Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 25

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< 24 February 26 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1439 (Skelmersdale) Squadron

edit
1439 (Skelmersdale) Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cadet training squadrons are not notable per previous AfD discussions, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1439 Sqn should be considered notable for a few reasons;

1, it was the first Sqn to forge links with Canada 2, the death of one its cadet sparked a change in policy for the operation of the Viking T1 3, it is the largest youth organisation in Skelmersdale, a deprived area. 4, it has a long standing and history in the town since long before the towns expansion in the 1960s.

Recognising that other ATC Sqns are not noteworthy and to maintain an important presence on Wikipedia I have expanded the article to include the other cadet forces in Skelmersdale and will invite them to add content. Potentially other youth organisations in Skelmersdale such as the Church Army and Boy and Girls Brigades will also add content, but only if the page remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuusha (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment suggests that the author has misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not a directory for local organisations to add information about themselves, but an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references that show notability, essentially a promotional article only, not a notable organization. As per WP:ORG "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." This isn't and thus doesn't qualify. The page move now means that the article isn't even on one single subject and makes it even less an encyclopedic topic. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cadet units are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of references showing notability. Previous discussions have indicated that Cadet units are not them sufficiently notable to warrant an article. EricSerge (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as an advert Jac16888 Talk 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sands G Sunny

edit
Sands G Sunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, especially as per WP:MUSIC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Homoki

edit
Aaron Homoki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No-notable person, sources really don't help either. JayJayTalk to me 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Samir 03:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo VI College

edit
Paolo VI College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at the non-independent source provided, it looks more like a dormitory then a educational institute. Therefore, not notable Night of the Big Wind talk 22:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are a mix because they offers courses in addition to courses of the university. So i think they can be considered notable. Paolo VI College can be consider important for the building, which was built by Gio Ponti. The structure is famous in Milan--Cormeo (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible, but you should proof is with reliable and independent third party sources. The website of the university is not sufficient for that. If the building is notable, it deserves its own article, the building does not make the college notable! Night of the Big Wind talk 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Night Tinton5 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, its nature is akin to that of the various Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge, a partially autonomous residential and teaching institution as part of a larger university. We almost always keep those articles, if the institution is important and substantial, and there is enough to say. This is a famous university, and there is enough to say, though the current page needs great expansion. What the Italian encyclopedia did is not relevant--wee are considerably more inclusive for academic institutions than most other WPs. There are many other possible sources than newspapers; for European universities, most of them will be paper. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Samir 03:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Marie Johnson

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sarah Marie Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Murder of Diane and Alan Scott Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As tragic as this family story might be, there is no indication that this person is of encyclopaedic note. Fails WP:PERP in that the victim was not notable, and that the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was not unusual. Mtking (edits) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also plenty of good sourcing as established by the previous AfD that was held not long ago might I add.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from WP:CRIME
===Crime victims and perpetrators===

A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article
if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For victims
The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance
is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Example: Matthew Shepard.

For perpetrators

#1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[1]
#2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event.
#3.Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage
and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Example: Seung-Hui Cho.

  • Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on
    an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree with the nominator, that this subject is not encyclopedically notable and generally fails WP:PERP. I also agree with Worm that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:BLP1E are huge, glaring problems. So is WP:BLPCRIME, on which I reach the opposite conclusion that Babba apparently reaches: there's nothing previously notable about those involved, the murder was in fact not unusual in and of itself, and the entire 1E is of extremely low historical significance. The event did bring some coverage simply because it was a parricide (notice the quality of coverage generally: 5 pages toward the end of a 286 page book, in a short story format; crap true crime TV shows; and a smattering of news coverage). This is more properly commented on, but certainly not so much as merged into, parricide. This name space should not be simply redirected. JFHJr (㊟) 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those "crap shows" that you are referring to are rating hits on their respective channels. It does actually pass WP:GNG, and has been covered by numerous crime shows over the years per article. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt a vote it is a notice that the name of the article has been changed. Have made it more clear. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samu (Zen)

edit
Samu (Zen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with useless edit summary of "expandable". I don't see anything to expand it with though; is this notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gbooks for the words Samu mindfulness Zen finds 121 hits, including the following:
  • Christopher Ives (1992). Zen awakening and society. University of Hawaii Press. p. 37. ISBN 0824814533. "Even today samu occupies a central place in Zen life"
  • Jørn Borup (2008). Japanese Rinzai Zen Buddhism: Myōshinji, a living religion. Studies in the history of religions. Vol. 119. Brill. p. 194. ISBN 9004165576.
  • James Hewitt (1982). Relaxation East and West: a manual of poised living. Rider. p. 164. ISBN 0091462819.
Is this notable? Did you try it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  There is no rationale for deletion, the non-rationale has been challenged once, and this discussion has been relisted for a third week?  The correct closing was on February 11 as SK#1 WP:NPASR.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable per my comments above. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep term crops up a lot in writings on Buddhism. As a philosophical/theological concept there should be enough to say about it to make an article. Not clear as to the grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep philosophical concepts in religions are generally notable, and there is generally no shortage of sources, though many of them lurk in the obscurity of print. /For a short article, expandable , which I gave as the reason for deprodding, is an applicable consideration for whether to treat separately or to merge--I think it a perfectly reasonable justification for keeping, and one we frequently use. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze (UAB mascot)

edit
Blaze (UAB mascot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:GNG a google and GNews search can only find trivial or primary sources. Suggest merge into parent article. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The news search created by the AfD template is almost always going to fail when an article has a disambiguated title like this. Try one of these instead: [1], [2], [3]. The article doesn't even contain the most encyclopedic and WP:N information on this subject yet--when the UAB first selected a mascot named "Blaze" in 1993, it was a helmeted Norseman, who caused a PC controvery for being "too Aryan." That controversy received non-trivial, national coverage in respected newspapers and has resulted in repeated references in the years since. This information belongs in the existing article--it would almost certainly not fit as well into any potential parent articles.--Hjal (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive looked through a lost of the sources that came up on your search they are similar to what i found and i feel was mostly trivial one or two a little bit better. However do you have a source for the part you feel should be in the article as if that has good sources and along with what i have found it may meet GNG and i will withdraw the nomination.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of the coverage of the 1993 mascot controversy (some paywalled):Orlando Sentinel[4], Chicago Tribune[5], Seattle Times[6], Baltimore Sun[7], Washington Post[8], Greensboro News & Record[9], Lexington Herald-Leader[10], Washington Times[11], St. Petersburg Times[12].--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources pass WP:GNG, you are arguing that the topic is nonetheless not WP:N "worthy of notice".  But what about Template:C-USA_Mascots, are you only going to remove one of those articles?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Lyman

edit
AfDs for this article:
Cam Lyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was nominated for deletion before back in 2005 and kept, but that was quite a while ago and I believe our standards are higher now. Fro me, this article clearly falls directly under WP:VICTIM, and thus WP:BLP1E. This person's murder did not have lasting significance--a news search shows only 35 results, but none after 2002 (and that was only because someone allegedly embezzled from her estate). No books mention her outside of basic lists (see this Google Books search). Yes, I the case appeared on Unsolved Mysteries, but that, in and of itself, is not enough to meet the criteria in WP:VICTIM. Under our policy of not doing harm to victims of crimes when those crimes were not particularly noteworthy, I believe this article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - coverage on unsolved mysteries indicates that the subject is atleast not "your average case" as the those kind of shows mostly covers more notable subjects.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMHO there is enough coverage in News archives to meet WP:VICTIM#1. His story has received coverage for several years, before and after the "Unsolved Mysteries" apparition. And even the search in Google Books reports some interisting entries such as Queers in history: the comprehensive encyclopedia of historical gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and transgenders. Not "highly notable", but notable, it's a keep for me. Cavarrone (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: A search for "Camilla Lyman" gives different/additional results. Cavarrone (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Relisted twice and since Sandstein didn't find the participation or the arguments sufficient to make a call, I'm closing this as "no consensus". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Abedi

