion; it would be challenged and almost certainly rejected in any article on the ancient world. Besides, Pan is not a human. He's a deity with goat features. I asked above whether there was a legitimate way to approach theriomorphism and sexuality as a "goat" trope, but the insistence has been that the scope of this article is "humans have sex with goats", har har, which necessarily excludes fictional or symbolic treatments such as Albee's in which "human-goat intercourse" is a literary device (as the subtitle "Who Is Sylvia?" indicates: anyone who'd ever seen an Albee play would know the play isn't "about" having sex with a goat). "Not censored" doesn't mean that if it's about sex it doesn't need to meet usual standards of notability and verification. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is indiscriminate and its sources are poor. "Human–goat sex" just isn't an encyclopaedic subject. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vembu Technologies

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

Yet another trivial software company writing its own wiki articles and supporting them with no more sourcing than a handful of its own recycled press releases. COI issues across their contributions history with articles on their products StoreGrid and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SyncBlaze (rejected). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoreGrid
Delete per nom, Davey2010 Talk 11:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of their products is a protection solution; another, a management solution. MEGO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StoreGrid

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

Yet another trivial software product, with an article written by its own developers (see other articles in their history). The only sourcing is a few recycled press releases. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vembu Technologies
Delete per nom, Davey2010 Talk 11:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Many weak rationales in both sides of the debate, with the keeps saying this is not a content fork and little else, the delete side stating this is OR (with very little to back it up) and others are advocating a merge of two articles into this one. Sounds more like an editing dispute and impossible to read a consensus here. I don't think relisting would help. Secret ^account 04:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights abuses in Kashmir

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

Article is redundant and a content fork of already existing articles on the topic - namely Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. This article serves no purpose other than being a duplicate and has a questionable scope, given that it does not cover the history of human rights either [34]. Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest the two articles be merged into the present one. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Nom. - how is it being used as a content fork can you explain please? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the admin : there is the discussion that reached a rough consensus against inclusion of selective original research in the name of "history of Human rights" (The secondary sources don't call it as human rights abuse). Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree they are redundant and a content fork of already existing articles. No need of multiple articles on the same subject. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No need of multiple articles on the same subject." - they are not about the exact same topic. This is nomination is WP:POINTY. See Wikipedia:Summary style. You might work towards keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronized rather than asking for its deletion. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article serves no purpose when its sub-sections have already articles of the same content. I tried to make it eligible look like different, I added the cause and some related incidents from history it was removed, labelled as OR, you disprove then it‘s labelled as no HRV, again you disprove they turn things over. When you restore it they attack on your user talk page. The article serves a purpose only if it is restored to this version. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SUMMARY This is the parent article, and there are no article BTW in HRV in Gilgit-Baltistan as yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this article given that there are already dedicated articles to Kashmir HRV in Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kashmir already. A third summary article serves no purpose other than WP:REDUNDANT. There is nothing in this article that can't be covered in better detail in J&K and A&K articles. Gilgit-Baltistan content can be merged into Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir and that article renamed to Human rights in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Mar4d (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we have WP:SUMMARY? The article is not redundant as it is a summary article and the parent article of the others. As you just wrote, we have dedicated articles already (I know this of course as I wrote them) then a summary article is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, you're dead-wrong again, wondering how?

This article aims to provide the whole record of Human rights abuses in the entirety of Kashmiri region.
Kashmir HRV in Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kashmir are two subsections of this article then by your logic we should redirect the smaller articles to the parent not the opposite.
Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are two different entities in Pakistan, hence one article for each is due.
You're trying to disrupt Wikipedia with this AFD to illustrate a point merely because you're upset A. that OR and POV content were not allowed to be included in the name of "History of Human rights" B. that Hindu Taliban was AFDed.

This is just a pointy nomination. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and improve the sync rather than crying "delete!". Per WP:SUMMARY. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noteworthy topic in its own right with significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little non-redundant content there is and delete anything else. This seems like a very, very clear case. There are already two well-written articles on the topic. This article is poorly written and is composed of scavenged sources from the others. Merge what isn't redundant and delete the rest per WP:REDUNDANT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that clear. WP:REDUNDANT is not applicable here:

it doesn't address summary articles or SPIN-off articles.
it talks about those pairs of articles who are exactly about the same topic. Here we have an article about Kashmir and two articles about two separate subsets of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (and we are still in need of an article about Human rights abuses in Gilgit Baltistan which is only in the parent article). Hence they are different territories governed by different nations.
Human rights abuses in Kashmir is more notable than the individual spin-off articles. Then by this logic we should delete the other two articles and merge them with this article, should we do that?

I hope it helps. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need help, and my comment still stands. And, while you have the right to respond, the argumentative nature on this discussion and at least one other India-related discussion isn't helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's synthesis. The sources treat human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir (state of Pakistan) and Jammu and Kashmir (state of India) separately. Gilgit-Baltistan, is to everybody except the Indian government and those who it browbeats (such as certain UN agencies) into accepting its views, separate from Kashmir. I would expect from this article to have sources and analysis which address human rights issues common to both "Kashmirs", if they did have enough similarity to be compared with such regularity.
Also, this article suffers from a ridiculous syndrome common to India-related articles on Wikipedia. When human rights agencies and the news talk about "human rights abuses in Kashmir", they are talking about the Indian state, where the repression is especially extensive. Azad Kashmir in Pakistan is self-governing. This diversionary and undue emphasis on Pakistan's (or not-India's) problems has ruined the articles on bride burning and caste, which of course refer in the majority educated population and to academia as well to Indian problems. Shrigley (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not synthesis. Read WP:SYNTH. Don't understand why you like pointing to random policies.

"I would expect from this article to have sources and analysis which address human rights issues common to both "Kashmirs"" — why? You yourself acknowledged that the two kashmirs are governed by two nations then why should we not treat them separately? what kind of demand is this? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. As the article covers two different nations, a merge and redirect to Human rights in Indian or Pakistan would not be possible.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not read the nomination rationale or the comments above. We are not discussing a merge into human rights in India or Pakistan, but rather into the already dedicated articles of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Why do you believe the content here cannot be merged into those already existing articles? Mar4d (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because

we don't have article about ″Human rights violations in Gilgit Baltistan″ (which should be created on its own merit)
This article is a summary style article.

I hope it helps clarify the issue. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pahal Singh Lama

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

Jsharpminor (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the reason for the proposed deletion? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Experience suggests that a national chief of police is likely to be notable, unless those familiar with the local language and literature inform us otherwise. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Speedied via G7 by User:Deb, article's author had already G7'd it before it was nominated for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Blood Cries Out

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

Article had insufficient or no information vhincze 09:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A1/A3 applied also, hardly any content. Secret ^account 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EMEIA

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

The term is specific to Ernst and Young initiative. Gaurav Pruthi ^talk 08:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No indication of significance. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any criteria for speedy deletion that apply, but I also don't see any reason to keep this. It is not even a definition; it is the expansion of an abbreviation. Either merge to Europe, the Middle East and Africa (though that page itself is borderline; see this 2004 deletion discussion) or delete. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine general election, 2015

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Dewritech (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's usual to have articles on upcoming elections such as United States presidential election, 2016. The Argentinian elections are held every 4 years so it's not idle speculation to say when it will be held, even if the exact date is to be decided. The article is currently in a process of being rewritten, so certainly I would suggest waiting till that is finished. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Colapeninsula, Davey2010 Talk 11:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard to have articles on forthcoming elections; how many times have we been through this issue by now? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no special opinion, so I defer to whatever is the established consensus. However, I must point that Cristina Kirchner is unable to run for the election, unless there is an amendment to the constitution. There are proposals for that, but it is premature to list her as a "potential candidate" unless such amendment actually takes place. Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and lack of references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh dear. WP:BIAS at its worst. No one would touch the article on the 2016 US presidential election. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K.Pudur