edit
Mehrdad Abedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable academic. No claim to notability in the article, and Google Scholar has hits for a biologist M Abedi, but nothing on an engineer. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Amongst other suggestions of notability via his CV - he lists: Member of Iranian academy of science, Iran, 1991-now. This can be verified via [13] with details of what his membership status involves here:[14]. This seems to me like it may pass: WP:PROF #3 The person ...been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society ... a National Academy of Sciences. Perhaps this should be added to the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)) PS: Have now added membership of Iranian Academy of Sciences and citation to the article[reply]
Keep : his books(in persian) are as simple and complete as possible and are widely used by students in electrical engineering (and this is the the noticable thing about Abedi as mentioned in the article). 212.80.4.166 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Special:Contributions/212.80.4.166 shows that this IP has never edited the project before. How did you find out about this page? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Artist Management

edit
Zeitgeist Artist Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Corporate autobio for non-notable corporation Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PKNA Arcs

edit
PKNA Arcs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a very random way to deal with issues of a comics series: the division into "arcs" is very personal and no informations on the stories are given. Also, "PKNA Arcs" doesn't really mean anything in english. Manfroze (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography#Compilation albums. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rarities and B-Sides (The Smashing Pumpkins album)

edit
Rarities and B-Sides (The Smashing Pumpkins album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable: Google searched and no reviews by major publications nor inclusion in any major charts. LF (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - I tried to look for sources, but they were all fansites, messageboard posts, or download sites. Also, not even really it's own release, it's pretty much just a collection of songs thrown to be released for download. Most of the music this collection comprises of, would receive coverage from the music's original sources: Judas O, Pisces Iscariot, The Aeroplane Flies High, or any of the band's singles. Those releases pretty much contain everything here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Apparently no consensus to delete, and I urge the editors who !voted keep to add the additional information as they suggested. If there's nothing more in a few months, can be re-nominated. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church of Wheaton

edit
First Baptist Church of Wheaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable religious congregation. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Anyone who knows anything about Midwest U.S. churches knows that a church with 600 in weekly attendance is a substantial institution, even in a much larger community, and one that we want to cover somehow on Wikipedia.  This is before consideration of the age of this congregation, which goes back close to the beginning of Western civilization in the area—Wheaton was incorporated in 1859, and this church founded in 1864.  This means that we can expect to find pre-internet WP:NRVE (part of WP:N) sourcing.  As an independent church without an affiliation, it attracts a small amount of interest as a one-church denomination.  Editorial control should be returned to those who want to develop the article.  Given the current state of the article, I'd suggest that those editors move the article to Religious institutions of Wheaton, IL, which according to Wheaton, IL is a notable list.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - doesn't pass, as currently written, my own standards, but I think, with additional information, it would pass. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DinCloud, Inc.

edit
DinCloud, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongrassmusic

edit
Lemongrassmusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG at this time.  Gongshow Talk 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 19:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmon (music)

edit
Jasmon (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time.  Gongshow Talk 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D Michelle Gent

edit
D Michelle Gent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published author of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, social media, unreliable sources and sales /directory links, but little significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gent does not pass the guidelines for either WP:AUTHOR or WP:POLITICIAN. I went through the sources on the articles and the ones that I left are trivial at most and do not show how Gent is any more notable than any other locally elected politician. As far as writing goes, there's nothing out there to show that Gent has any notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. If the original article creator is the author, someone who is personally involved with her (agent, family, friends, etc), or someone paid to edit on her behalf, I would highly recommend that you read WP:COI. The only reason I mention this is that Gent has low visibility in both the literary and political worlds and in these cases the editor is usually someone personally involved with the person being added or is the person themselves. There's no rule against adding an article under these circumstances but it is discouraged to do so without a non-involved third party and it is encouraged for you to admit the relationship up front.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete - The reference titled "national press coverage" contains nothing more than a quote from a news interview with this person. Searching news archives comes up with something from 'www.goodreads.com' and that's it. There are some books published from this author, but nothing that would meet WP:AUTHOR. Fails WP:GNG. MisterRichValentine (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yaloe meets standard of interest —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC). — Yaloe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. The article creator made a reply here, but it misses the point. Self-published authors are not automatically non-notable, but it does mean you have to demonstrate notability some other way. With zero coverage from independent reliable sources as an author (self-written/published web pages don't count) and one incidental mention as a councillor, falls well short of notability on both fronts. And this is coming from someone who's a writer in a similar situation. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted D Michelle Gent and she is not bothered at all with Wiki and says if this is not suitable then she does not ever want to be on Wiki. I made the page to allow people that search and use a popular online source of information to be able to find her. I did not use it for advertisement and placed only true facts on the page. It is no longer true now that Tokyogirl edited it and I do not have the time to continue posting other details at this moment in time. When it was first moved for deletion the main thing pointed out was 'self published' not it did not comply with guidelines. Michelle has 3 full novels on book shelves, 6 short stories. Is sub editor for 2 magazines and is currently writing 2 books for films and 2 for her series. She worked on 3 films last year and just played a lead roll in one due out later this year. She just completed a screenplay for a short film. She had her own TV show on Sky TV last year. None of which is found in the press. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulwike (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a person wants to have an article devoted to his or herself on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion nor does it have to do with the deletion process. I think I speak for everybody involved in this discussion when I say that nobody thinks you put false information on the page. However, just because a page contains information that is accurate, that does not mean that the subject of the page is notable. MisterRichValentine (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, a TV programme might be a better claim to notability, depending on exactly what it was and what her role actually was. Even if that isn't enough to make her notable, the TV programme might be, in which case you might be able to redirect her to that article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"She had her own TV show on Sky TV last year. None of which is found in the press" - not found on her website/blog either: a search turned up a mention that someone from SkyTV called someone she knew, but nothing more. Doing a Google search on either "D. Michelle Gent" "Sky TV" or "Michelle Gent" "Sky TV" doesn't show anything reliable - the closest I can find is her doing a booksigning at an event where someone called "Sky TV's Paranormal investigator" also appeared. No indication they were connected - just appearing at the same event. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I can see both sides of this and I'm sorry to say that my second reaction to seeing an article that doesn't look like an "article" is delete. (my first reaction is to check to see if it's a copyvio as many "non-articles" are) However, Uncle G does make a strong argument that this article can be fixed and others concur with that view so let's give it some time. Perhaps some of the editors here who !voted "keep" could help. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

edit
AfDs for this article:
Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be an essay or other original research. Dohn joe (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic is already covered in Mark-to-market accounting, and that is a better place for it, as a more neutral and better known title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant WP:OR/WP:SYN. Ipsign (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yj10c, if you are reading this: You have yourself in part to blame for this. You've formatted and written your article quite badly for an encyclopaedia article. You've given it the appearance of unecyclopaedicity by simply writing it in a way that isn't how encyclopaedia articles are written (in this or in other encyclopaedias). It is, alas, unfortunately the case that Wikipedia editors judge articles on style over substance much more than they should.

    Having said that, the nominator and others are plainly wrong. If this weren't a subject, we wouldn't have Mark-to-market accounting#Effect on subprime crisis and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which is a whole section of another article on this very thing, as Cullen328 spotted. Clearly, this is not original research, and not a novel subject that doesn't exist outwith Wikipedia. (Amel-Zadeh & Meeks 2011 and Laux & Leuz 2009 amply demonstrate that, even if it weren't demonstrated by what you've cited already.) When Newt Gingrich wrote his piece in Forbes magazine in 2008 (Gingrich 2008) it provoked a lot of discussion — some of which discussion (e.g. Martinez 2009, p. 281–283, Wesbury 2009, p. 87–99,115–116, and Srote 2011, p. 152–157; as well as what you've badly cited in the article) can be used as source material for (at least two of the viewpoints to be covered by) an article on this subject, since it addresses it head on. Yes, I for one have spotted that you're citing Thomas J. Linsmeier of the Financial Accounting Standards Board — who isn't exactly a random unidentifiable web-logger — writing about this subject.

    The problem is that you've made a really bad job of taking what the world has said about this subject and starting an encyclopaedia article on it. Personally, I think it to be rescuable with ordinary editing tools, that every editor has. There's enough material in the world to support a full, summary-style breakout, article on this. Maybe someone will pick up the baton.

  • Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal attacks aren't necessary simply a Keep or Delete explaining why is fine JayJayTalk to me 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wholly wrong. Simple voting is the antithesis of what we do here and is far from fine. That's the sort of ridiculous statement that gives Wikipedia a bad name for a place where people's immediate reaction to being told that they are wrong is to try and pretend that one isn't allowed to point out where people are wrong. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncle G - two things. First, take a look at what JayJay actually called for. Not "simple voting", but "a Keep or Delete explaining why". That is what this discussion is all about. I appreciate that you're trying to help out the article creator, but their talkpage would be more appropriate for that.

        Second, I don't disagree with most of what you posted, and the creator has actually improved the article already. But before you call the participants here "plainly wrong", take a look at the condition of the article as I found it: [17]. Tell me you wouldn't have nominated that article for deletion. It was nearly entirely unreferenced, and more to the point, did not even address the purported subject, aside from an unpopulated section title. This was a case of an editor moving an article out of user space too hastily. It's still borderline in my opinion, but if I had come across the article in its current shape I likely would not have nominated it. Please take the time to investigate the situation before you cast aspersions. Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Actually, no. Novices do read AFD discussions, and we are supposed not to bite them with single-word pretty much rationale-free votes like "Delete: Essay.". This is the correct place to explain what's wrong, as per reams of prior AFD discussions over the years where novice article creators jump in with "Why won't you drive-by people explain what you think is wrong instead of these unhelpful boldface votes?" questions. I've seen that happen hundreds of times.

          And no, I wouldn't have nominated that article for deletion. As per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, I'd have researched it first to see what sources existed. (I'd also have done some basic copyediting and wikification almost by reflex, fixing the section heading markup and adding a references section with {{reflist}} so that the <ref>...</ref> worked. This is called collaborative editing and helping novices with the markup.) I'd have been aided in this by the fact that actually that very revision of the article attempts to cite three sources. Go and read it properly. Look at the wikitext.

          Moreover, it's not hard to find an abstract of the Linsmeier source just by putting its title into a WWW search engine. That would have been a big clue right there what more to look for. (Indeed, it actually was.) As an administrator, or even just an experienced editor, who helps other people and writes, I also know enough to look at the edit history. The novice clearly had trouble several times with the Cite.php markup. This is all mundane and routine stuff for a Wikipedia editor: Look at the sources already cited. Help people and collaborate. Look for more sources.

          I suggest that you take your own medicine, because it applies to you, not to me. Take the time to investigate. You didn't do so and haven't done so; and you're wrong. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Closing administrator should note Uncle G's comments; which were the very reason for this relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 16:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say university like it's a bad thing. That paper was written by two professors of economics and finance and has been published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. The link is to the full article which saves going through paywalls and abstract digests. Anyway, this disproves the point of the nomination which is that the topic is original. See Google Scholar for hundreds more papers. Warden (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An encyclopedia is neither a website to host one's personal point-of-view or a platform to publish a thesis paper. This is a prime example of the failure to guide new users; if this person had been more familiar with WP:N and WP:NOT, or time would not be wasted at AfD discussing something that clearly and unequivocally does not belong on this project. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number of references on the topic prove that this is notable. Deficiencies in the way the article is written can be addressed by rewriting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be possible to have a notable and encyclopædic article with this title, but the title is the only thing it would share with the current article. Until that time, we're better off without the current editorial. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a small essay and part of the Late-2000s financial crisis, which has plenty of articles where some of this material can be added. Being a member of WP:ARS does not mean to always say Keep. There is no way I can see that this should be kept, even if all the numerous technical problems were corrected. The creator knows the subject matter, but a newbie editor often does not know Wiki techniques. We can provide some encouragement, without allowing this article to remain. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest grossing Kollywood films

edit
List of highest grossing Kollywood films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is based on individual sources, being a list. Considering that box office is very crudely organized in Tamil cinema, accurate stats are not available. Many articles have been victims of cherry picking and disputes on box office figures are on the rise. Taking an example of Enthiran, the first article that catches the eye of the user in this page, the 375c figure was heavily fought upon and eventually found out that the actual figure was somewhere around 250c. Similar for other films. A list has to be supported by a single source, otherwise it gives an impression that certain films may have been missed out. Further, producers often inflate budget and gross according to their own benefits and are likely to not give out good figures. The estimates they release are usually vague and may not be upto the mark. Hence the article seems unnecessary. X.One SOS 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As X.One has stated, Tamil films have very little box office organization, and inflation of figures keeps happening. The article fails several policies, not the least of which is verifiability. (Btw, Enthiran earned just ₹250 crore? Thanks for the info.) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel School Giridih

edit
Carmel Convent School (Giridih) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party reliable sources given to deem the school notable. The article is either based on primary sources or non reliable ones, one sources from telegraphindia.com might be reliable but that too doesn't give the school itself a significant mention. Multiple reliable sources from third parties are needed to establish notability. lTopGunl (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

edit

most of the news regarding the School come in Print media (newspapers) and other offline sources that too in the local language Hindi, so its not easy to provide references for verification.(see wp:BIAS) I found some articles on on an Independent source, the website of a national neswpaper (The Telegraph) when the school was in the popular news so producing them