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

Name seems to be against WP:ACRONYMTITLE.Uncredible,lacks sources and images are not representative of the aforementioned place and in violation of WP:IRELEV. Vignesh Mani M (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for K.Pudur

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are duplicates of K.Pudur:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an easily verifiable village. Settlements are notable per editor consensus. WP:ACRONYMTITLE doesn't apply here. A move to K. Pudur would fix any naming issues. Irrelevant images are easily fixed by editing, not WP:TNT. The duplicate articles can be redirected easily. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the name of the article is no reason to delete it. The nom should have read WP:BEFORE and we wouldn't be having this waste of time discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In violation of WP:N and WP:RS,

If you google K.pudur in Maps, You will see K.Pudur Madurai, Tamil Nadu which is not the same as the one which the article is pointing to. I believe your Google search had turned up results for this neighborhood. In fact Google maps lists multiple villages in different districts with the same name. The solution should be to list the neighborhood in Madurai which has a larger population and more facilities. This article is pointing to a small village which is not even listed in the official panchayat database.

Official Panchayat list of villages in Perambalur district[35]. Also linking User page [36]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vignesh Mani M (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given that the village exists. If there are multiple K. Pudur villages, then we might want to consider a disambiguation page of some sort that links to the various articles and/or provinces where such villages are to be found. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaru Sundarimaarude Katha

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILMS or WP:GNG - seems to be WP:TOOSOON Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about an unreleased film; fails WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Philippine network television schedule

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Kiddie Techie (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a general schedule like this is not a TV guide. A TV guide gives the specifics of programs from week to week. Rather, this is basic information about Philippine network television. It's the first thing any reader would want to know. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It claims to be the TV guide for a specific week. I don't know how you can say this is not a TV guide: what is a TV guide if not a list of the times that each program starts in a particular week? If there was narrative text about scheduling decisions, ratings, etc, that would be legitimate. I also dispute that this is the first thing a reader would want to know - why would they want to know what was on TV on 6 December 2010? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, This is a TV Guide & should be gone!. Davey2010 Talk 11:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does indeed fit the description of a TV Guide. Don't buy the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure about the legitimacy of TV schedules here in general (see also Lists of United States network television schedules and Lists of Canadian network television schedules for more examples) but this one definitely fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Not only is it unreferenced, being "effective from 6 December 2010" means it only runs for less than 4 weeks in 2010. User:Howard_the_Duck also raised a valid point in the previous Afd - in that Filipino TV doesn't follow standard TV seasons like in American and Canadian programming, so to describe that this is a general schedule doesn't really hold that much weight. Funny ^Pika! 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the presumption that there is generally discussion about competition of network television in the Philippines as there is in the US. This has been a point of issue before that while it may appear to be a TV guide, it appears to be presenting a broader picture of the television line up for the nation from its over-the-air channels. We do this for the US (eg 2012–13 United States network television schedule), and I remember discussing the finer points of when this is a schedule and when this crosses the line to a TV guide a few years ago at WT:NOT. But again, my keep here is based on the fact that I would expect competition between network stations to be the subject of sourced discussion which these articles support. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I try to search online using the Google search engine for references for the article to be save but theres no exact information found on the internet regarding Philippines TV Schedule on 2010. I believe that this article should be deleted as it credibility is questionable since theres no proofs for the information that this article is providing -- Vhincze(Talk)

Comment My comments on the first AFD has to be read for context. Unlike in the US where there are "seasons", or a program airs on a specific period of the year on a specific number of seasons, then returns to the same time next year if the ratings are good, Philippine TV programs go on and on (Daily episodic programs are usually ordered for a season of 13 weeks) until ratings go bad, then never returns again, unless there's clamor for a sequel or a reboot.

That means you'd never find sources of TV schedules in a specific time period in one place. It's always the latest "schedules".