  1. The Official Website of the Indian_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education Board the School is affiliated to.
  2. The Official website of the Local District administration in Giridih
  3. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Carmel+School+Giridih%22 Book : The Commonweal, Volume 102; Volume 102
  4. The Telegraph article (a national newspaper) Sahay, who has done his schooling from Carmel School, Giridih and graduation from Giridih College, followed by an LLB from Patna, is well known in the legal circuit.
  5. The Telegraph article Giridih :Vidyut is not a professional web page designer, but pursuing chartered accountancy and passed his Class X from Carmel School, Giridih,
  6. The Telegraph article Giridih : from Carmel Convent School and plus two from BNS DAV Public School in Giridih .
  7. The Telegraph article Giridih:The two have scored the same percentage in the ICSE examinations as students of Carmel School here.
  8. The Telegraph article Giridih : The son of doctor Md. Azad, Shahrukh a Class IX student of Carmel School
  9. The Telegraph article Giridih  : all the four have studied in Carmel School, Giridih, till the Class X.
  10. The Telegraph article Giridih  : carmel School
  11. The Telegraph article Giridih  : carmel School
  12. The Telegraph article Giridih  : carmel School
  13. The Telegraph article Giridih  : carmel School
  14. The Telegraph article Giridih  : carmel School
  15. website giving Some info of regional schools
  16. प्रभात खबर : एक्स कार्मेलाइट एसो का मिलन समारोह (offline news article in Hindi whose clipping can be produced)
  17. हिंदुस्तान : एक्स कार्मेलाइट एसो पुनर्गठित (offline news article in Hindi whose clipping can be produced)
  18. School Diary (for infobox information regarding founder, dates, colours etc) ((offline source) (the school doesnt yet feels the need for a school website due to popularity of print media over online media in the region)
  19. The School's official Phone number +91 6532 222169/222524 (source [18] [19])
  20. (will add some more soon if the above seems to be insufficient for this School related article to stay)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • Weak keep - As far as I can tell, this is a secondary or high school (or equivalent), which are usually kept. There are not many sources, but this may be more of a case of systematic bias than a lack of notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly why this AfD will ensure that the interested editors provide the sources if the article is to be kept. If there are sources, I assume they can be presented. That will remove the systematic bias. School articles are usually kept, but this one doesn't have any sources... so there are as much chances of it being non notable as there are for its notability keeping in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a school directory. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried some searches for google books and google news, the few results that come out are bare mentions. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that; however, if the school is an Indian secondary school (or has a secondary school as part of it), I would presume it notable, based both on the common outcomes outlines at the schools WikiProject and the potential problems with systematic bias. Are you (or do you know anyone who would be) able to do a sufficient source for other language sources, specifically Hindi? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I know what you mean... infact I am generally in favour of keeping content that can be sourced even later. I tried some searches my self and they didn't give good results, hence the AFD. I think DBigXRay might be able to provide sources as he seems to have related knowledge. This should be listed at wikiproject schools to invite input. In anycase, we can not assume there 'would be' references for it, as none can be found. This can be changed if some editor provides some. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would also like to see what the creator of the article can provide by way of sources. I think that, while assuming references can be found is usually a bad idea, I am more sympathetic to doing so when the subject is covered by our typical outcomes and sources are also likely to be hard to find (the language barrier, in this case). I will alert those at WP:SCH. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think other language reliable sources can work along with translations? Unfortunately we can not tell whether the sources are hard to find or not present at all. Generally if no sources are present, article is recreated when there are some. I agree with you about the systematic bias... but your statement can also imply that no reliable source has ever published significantly about the school. A subject can be notable, but wikipedia needs reliable sources to establish notability... the systematic bias for the developing countries has this unfortunate effect, but we can not possibly assume that some source present some where establishes notability here without being provided. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (as creator)- The school is well renowned and exists since 1954. This is a (Kindergarten + Primary + secondary + Senior Scondary ) School In Giridih and has sufficient references in the article itself. I can provide more if needed. but this may take time - --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have produced some news articles above but most of the major news about the school is published in local newspapers of the region namely हिंदुस्तान and प्रभात खबर which are published in Hindi (which is the regional language). These are offline sources and the website does not contain archives to old articles, besides searching in other languages for school related articles is another major challenge. Another important point to keep in mind while deciding is: In this (Jharkhand) region of India the print media is far more popular than website, and news channel website provide only national news, even then I managed to produce some online articles on the school --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [UPDATE] While looking for possible "local" citations sources i also had a look on wiki pages for other educational institutes in the "local"jharkhand region, but the situation is even worse there(probably all of them are plagued by the issue which is less number of "Online" and "English" sources ). they report 1 or 2 links (some of which are dead by now), so deleting this would justify deleting a large number of such articles in the region.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia accepts offline sources, but they have to be provided inline with complete information. If you provide sources in other languages I think you might need to provide translation... I'm not sure about that, may be someone else can clarify about sources in other languages? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • looking for offline sources is not easy as said, some online sources have been provided in section above and a Tag for more citations has also been placed. besides wiki articles on schools are never subject to speedy deletion owing to the difficulty about sources. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I've added details on the problems with online sources which can be further discussed by all editors. Offline sources might be difficult to find, but unfortunately that can't be an argument to keep articles or assume that they are present. Sources have to be presented and verified. As for speedy deletion, you are right, and I did not tag this for a speedy deletion for the same reason rather for a deletion process with due discussion. This normally gives editors a week to discuss and provide sources to establish WP:GNG. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reply to the updated comment about other articles with issues: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of sources: The current references in the article are: a school diary from the school itself (primary/self-published source), a telephone directory (really?), a website that lists a few schools (either a school directory or promotional), a deadlink with no other information [20], yellow pages (non RS), 1-2 other references that locate the school? WP:ITEXISTS is not a good reason for an article to be kept. This [21] single source might be reliable but it gives the school a bare mention... and is rather about the person. AFDs take a week, so you have time to provide sources to establish notability... but as of now there are none. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I have voted to keep it, I do think that the sources could be improved. At the moment, there are a few primary references and some directory mentions. Primary sources are not helpful as they cannot establish notability; directory coverage is routine and every school will have this kind of coverage. Do you know of any news sources or the like from independent sources? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other than my above analysis of the sources provided, the sources about the alumni also don't establish school's notability, rather are crediting the notability of those people. The bare mentions can only be enough for the school to be mentioned in the BLPs of those persons instead of the school having its own article. Please provide sources that actually are about the school. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has produced some notable people and has been mentioned in the following reliable sources. [22][23][24][25][26] And is discuseed in this book from the Jayaswal Research Institute Comprehensive history of Bihar, Volume 3 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also gets a mention for helping with the 50th anniversary of the Shimla-Chandigarh Diocese[27] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sister Ann here talks of how her school should spread religious harmony[28] More here [29] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source goes into extensive detail on the school[30] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before you start calling other editors liars, read the link you cited yourself. It is a blatant personal attack. No matter how many notable alumni you add, it wont get the notability inherited to the school. WP:NOTABILITY is not inherited. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Spicemix's comment, the meat-puppetry of alumni (the creator being one and then suddenly IPs showing up to support) makes me loose the good faith I had. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meat-puppetry allegation aha that too without any evidence, great! i'll request editors to refrain from serious personal attacks such as one above but conc on sibject matter. as for the IPs the admins can always invoke CUs --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CU never match accounts to IP,s, they are always declined. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also all those IP's geolocate to different areas of India, all have different ISP's so they are obviously not all you Darkness Shines (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A remark on the 'offline' Hindi article [41] listed in the sources. The comment says the article is offline (while a link to the main page of a website, rather than the article, is given), does that mean the article was online and is now offline? Wayback machine and other internet archives can be used to access and verify those. I'll also like comments on the usage of foreign language sources and whether translation is needed to count them in. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Bad faith and misleading comment by TopGun continuing WP:BATTLE mentaility. it only means that a website for the newpaper exists but the link to the article does not exist (no archive) or is not searchable as it is in Hindi language. ill be glad if you can help me in scouring that website. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NHS. bad faith nomination by TopGun exhibiting continuing WP:BATTLE mentaility.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vide Wikireader41. AshLin (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I recommend that this page should not be deleted. It is a strong keep indeed. Wikipedia may be having 100s of school stubs which are really to be deleted, but this school is notable undoubtedly. As regards the reliable sources, please note that digitilization process in many part of India is not of an acceptable level and hence it may be difficult to always cite web sources. Thus, for example, one may find 100s of web references for a plumbing firm in Europe or North America whereas even a current mayor of Ranchi ("Rama Xalxo"+mayor), capital city of an Indian state (Jharkhand) may have less number of web references than me ("Gangadhar Bhadani"). As such, we should rely on the good faith of the contributors and keep the page. --Bhadani (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deconbrio

edit
Deconbrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this bio. sourced by a mix of his own site, youtube, facebook, shops, bandcamp, dead links to an ezine he was a member of, a public contest page and a social site. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forestcore

edit
Forestcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musical "genre". The term "forest core" apparently refers to a marketing campaign by the band 36 Crazyfists to describe their own music. No other uses of this term can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor van Amerongen

edit
Victor van Amerongen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Van Amerongen seems notable solely as CEO of Space City, a company that appears notable solely for its volume of output, but not apparently for any particular accomplishment. As such, this individual does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Value-Chain Group

edit
Value-Chain Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Promotional article for an organization described as a global trade consortium which provides a standardized framework and toolsets for business transformation, which is about as vague and meaningless a description of a consultancy as you can possibly get. Every sentence of the article is advertising and patent nonsense:

  • VCG builds unified business processes (value streams) within organizations and across the extended value chain.
  • It offers the Business Process Transformation Framework (BPTF), claimed to be the only publicly available, enterprise-wide process transformation framework that can support any process configuration at the required level of detail.
  • The BPTF combines the best practices of model-based process design, change management, and organizational education.