The only way anything like this could be accurate is to keep track of which programs end, start, and change time slots. If any of those things happen. This is not as regular like in the US where programs where programs are grouped on the time of the year when they start and end (either September/October->May, May->September/October). In this article, presumably this is only accurate as of December 31. –H T D 03:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: If anyone wants to check out things, 2010 in the Philippines#Television has a list of programs that started and ended in 2010. One can cross-reference the two lists, and can come up with a schedule that shows when the program started and ended. –H T D 04:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is exactly what WP:NOTTVGUIDE was meant to address. Go elsewhere for this kind of info, not to an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes there's a lot of discussion over a so-called "network war" over here, but mainly on blogs and forums. There's actually little, if any, independent coverage on television schedules over here. But more importantly, Wikipedia is not a television guide. As for TV shows, reruns are almost unheard of, and official DVDs are rather rare, so coverage for very old programs is also hard to come by. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Policy based consensus is rather clear as the sources provided was easily rebuked for failing our guidelines. Secret ^account 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Blain

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

Sources are either not RS, minimal or related to the website, with a slice of press release &/or promotion. Reads unacceptably advertorial and isn't ready for mainspace until the sourcing dramatically improves. Was rejected at AFC but moved to mainspace by author anyway. Recommend usification if deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Hi folks, I wrote this article and am brand new around here. I've spent a fair amount of time learning things around wikipedia, including proper markup, have gone through helping to clean up backlogged AFC (about 40 articles so far), updated various other minor pages and categories and created another article that is being discussed. I am really trying to understand how to help out and add new articles around here. This process is pretty frustrating. That being said..

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject. As well as Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.(2.5 million+) As well as some - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.

Analysis of the 15 sources in the article:

Published Major Secondary Sources -

Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times.
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today.
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com.
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post.
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.

Industry publications related to the person but independent of the subject -

a b c Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat.
Google's Suggested User List, [1], Retrieved on August 20, 2012
NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013
"Winners of the 2012 Spirit of Google+ Awards". Media Tapper. June 28, 2012.
Shervington, Martin (2012). The Art & Science of Google+.
"Guy Kawasaki and 10 Experts Chime in on the Value of Google Plus – and How You Can Start to Leverage It". Windmill Networking. Oct 1, 2012.

Independent publications - only to verify statements -

Google Social Statistics, [2] 2012
Amanda Blain on Google+
Circle Count, August 20, 2012

Since I spent some time reviewing other articles in the AFC, I didn't think there would be an issue in moving this ahead, but seems like its being used as a reason above and that I did something incorrect. I reviewed other articles that had been approved and I felt the above references shows at least the ability for a C-level article with help from some more experienced authors about "advertorial" and the style. Geek4gurl (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only actually reliable non-press released based source is the NYT article, and it is not devoted to her, but mentions her site as only one of several examples. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at these sources in more detail:

Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. - Mentions the site and has a quote from Blain but says nothing about her as a person - just a quote from her. This isn't going to count for Blain's notability as it doesn't contain any biography detail.
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. Its about the site and doesn't add very much about Blain, Its too marginal to count as a reliable source for notability. Plus its identical to the Huffington Post article which makes me wonder if its a promotional puff piece or a recycles press release. Being quoted doesn't make you notable
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com. About.com isn't a reliable source
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 - Can't comment on this as its not on-line but the title doesn't suggest its primarily about Blain or that it has much bio.
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. Same problems as the psychology today article as its identical
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com. About.com isn't a reliable source

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused why this article is being judged so tough. It does seem to be penalized for submitting to AFC first, as many other articles get approved with no question with way worse sources than i've submitted here (not that that is ok) but not sure why there is little help on this and lots of simply "its wrong and pull it" Many wiki entries for people in the social media industry/internet personalities are left with "could use more sources", "additional clean up" or even stub articles. It is very discouraging to a new user to have hours of work immediately removed and deleted and certainly makes me not want to help out if everything just gets shot down because senior editors happened across it in the AFC. I've spent a lot of time to try and do things correctly.

As I posted above the notability guidelines I went off of - The user has a large fan base and cult following of over 2.5 million people and being 35th most followed person on the second largest social network in the world. The bottom two sections of sources listed above show she is considered an expert on Google Plus by her peers including interviews, stats, and speaking engagements. Blain also designed a popular website that had an ok amount of press and following.

I disagree with above analysis and at least i'm finally getting some real answers here after asking several times (including teahouse, irc chat, Spartaz directly for help, etc) and getting no real response. All of these articles are not 100% about Blain, but I sourced them to back the facts about Girlfriend Social, that she created instead of creating a separate page which seemed to be the standard for website creators.

Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. - This is used to verify that Amanda is the founder of the website which it does with this line. " Amanda Blain, the founder of Girlfriend Social"
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. - It talks about her background, location, age, moving to place, technology background and more. It is about her company including launch date, and purpose - which is what this section is referencing. How would any article about a website/founder not be somewhat promotional? I am very confused.
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com. - Im not sure how this doesn't count "at all". Its owned by InterActiveCorp, an independant major secondary source to me... but more importantly it is a direct interview with Amanda that includes some background and states she designed and is responsible for the website
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 - This is in reference to the number of users on the website which is mention and discussed in the women's world article. It also includes background information on Amanda.
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. - It is a duplicate article, but the different publication should not discount its inclusions since it is a completely different publication that had to approve it - don't most news articles get syndicated in some degree? I included it as an additional sources I found.
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com. In terms of the female friendship industry, winning this user voted on award seems like an achievement. Not sure again why it doesn't count.

Are the sources not supposed to back up the specific points? Thats how I used them.

The remaining articles not gone through above, include large/medium social media websites that did peer direct interviews and being used as an expert source. It might not be the New York Times, but it isn't her personal blog site either. I still feel they count as independent third party sources in the industry. I'm not sure how they 'count for nothing' and are considered 'press releases'.

Including :

a b c Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat. a direct interview where she talks about google plus and her experiences specifically, as well as being called one of its biggest influencers
"Guy Kawasaki and 10 Experts Chime in on the Value of Google Plus – and How You Can Start to Leverage It". Windmill Networking. Oct 1, 2012. Interviewed with other major social media players as an expert on Google Plus
NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013 - According to the speaker page , spoke as the expert about Google Plus at a very large social media conference

Geek4gurl (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of evidence of persistent notability based on substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources are heavily dependent on subject's own press releases and lack independence. No evidence that the subject has garnered any lasting notability. Heavily promotional in tone, reads like an advertisment, and full of puffery. Rewriting won't solve anything. Nothing in the article is of encyclopedic value. Arguement for keep boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which does much to establish notability, even if taken together. There's a good reason why this article was rejected at AFC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm learning as I go here. The reasons for my Keep: I felt these best described an Internet Personality celebrity -

WP:ENT - Cult following of 2.5 million - Average blog post or G+ posts gets several thousand interactions
WP:CREATIVE - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. I provided examples of how I thought this was done above.

Geek4gurl (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above ahem somewhat verbose discussion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's kinda of a WP:METOO and I'd be interested in your thoughts on what sources provive the detailed independant coverage of Blain's life/works that meets GNG/BIO? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On The Fence (since I'm also new around here...and not yet as far along as you, Geek4gurl :-) The article reads well; but on the other hand, I can see how stringent standards for notability keep Wikipedia out of an Internet cycle of self-promotion by not-so-notables. What about the test of time? If it does in fact get deleted, hang onto the source text that you've written/edited, and retry later, if she goes on to become noteworthy. Siryendor (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BASIC. Zoke (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather an assertion without evidence. Please can you explain which sources you think pass the GNG and WP:BIO. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage of this person as a real person (the sort of coverage that includes genuine biographical details) in independent, reliable sources. The writer of the article is new to Wikipedia, and is earnest and enthusiastic, and I hate to hurt her feelings. But this is an actual encyclopedia and we carry articles about truly notable people, as Wikipedia defines "notability" quite clearly. Notability does not come from a single passing mention in the New York Times, or from blog posts, or from fleeting popularity on social networks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was pondering a keep based on the HuffPo and PsychologyToday sources, until i realized that it was the same exact article written by the same person. So that is considered one source, but the rest just feels very superficial and of the mention-in-passing variety. The sourcing may be solid enough, but just barely, to support an article on Girlfriend Social and have Ms. Blain's article redirect to that. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fortunately we don't base importance on the number of followers on social networking sites. We have some reliable proof Blaim founded a website, but nothing of substance that talks about her in any depth. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your comments. Its helpful. This entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_Internet_personalities and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_personalities should all be removed (except a few) if the above stands true. There are more secondary sources and third party interviews for Blain than most of the ones in that section. Perhaps this is why I am so confused.