There are no real references, although an attempt has been made to make it appear otherwise. All of the "references" supplied are to self-published PDFs of sales brochures. All are hosted at a site called "bptrends.com", which I assume is related. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extension Inc.

edit
Extension Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. 00:22, 27 February 2012 Y (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Flying Meat" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Meat

edit
Flying Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fog City Software

edit
Fog City Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FuseSource Corp.

edit
FuseSource Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FutureSoft

edit
FutureSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELTE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Imagination Inc

edit
Global Imagination Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Software business making an animated globe. Article claims that this is an important business tool: Global Imagination also supplies software, content and services that enable public, private and government organizations to present global information and global context on a digital video globe. References are to a press release and various YouTube and similar videos displaying globes; I presume they made it, but it's hard to say. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HyPerformix

edit
HyPerformix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynkos

edit
Lynkos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mithral

edit
Mithral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete some basic searching didn't turn up any obviously reliable sources, but there might be something out there that someone with better google-fu than I could find. In any event, if this is deleted a redirect to Mithril should be created as this is a common alternate spelling in modern RPG's. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More or less a short "yellow pages" type entry rather than serious encyclopedic coverage of a notable company. Agreed with the above sentiment that a redirect to mithril should be left in event of deletion as a common misspelling. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MYNAH Technologies

edit
MYNAH Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect to Tonight's the Night (TV series)#Doctor Who Sketch. Tone 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Tonight's the Night

edit
AfDs for this article:
Doctor Who: Tonight's the Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't a series, it isn't even a single episode, it's a three minute sketch from Tonight's the Night. All pertinent information has been copied to a section within the Tonight's the Night article. A case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LukeSurl t c 12:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiranga (comics)

edit
Tiranga (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about unremarkable comic character. The only Google hits are to some download sites, no reliable 3rd party sources. PaoloNapolitano 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  10:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hayes (author)

edit
Tom Hayes (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A writer of some relatively recent books. Note the extensive edits of SPAs User:Stevensclan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Lowellcanal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — the second one references his alma mater, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of these is actually him. Raymie (t • c) 22:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DinCloud, Inc.

edit
DinCloud, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sooperman

edit
Sooperman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and unreferenced magic trick. Ridernyc (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mule (software)

edit
Mule (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, closed by proposer.

Hubo Netherlands

edit
Hubo Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are some references available but they are just slight mentions. Not much notability at all. Maestro magico (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest and largest hardware store-chain in the country in number of stores, maintaining over 200 stores over the past 40 years, large revenue, attention in several Dutch national newspapers, founding company of Hubo Belgium (with also hundreds of stores, and enough notability for its own article, which I will write soon). I do not see the problem with notability. Taketa (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now has a decent spread of references across the company's history (in which respect it is exceeds the equivalent NL WP article). A Google snippet view also shows The Economist describing it as the "best known retail organisation in the DIY sector" in the mid 1980s.Added but not signed by AllyD
Also, just to indicate the relevance of Hubo on Dutch society, specially in the past decades. I would like to mention I have found a couple hundred articles on Hubo in the archives of de Volkskrant, according to Wikipedia a leading national newspaper in the Netherlands (whose archive online only goes back till 1994). Note this perfect example article: Handige-Hubo-man-uitgedroomd. The name is translated as "Handy Hubo-man is done dreaming". Hubo is apparently so noteworthy, that they use the name to express a handyman and expect the reader to understand this. The main reason I believe that it is hard to find sources on older information, is that the internet wasn't in existance yet at the time. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


AfD closed by proposer. I'm happy with the progress. Thanks! Maestro magico (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Nyttend (talk · contribs) under criterion A9. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Still Alright

edit
Mr. Still Alright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I find no sources that show that this album meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. The notability of the group is also questionable. bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Seaman

edit
Nancy Seaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As tragic as this persons story might be, there is no indication that this person is of encyclopaedic note. Fails WP:PERP in that the victim was not notable, and that the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was not unusual. Mtking (edits) 08:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge & Redirect per all of these WP:1E, WP:PSEUDO, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E it should not have its own article. By all theses guidelines it should be deleted or merged into Mariticide and redirected both of them are stubs. This would not be in a set of encyclopedias and is not encyclopedic content on its own. The event is way bigger then the person. The crime is all this person is known for and is in prison for a life sentence so its likely all she will ever be known for.Theworm777 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does coverage over a 7 year span in TV, a book, the media, and a scholarly publication not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? The guideline specifically says: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." The event was in 2005. The scholarly publication in 2007, the book in 2008, the TV episode in 2012 are "multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down". -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*She is currently serving her life sentence. The initial coverage is still what this is in. It takes time for trials and appeals once they are finished initial coverage has ended. It needs to be merged into Mariticide and the page redirected to it. It is not encyclopedic content on its own plan and simple.Theworm777 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I can't accept the position that "initial coverage" can last 7 years. In my view, there is clearly WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE here. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Theworm777, the vast majority of the coverage is just of a routine type crimes of this nature get. The only non-routine is the TV program but one cable TV program about her does not make her notable. Mtking (edits) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree that a book, a TV episode, and a law journal article over the course of 7 years is "routine" coverage. Further, the overwhelming majority of convicted murders are never covered in law journals and by justice organizations. Indeed, organizations such as the Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project specifically avoid "routine" cases and pick ones notable enough to justify the use of their limited resources. I respect your point of review, but given the evidence here I simply cannot agree with it. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you agree or not premeditated murderers have trials and appeals that can last over 10 years and there is basic news coverage of almost all of their trials and appeals in all murder cases. Even if your right and it falls under WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE there is alot of other reasons to merge or delete it. Almost all the sources are questionable (WP:NOTRELIABLE) also, as alot of it is quotes of a convicted murderer and her son. Another source is from Carol Jacobsen ,Director of the Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project, advocating for human rights of women prisoners and freedom for women wrongly convicted.{URL|http://www.lsa.umich.edu/women/faculty/facbio.asp?ID=186} Who would or could be bias on the subject and falls under (WP:NOTADVOCATE). Stuff from the jail web site is not allowed under WP:BLPPRIMARY. The other sources are mostly about a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC like murder, Clemency Project, or women wrongly convicted, not about Nancy Seaman. Most or all of the other sources are questionable under WP:SOURCES and WP:THIRDPARTY. I don't think the stuff with questionable sources can be merged maybe it has to be deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you justify the statment, "almost all the sources are WP:NOTRELIABLE"? Generally, AP, ABC, CBS, and law journals are considered reliable sources. These sources are 50% of the ones provided in the article. You're really overstating your case by making broad claims like "almost all" the sources are questionable. Simply linking to rules without any explanation is frowned upon in WP:AfD (and many of the things you linked to don't even apply, see next paragraph). You need to be explicit about why you believe a source is unreliable or otherwise not usable. In my view, the only source for which you've successfully done this is the jail website source.
Also, your are misapplying WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:THIRDPARTY. Your use of these rules doesn't make sense in the context of your argument. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline for WP:Disambiguation. WP:NOTADVOCATE applies to propaganda and advertising but "an article can report objectively about [advocacy], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". WP:THIRDPARTY is not a policy, it's an essay (see WP:SA? and WP:WORTH).-- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 04:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persistent coverage. Significant coverage has been less persistent, but significant coverage at and around the date(s) of the original events and trial, coupled with continuing references to the event as an example, suggest ongoing notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of a book and a tv series episode, both years after the fact, is more than sufficient coverage; though both should be added to the article. --GRuban (talk)
  • Keep Looks like she has gotten a lot more than routine coverage, per the sources presented here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage after the event.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the legal journal article. That section of the article d=needs expansion. There is, as typcal with many crime articles, a little too much emphasis on the details of the crime, but that is correctable by editing. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 04:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Name Is Earl minor characters

edit
List of My Name Is Earl minor characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability and no sources. TBrandley (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other characters could have articles created for them at any time. -- 92.4.57.32 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sulieni Layt

edit
Sulieni Layt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author removed PROD; article is about a reporter/anchor for some radio stations. Despite the author's claims, I could not find enough reliable sources to confirm his notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need For Madness

edit
Need For Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like an interesting game; in fact, I might like it someday. Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable sources that demonstrates this game's notability. All I found were fansites or sites that host the game. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot find any reliable sources with significant coverage of the game. However, Google reveals an awful lot more than "fansites or sites that host the game." This seems to be a somewhat prominent game within the free browser-based game community (there's probably a more established phrase out there than "free browser-based game" :). That said, while I want to vote keep on this, I can't find any evidence of GNG-satisfying sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete I say this page contains alot of the stuff you would want to know. What I'm saying is that the page Happy Wheels has been deleted a lot of times, but it only has a little bit of information. Think about pages, like the homepage. Sometimes it has unaccurate stuff, but you never put it up for deletion. Thank you for taking the time to read this message — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedForAMadness (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search for sources came up empty. WP:COI also. --SubSeven (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It's a bit peculiar to close this as keep, as nobody in this AfD actually argues to keep directly. There is consensus to merge here, but it is unclear if this should be merged to Philidor or Italian game. Where to merge exactly is not an issue for AfD, but rather for the articles talk page, and can be done through normal editing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Defence