If "social networking sites" do not count for notability then - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Stars ? Youtube is a social network just as much as GooglePlus and in fact it is smaller.Geek4gurl (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring this up as an argument to keep my article. I feel i've talked about that above a great deal how there is enough in here for at least a starting article. I brought this up so some of you serious editors could have a look at that section and clean it up just like you are doing here. Its full of very poorly sourced articles and persons and that seems to be very important to many of you. Geek4gurl (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss and evaluate one article now and that is Amanda Blain. A "starting article" requires that the subject is notable, and there is general consensus here that passing mentions and blog posts are insufficient to establish notability. If someone nominates those other articles for deletion, then they too will be evaluated on their individual merits. As for YouTube, the fact is that some YouTube "stars" have attained notability, but by no means all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But regardless of me following proper channels, (asking directly for help to previous editors, using the teahouse multiple times, using the IRC chat) this is the only time i've actually been able to have a real substance conversation with multiple editors. I've learned more in this discussion (formating styles, deletion process, and referencing various points) than hours of trying to follow proper formats. Sorry it's gone off course, but thanks to all who are helping someone new learn your very difficult processes. Geek4gurl (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way of figuring out how WP works is to read up very thoroughly on the policies and guidelines, and then to observe how they are applied by experienced users. The best places to do this are article talk pages, notice boards and AfD's. Before I started editing, I spent about a year lurking on talk pages, following a few highly experienced editors around and seeing how they interpreted policy. Yes, it does take time to learn the ropes, and it can be very confusing until all of the different policies and guidelines gel into a coherent whole in your brain. Good luck, and happy editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TLDR. the failure to explain notability in a succinct way is a system problem, not a new editor problem. i see one good reference [37], but regrettably not enough, yet. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 11:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to enough in depth coverage in reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or send back to AfC at the page creators request. Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good amount of secondary source coverage of the topic. — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Keri (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the coverage is indepedent sources is not overwhelming, it is more than trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Walters (actor)

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

Extraordinarily poorly-sourced article on a living person with no particular evidence of encyclopedicity and no reliable sources on which to base a proper article. I already stripped out a number of highly-derogatory and entirely-unsourced accusations/insinuations per WP:BLP but a quick check in the article history will show them. Once those were removed from the article, there is nothing left. polarscribe (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:WEB. I can't find even mention of "Tourette's Guy" in reliable sources, unless you count Know Your Meme (which is pretty much the meme equivalent of Wikipedia). Incidentally, in my search I found a blog post lamenting the lack of an article for "Tourette's Guy", while the author promises to never use Wikipedia again because of it. ... discospinster _talk 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No available evidence of notability, specifically as an actor. Mcewan (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article's editor has inserted personal information into the page - specifically, a street address. I have removed it and requested that the personal information be oversighted, as it is a blatant violation of policy and common sense to include someone's residential address in a Wikipedia article. polarscribe (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tourettes guy is quite popular and is worthy of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs)
Delete for lack of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Ptitsyna

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

I declined an A1 and A7 CSD due to clear context and representation by an international modeling agency. That said, while attempting to expand the article, I have been unable to locate significant reliable and independent sources to establish notability. As a European model, predominantly working in Russia, I'm hoping that others may be able to locate foreign language sources that may be used to establish notability. Lacking this support, I would recommend deletion. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Cindy(need help?) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:BIO. Zoke (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create (!)