edit
Paris Defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Firstly, this article fails in terms of notability. It's a small side-move which isn't even part of the Italian Game; it can easily transpose into a standard Philidor after 4. d4. As such, it's an even an "opening" at all, just a move-order. We don't need an entire page devoted to it. It also fails in terms of references; search for "Paris Defence" in any standard opening reference (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO), Modern Chess Openings (MCO), etc) and you will find nothing. There isn't even an ECO code given, standard for openings. (Nor does one exist!) In fact, the only reference given, a generic link to the online site chessgames.com with that move order, does not even call it "the Paris Defence". Thus, it warrants deletion. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having read the replies by other members, I would be equally fine with a Merge and Redirect instead.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Equally fine"?? Make up your mind. Your vote stands as DELETE. To quote the Warden, "Delete and Merge/Redirect are mutually exclusive." You proposed delete. Are you changing your proposal?? Make it clear. Find some dignity. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. BTW, by "other members", do you mean ProjChess members? (If so, I am not a member, I withdrew—because of you and your slanderous fabrication about me, which you got away with at ANI.) Have a nice day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC) p.p.s. (Transposition to) PHILIDOR!! (Amazing.)[reply]
  • Comment It is in The Oxford Companion to Chess, opening #936 in the second edition. There is a small entry on it "The semi-Italian opening, which has similar ideas to the Philidor Defense." And that's all. It is real and covered in a reliable source, but it is so minor that I don't think it merits an article either, so Delete Merge and redirect. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my old edition of the ECO, in C50, line 1, note 1 to Black's third move, the move 3...d6 is listed and it says to see C41/2. That is a line of the Philidor, with Black's second and third move transposed. ECO doesn't give the "Paris Defense" name, though. (Based on my notes in the ECO, I must have played the white side of this in a correspondence game.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The opening *is* called the "Paris Defence" in book Batsford Chess Openings by Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene, American Chess Promotions, 1982, pp. 308-09. Also, the line was introduced by Alekhine, acc. Horowitz, Chess Openings:Theory and Practice, Simon and Schuster, 1964, pp. 40-41, where it is called the "Lesser" or "Half" Giuoco Piano. Further, 3...d6 is not some isolated, unnoteworthy "move", it is a form of Hungarian Defence based on early ...Bg4: "3...d6. Tried by Alekhine early in his career. The intention is to play a Hungarian Defence with ...Bg4 early on, fighting for d4." T. D. Harding, G. S. Botterill, The Italian Game, B. T. Batsford Limited, London, pp. 129-30. There is a game Rodzinski–Alekhine, Paris 1913. (Perhaps that is how it received name "Paris Defence"!? The game is quoted in full in both BCO and The Italian Game.) Harding & Botterill consider the line "one of two forms of the modest Hungarian Defence" and analyze 4.c3 (main line) as well as 4.d4, and 4.h3. There's analysis by Tartakower, Sozin, Evans, and Keres included. The Paris game ends in mate after 15 moves (guess who won). The line is one of several Black 3rd move options "in which Black may try to evade the Italian Game" acc. Harding & Bottterill (but, the def of Italian Game on WP seems to be after 3.Bc4). Subchapters include the Hungarian Defence proper (3...Be7), 3...d6 (as above), 3...g6, 3...Nd4, 3...f5 (a "delayed form of Latvian Counter-Gambit"), plus Unzicker analysis on move 3...Qf6?!. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rodzinski–Alekhine, Paris 1913
    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.c3 Bg4 5.Qb3!? (5.d4 Qe7 6.Be3 is better, as it looks too risky for Black to 'win' the e-pawn. Instead, after 6...Nf6 7.Qb3 Nd8 8.Nbd2 g6 9.dxe5, White stood somewhat better in Levelfish–Tolush, Leningrad 1939) 5...Qd7 6.Ng5 (6.Bxf7+ is the better move, analyzed by Sozin and leading to 15.Kf1=) Nh6 7.Nxf7 Nxf7 8.Bxf7+ Qxf7 9.Qxb7 Kd7 10.Qxa8 Qc4 11.f3 Bxf3! 12.gxf3 Nd4 13.d3? (13.cxd4 Qxc1+ −/+) Qxd3 14.cxd4 Be7 15.Qxh8 Bh4# 0–1
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness new this morning

edit
Eyewitness new this morning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough information to have its own article: possibly merge with WABC-TV. Tinton5 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primarily because the article as is, is a useless two sentence stub with nothing worth saving ("Eyewitness new"? really?). The New York City ABC affiliate's news operations are notable, but fairly well covered at WABC-TV#News_operations already.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there's nothing here that isn't already noted in WABC-TV, and there's nothing about this local news program that distinguishes itself from other local morning newscasts across America (nor does the article even try to find anything to say otherwise). As it is, you can also watch local news shows Eyewitness News This Morning on WCHS-TV, KWCH-TV, WKBW-TV, WFTV/WRDQ, and WFSB, and that's only what the first page of Google results show. There are undoubtly others too, such as WPRI-TV/WNAC-TV. There's nothing particularly unique about any of them — and certainly not in name. (And that's not even getting into the incorrect spelling…) The stations are notable; the news operations are significant parts of them — but it doesn't mean we need to give each newscast an article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion has now gone on for over a week with not the slightest argument for keeping the article. Isn't it time to snow delete the article? JIP | Talk 10:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its scheduled to be closed today, I think.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garadaghly Massacre

edit
Garadaghly Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources that are cited are not reliable, the article its self is not notable, I tried searching for references but I could not find any to make this event notable enough for Wikipedia. This page goes against: WP:OR, Wikipedia:VERIFY and it is one point of view.. should not continue to exist on Wikipedia, as it goes against Wikipedia policies. Not a reliable published source exists on the event to give it a status to its own article here on Wikipedia. I request this article be deleted as no third party sources, reliable references exist on the matter and the only references are one of point of view and are not neutral or reliable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a well-sourced article for a topic of its nature. There is already a fine article on an apparently directly-related massacre, as well as several others. If there are opposing points-of-view on the subject, and I do not doubt that there are, I encourage those with that point-of-view to introduce it to the article. If the nominator can supply very compelling and direct evidence that none of the 19 sources supplied in the article are reliable then I might be inclined to change my mind, but while it is important to avoid a non-neutral point of view in articles it is arguably more important to approach such articles with an eye to fixing them, not deleting them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that are third party dont talk about a "massacre", the rest are one sided non-neutral, non-reliable sources pretty much. Its original research, its basically creating a new event, it is not important enough to have its own article.... the sources also are not on the massacre they reference something else so its irrelvent to how many references there are, quantity shouldn't matter, quality does here on Wikipedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I literally picked a source at random and it plainly describes a massacre in the town of Garadaghly: [44]. "...in the village of Garadaghly over 80 civilian Azerbaijanis, including children, women and old people were tortured and killed mercilessly, tens of people were taken hostages, the village itself was burned and razed to the ground." Can you explain why that source is unreliable? Because you won't convince me that what is being described is not a "massacre." I'm far more ready to be convinced that that and/or other sources are unreliable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :Third party sources don't refer to as it as a massacre. Reliable sources, basically none exist. This article is original research.Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not only. If you look here you can see that all neutral international authors, as well as all neutral supporting sources describing the massacre, have also been dismissed, ignored and labelled for the reason they fully support the content and title of the article. In fact, Garadaghly Massacre article is supported with the same international and neutral sources, which are provided in the discussion page of Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre as these two events happened within the same time-frame. In response to request of uninvolved editor to present sources denying these massacres, the arguing party could not produce a single source to justify why they don't like the articles. As a last resort, out of sudden the user Nocturnal781 silently decided to nominated both of these articles for deletion [45] which is clear evidence that he wants to get rid of them. Otherwise, he was supposed to write his concern or question in the talk page first, and suggest further improvement. Angel670 talk 23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nocturnal. The problems with this article stem from the sources and the fact that they are not very reliable to begin with. Some of them are government-published and some are published by newspapers - neither of them have much credibility because they reflect political viewpoints and ones directed against another party that is technically at war with them. How reliable is a source that is titled "Armenian terrorism" ("Армянский терроризм")? Or a partisan statement made by a parliament that is hardly a neutral party to this conflict (quite the opposite actually). None of the sources reach the threshold of reliability and even the single English-language source (by Svante Cornell) neglects to make explicit use of the word "massacre. It's surprising that this article has survived after all this time. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't the better solution be integrating the opposing point-of-view into the article? Or is there some powerful reason to conclude that the events described literally didn't happen -- or, at least, happened in a fundamentally different way (say, an armed conflict between two militia, rather than a "massacre")? From my utterly neutral perspective, it strikes me that deleting the article would be tantamount to eradicating the existence of one point-of-view in favor of silence, rather than letting both points-of-view exist side-by-side in a neutrally written article. Granted, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to the actual events, the politics behind them, the two sides, etc. Utterly clueless. So if there's something fundamentally wrong with what I'm suggesting in this comment, please feel free to say so and tell me why it's wrong. I'm all ears and am beginning to get the sneaking suspicion that I'm the only person in this room who doesn't have a personal opinion :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, I think the fact here is that there is an attempt being made to make something out of another thing. All the sources do agree that this village was seized during the war. That civilians may have died during the attack is perfectly plausible but does that mean that they died as a result of a massacre? That is, a premeditated attack by armed units against civilians. If I had it my way, I would create an article on the village of Gharadaghly and in the history section I would just mention that certain sources, x, y, and z, allege that the civilians were killed as a result of massacre and some were taken as hostage. That would be a compromise I'd be willing to work on. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the well-reasoned reply. That makes perfect sense. I'll revisit this later -- I'd like to take a second, and more careful, look at the sourcing. I strongly agree that there is a significant difference between a "massacre" and an armed conflict with civilian casualties, and if the latter is the more accurate, or at least more verifiable, depiction of events, then this article is fundamentally inappropriate. The current sourcing clearly paints a picture of a massacre, so I'll need to take a second look and see if I can work out whether aspersions being cast on the sourcing are valid. If I can't figure out an opinion on that matter, then I may just withdraw my vote and hope somebody else with a similar lack of bias in favor of either side in this conflict can come up with a better-considered opinion than my own. Regardless, thank you, I sincerely appreciate the helpful reply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to remember that Armenia, the NKR, and Azerbaijan, after almost 20 years since the cease fire was signed, are still technically at war with each other. A propaganda war exists, and in Azerbaijan many claims are put forward that pay little attention to facts and are quite partisan in nature. Most authors make no attempt to present the information dispassionately and equally and serve unfortunately to demonize the other side. The source you mentioned on my talk page, for example, writes about this event: "On January 22-24, two big villages with the population of thousands of people50, Malibeyli and Gushchular, and in mid-February the village of Garadagli, were cleaned off Azerbaijanis. About a hundred of villagers were forced into a truck and brutally slain by paramilitary groups51, while survivors had to flee through mountains to nearby villages of Agdam." The language is hardly neutral and not exactly well-written. This is why greater credibility is always assigned to sources like HRW, Amnesty International, etc., from whom you can at least expect a modicum neutrality and fairness. That doesn't completely exclude sources from the other side, but it does compel editors to scrutinize and study certain sources before they are introduced in an article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You sound too convincing indeed. I do appreciate your skill to misinterpete the facts and mislead the people playing with their unawareness of issue :-) You know very well that HRW was indicating to only self-defence group of people comprised of villagers. And the village was surrounded and blockaded by Armenian armed forces. Where was the crossfire and between whom? Villagers and Armenian armed forces? None of sources mention anything about battle, crossfire, accidental killings, or existence of Azerbaijani armed forces in the village. Coming to the topic of deletion of this article, this discussion is supposed to be on the talk page of the article. Following the ethics before AfD the user should have written on the talk page of the article first and get his response on clarification of sources. Angel670 talk 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The snide remarks and the facetious smiley faces are really getting old. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it all. But I am merely expressing my concerns over the sources and if they do not meet the threshold of reliability that Wikipedia requires then that is the problem of the sources, not the supposed articulation skills of an editor. I don't know what happened exactly when these villages were taken but the sources that label this a massacre come off as too extreme and too enthusiastic to employ words for a subject that requires more scrutiny. And finally, I did raise my concerns on the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre talk page, where I noted that that article, this one, and the Agdaban Massacre article, all suffered from a lack of good sources.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand, but this user is a person who serves particular agenda as per his personal profile. He can not be taken as a reason to remove the article. Wiki is not on service of Marshall Bagramyan, is it? :) Angel670 talk 22:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do mind WP:NPA. Sardur (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good sourcing. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Sorry, but I only see one sided Azerbaijani sources. The only non-Azerbaijani source is Svante Cornell, who mentions the village in one sentence, without calling it a massacre. Do you mind showing me which sources you found as reliable? --George Spurlin (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plently of objective source and this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. Mursel (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MarshalBagramyan. For the closing admin, please remember that users who use WP as a WP:Battleground are well represented amongst both Azeri and Armenian users. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Mursel.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does come from an Azeri author, but based on that it seems there are claims of massacres that merit mentioning. I should add that the editor nominating this article has been nominating several articles on alleged massacres of Azeris by Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Seems there may be an ulterior motive for these nominations (one of the articles this editor has nominated already got scrubbed even though the source above demonstrates there have been claims of a massacre there as well). WP:NOTCENSORED means some offensive claims should be included if there are reliable sources to back it up. At the very least we have sources attesting to widespread claims of a massacre and I imagine with a bit of snooping we would find better sources to establish those allegations being discussed by independent sources if such sources are not already provided in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's absolutely no reliable source about a massacre. And copy-pasting your opinion here and there deserves you. Sardur (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Azeri news sources are reliable sources for the purpose of indicating notability of the event and presenting the attitudes in Azerbaijan. Clearly these events are notable incidents in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. If you don't like the article having the word "massacre" in the title based on it allegedly being an Azeri POV that is a separate issue to be addressed outside the deletion process. AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. Demanding it be deleted is basically the wikiequivalent of knocking all the chess pieces off the table.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Armenian source proving the fact of a massacre of Azerbaijani civilians in Garadaghly village by Armenian armed forces
Sardur, what you are saying is not true. Even Armenian sources confirm that Garadagly massacre took place. A book written by Markar Melkonian - a brother of Monte Melkonian, an Armenian commander during Karabagh War, is widely cited in Wiki articles. Please refer to page 212 of the book where it describes how the village had been cleaned-out and more than fifty Azeri captives have been butchered in Karadaghlu in very details. The same Armenian detachments which admitted Khojali massacre here too looted the village...set it ablaze...shoved thirty-eight captives including several women and other non-combatants into a ditch on the outskirt of the village... etc. etc. This proves that this article meets Wiki criteria and is undeniably sourced. Angel670 talk 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is wrong to rely on someone's "knowledge, opinion or assurances". This piece should be deleted, since it doesn't mention anything but a blind propaganda - something the Wiki has rejected and should continue doing so. The author tries to give credibility by linking the alleged event to other more known episodes of Azerbaijan's war with Nagorno Karabakh. Definitely a subject for deletion as a non-credible, and not supported by an alternative source propaganda piece. Different languages of the reference sources can't hide the origin of the author's useless effort Spankarts (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Spankarts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep as per stated reasons above, sources are reliable enough to keep the article. Lava22T (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Devils advocate. --DHeyward (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The response to POV materials is balance. The response to a POV title (if it can be substantiated as POV and fails WP:COMMONNAME) is a page move. Unless the nominator and others can demolish all the sources (and "they're Azeri" does not qualify as demolishing), we have a notable, sourced article here. Go fix its other problems outside AfD.--Carwil (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iroku

edit
Iroku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity autobiography Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogy Recordings