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

Band not notable per WP:BAND. If their "Create (!) Workshops" have any notability, they should be their own article. That removed, this article fails to meet guidelines above. Zoke (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cool concept but fails WP:BAND... pretty sure their workshops aren't notable either. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject relies on a single external link as a source - which, unfortunately, fails WP:RS. No exact matches found on G-search. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nighthawk

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

Minor wrestler. Notability not established through WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'- User:DrRonThomasJr belongs to the subject in question. He actually created the article, uploaded all relevant images and contributed 99% of its content. Feedback ^☎ 04:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible COI case - should I report this to COIN as well? hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pythia (band)

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

I'm not finding substantial coverage of this band in reliable sources (WP:GNG). Mostly blogs, announcements, and show dates, which doesn't do much for WP:BAND, either. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amazon, their latest album, The Serpent's Curse is ranked 47,776, in their sales chart - not a particularly stunning achievement! [38] InviolataIngenue (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And if there are noteworthy achievements reported, I'd hope to see something more reliable than Amazon, a sales website. JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND, being 47,776th is not a stellar achievement at all. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble on the Rock 4

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

This was a non-notable MMA event from a defunct Hawaiian MMA organization (not to be confused with a newer organization of the same name based in the UK). The article consists solely of fight results and the only source links to a list of fight results. This fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and all coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These were notable MMA events, many UFC and Pride fighters participated in ROTR, and the promotion has been mentioned by Joe Rogan on the air as notable. ROTR was a notable event in the history of modern MMA, and was NOT simply a local, non-notable promotion. Sgtkabuki (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROTR is not even listed at WP:MMANOT as a second tier MMA organization. In addition, this discussion is about the specific events, not the organization. There is nothing that shows these individual fight cards were historically significant. The fact that some notable fighters competed is WP:NOTINHERITED, otherwise every MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL game would be considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is pretty lenient, since I consider a top tier organization title fight enough for an event to pass. However, even by that lenient standard, this event still fails, because while there is a title fight, the organization is not top tier (or even second tier). Failing WP:SPORTSEVENT, the event would need to demonstrate significant, non-routine coverage to be considered notable, and while there is some coverage, it's all WP:ROUTINE. I can't find any argument to keep this event. CaSJer (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These events don't pass WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wallflowers. Will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 17:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Richling

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

Unreferenced biography for musician whose career hasn't achieved notability beyond being in the Wallflowers. WP:BAND --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least this should be Merged to The Wallflowers leaving a redirect. There's plenty of coverage of Richling's work with that band and several sources with content about the man himself, e.g. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. While the article as it stands is pretty awful and little more than a list of credits, I simply can't understand why anyone would think the best outcome here is simply to delete the article. --Michig (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Michig that the suggestion to delete this article is an unreasonable suggestion. According to Wikipedia, "Deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria." This page is suitable and helpful. It provides information that is not available elsewhere (despite contrary claims); in fact the information was recently used by the Dallas Observer in an interview conducted with Richling (^[1]). Furthermore, the claim that the article should merely be collapsed and included on The Wallflowers page reveals a restricted view of Mr. Richling, whose credits and experiences extend beyond his work with The Wallflowers and includes Norway's Big Bang, Pearl Jam, Joe Henry, and notable other musicians. User:Kalliope M (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you put in an edit summary, "Greg would appreciate it if this page stays this way", it implies you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Secondly, articles on Wikipedia depend on independent coverage from reliable sources to assert the notability of the topic. If this article "provides information that is not available elsewhere", that would constitute original research. This article needs to at least meet basic notability requirements for biographies or otherwise be redirected to The Wallflowers. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not a conflict of interest at all because that denotes that the information provided in some way undermines "the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." In fact, the entry enhances Wikipedia's purpose because it provides neutral, reliable, unique, independent information that isn't available elsewhere. Based on the editing histories of this page, the person insisting that the page be deleted is the person who consistently eliminates the unique/substantial information and discusses the entry only in terms of his relationship to the band, and to one band member in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KalliopeM (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Delete the page? It's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face! It would be nice to have some additional background or personal information about Richling, the article is helpful for a number of reasons including understanding networks and influences. I read that Dallas Observer article and came to the Wikipedia page to see about the Pearl Jam credit he talked about! Deleting it is a bad solution because this information isn't compiled like this elsewhere. I have been a long time fan of the Wallflowers and everyone who is a fan knows that he prefers to talk about his work and have it speak for him. It makes sense that he would like his information presented this way. This page clearly fits the aim of Wikipedia, "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." It's helpful! EasyJumpDriver 16 April 2013
Redirect to The Wallflowers, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources however none of the reliable sources that I have found give significant coverage to the subject; therefore the subject fails WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject was a member of a notable band, therefore per WP:OUTCOMES#Music a redirect to that notable band would be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that the article started out life as exactly that redirect. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Wallflowers. I don't think he meets notability by himself, since even interviews with titles touting his musical "pedigree" contain almost exclusively questions about The Wallflowers. However, I do think the information in this entry is worth preserving, since he did contribute (albeit in a very limited manner) to far more notable bands, like Pearl Jam. HillbillyGoat (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Phatboiz

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

Article about a non-notable production company. I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. I checked Google News, HighBeam, Credo, Questia, and NewsBank. The closest that I could find was this interview which seems promotional in nature and originates from a source of questionable reliability. - Mr X 00:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 00:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little if anything anywhere that looks like a reliable independent source. The chief claims of significance in the article are (1) that they have been nominated for a couple of awards, and (2) that they have worked with more notable performers. Neither of these goes far towards establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Secret ^account 04:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Barry Ryan

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

Delete: Non-notable; only notability even claimed is as the grandfather of an aristocrat. Quis separabit? 00:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:AUTHOR - no references to support assertions of notability. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the sake of clarity, I've split the article up a bit with more sub-headings. It's pretty clear that the article is less about the subject than it is about his children. If either of the children mentioned (2/10) are notable, then we should consider creating articles for them. But having an article for the father just to summarise the lives of two marginally notable children is a bit pointless. Stalwart111 02:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His granddaughter, Virginia Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie, has an article. Quis separabit? 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had noticed that. I suppose that just makes me even more sure about deletion. We generally don't accept arguments that notability might be inherited and that is usually in relation to parents/children. Grandparents/grandchildren is another step again. Stalwart111 06:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No absolutely. I wasn't trying to change your mind. I nominated the article for deletion, after all. I was just establishing that there is no nexus to notability just because his granddaughter married an aristocrat. Quis separabit? 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, understood that - we're both on the same page I think! Stalwart111 21:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing whatsoever to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Borders on WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies

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

In accordance with the removal of copyvio article by user Whpq (refer View history) the article now is incomplete. The institute's official website list courses most of which have not been listed or have been deleted. Also the internet user's trust on Wikipedia for providing authentic information may be tarnished. Just by providing 8 lines of information does not certify the credibility of the said institution. All members at Wikipedia struggle to provide non-copyrighted and authentic resources to its users. Also there is no further contribution the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencottonmouth123 (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep: Incomplete article or non-addition of adequate sources cannot be a ground for deletion. A degree awarding institute is deemed to be a notable institute, those grounds has been discussed in the earlier discussion and no need to be repeated here itself. I request the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Recognised degree-granting institution. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There remains enough information to show it an ative degree-granting university and that's all that is necessary. !
Keep - A recognized, active degree-granting institute and therefore notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not simply because it's a "recognized, active degree-granting institute", but because it is discussed in multiple reliable sources: http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/03/stories/2010110359960300.htm, http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/21365/ -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/dc9/2013/03/wallflowers_interview.php

[1] ttp://blogs.dallasobserver.com/dc9/2013/03/wallflowers_interview.php

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Lindsay Embrey}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Aditya Dev Sood}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe Creative (2nd nomination)}}