edit
AfDs for this article:
Eulogy Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable label, few to no notable acts. Last AFD had no arguments presented really. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability in the article or available via Google. I'm not at all sympathetic with the notion presented in the previous AfD, not grounded in policy in any way, that a label with a few notable artists is automatically notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important enough label to have an article, and there's enough coverage to satisfy Wikipedia's idea of 'notability' - in addition to the AP ref, there's these: [46], [47], [48]. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a label that's been around for more than a few years with a significant roster of acts, as WP:MUSIC suggests. The already-on-the-page references are just icing on the cake. Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, WP:MUSIC suggests that an "important" independent label is one "with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". This label, given its age and roster history, appears to meet that threshold. As far as coverage, in addition to the Miami New Times article and the New Times Broward-Palm Beach article, the label is profiled in this issue of Alternative Press. Though I don't have access to the article, the contents' description "Eulogy Recordings braves the hurricane for its Label Profile" would seem to indicate more than a trivial mention. The label also received some coverage in Billboard magazine.  Gongshow Talk 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SmashUp

edit
The SmashUp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded for claims of notability, but I can't find any sources. The only source is one review in Allmusic, which doesn't have a bio. I can verify that they have a soundtrack cut in Saw, but I can't find any significant biographical info. Two of the labels they recorded for may be notable, but I'm on the fence since one of their releases was a UK-exclusive EP that does little in the way of notability. So the lack of sourcing supercedes any possibility of them meeting WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The band has two releases on important labels (Warcon and Eulogy; note that notability of the labels is not the issue, but rather whether they are "one of the more important independent labels" under the WP:MUSIC guideline. Nevertheless, the labels do have articles, and they do meet the criterion of having been around for some time and having a roster of culturally significant acts.). I've added links to some album reviews. Chubbles (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I double-checked as well, and note that it has no additional references or indication of notability that would make it appear that the policy based concerns of those recommending deletion are based on missing information. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory

edit
Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable company; references provided are peripheral to the subject (Kodak - support labs, Google books - rem-jet backing removal} or unreliable (Facebook, cinematography.com forum). I have searched Google web and news using the link above for reliable sources and found only Facebook, a few blogs and link-farms. The article was previously prod-deleted and recreated by author Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have any of you bothered to look at the "Dwaynes Photo" article? This is a film lab. It's little wonder there isn't any information available other than "link farms" online. Just as Dwayne Photo provided a unique service in North America, this organization does so as well.
As to non-notable links, if someone could *RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE* all the links, proper formatting in there were far better than what I was able to salvage from the cache. The editor that brazenly deleted my work has a comment page full of angry complaints from over a dozen articles taht he deleted without discussion.
Now, all of a sudden, there is a rash of judgment because I took steps to restore the article what I could find when I got no response to my criticisms of hte original action.
This business provides a notable, one-of-a-kind service. Frankly what was done to it by a non photographer BTW, is tantamount to vandalism. Maybe the articles were poorly written, but they were better than nothing. There are now huge gaping holes in process ECN-2, process SFW-XL, Seattle Filmworks, and information about the three other labs that originally provided this service going back to the 1980s.
Anyone who has no knowledge of photographic processing, frankly, isn't qualified to judge the worth of this article. So, Nartolovehinata5, Bafflegab, I am not sure, unless I misread your background as to why you are involved in this article at all. The original editor who deleted it similarly has no photographic background.
I move that the article be kept until a SUITABLE FIELD OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EDITORS on Wikipedia are given an opportunity to vet this article. Others should be excluded, and before anything else is done, the original article with proper links and all of the supplemental info should be recovered by the original party who deleted them without proper opportunity for discourse
SAVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.154.66 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems hard to find any sources outside Facebook, so probably not notable. It also seems that the text has been copied and pasted from some unidentified Mediawiki wiki (see how footnotes such as [1], [2] and [3] appear in the article but without clickable links to the footnotes section), so the text might not be free, and even if the original Mediawiki wiki is free, Wikipedia's reuse of it might not be legit since no original authors are credited (a requirement in most free licences). The logo, File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg, does not look like a typical logo. It is used on the Facebook page, but there doesn't seem to be any statement saying that it really is the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan: I had to copy-paste it from a cache of the original article. The editor who made hundreds of deletions last week can't be bothered to answer my repeated requests for the original code. I have permission to use the logo, and it's on their business card. IDK why it is an issue being used in an article about the company. I'm not using it in an ad to sell shoes. Numerous other company logos like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kodak, Ford, are all used without issue. As to there not being any sources, it's a film lab with a limited internet presence. I invite you to look up "RGB Labs" on Wayback machine, for a similar example. To my knowledge, they and Dale (which stopped processing in September 2009) were the last companies anywhere in North America making movie positives from negatives and doing still processing of ECN-2 film.
In a target market with nearly half a billion people, I don't see how that is not a notable company.
See my article on "Tasma" for similar use of a company logo, and see "Dwaynes Photo" (which I played no part in, but inspired me to write articles for Tasma, Double Exposure) for examples as to why this is notable. They also provid(ed) a service that was unique in North America. 50.4.154.66 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning the use of a logo. I am only questioning whether the image really is a logo at all. If the company has "limited Internet presence", this could suggest that the company isn't notable, but maybe it has major presence in some other medium? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. · I'd like to add that Wikipedia does not require editors to have specialized knowledge about topics that they change, and that such knowledge is not required to recommend articles for deletion. Anyone can edit this encyclopedia—the restriction of writers to experts is not a feature of this project. NTox · talk 00:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to ISO Guru / 50.4.154.66: I understand that you are annoyed by the previous prod deletion and by this nomination and discussion. Nobody is doing this to annoy you, so please don't take it personally. You are encouraged to add references from reliable, third-party sources that show how this company is notable; you can include off-line media - we're not restricted to internet sources. Please also read the notability guidelines. Although 'other stuff exists' isn't a valid argument, your mention of Dwayne's Photo prompted me to look at that article and I see you're correct about the state of the references there - the Wichita Eagle is about the only relevant and reliable source included. However, a brief Google search found this article from The New York Times in fifth position. Nothing like that appeared when I searched for "Double Exposure Ltd. Laboratory", otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? By the way, I know a fair bit about film photography. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken another look at this discussion, as well as the opportunities for references. To ISO Guru / 50.4.154.66: I'd like to add that the concept of notability on Wikipedia does not depend on any of our own opinions about the importance of this company. It's about whether or not the company has been noticed by independent sources. It is theoretically possible that a company be the most influential one in photography; but if it is not noticed by independent sources, it is not notable according to this encyclopedia. This is a difference of definition, and I understand that it can be frustrating. At this moment, I have not observed substantive coverage about Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory in sources beyond cursory discourse in Facebook, blogs, and online forums. Unfortunately, the community does not trust these kinds of sources. For these reasons, I vote delete. If deleted, remember that the page can be recreated if independent, comprehensive coverage can be asserted. And—for the record—I am a photographer by trade. NTox · talk 06:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that because this company doesn't have a newspaper article, and that its main page is on Facebook, it should be deleted? ECN-2 processing isn't something the public cares about, nor does it have a song written about it, but it accounts for the majority of color film exposed and printed every year. My objection is that this article was deleted and a hack-job version is being critiqued. Baffle gab 1978: I see YOU were the one who deleted the article originally. Therefore, I think it is only fair that you restore it to the ORIGINAL FORM so that that version can be cleaned up and then voted upon. If a lack of a newspaper article is going to eliminate this section, then delete it right now, I highly doubt that any Ohio newspapers have written about this company, nor any about the just-as-notable RGB labs, Dale labs. That, frankly, doesn't make the sole provider of a service any less notable. Nor would two or three companies (as Seattle Filmworks, RGB, Dale, and Signature Color were all offering this service at one time) make it any less noticeable. Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper/Seven UP are all considered notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, ISOGuru, thanks for your response. First of all, all that we're asking is that you provide evidence of the alleged notability of Double Exposure Ltd. I didn't delete the first version of this article, I nominated it and SFW-XL for PROD deletion, and they were duly deleted a week later by an administrator whom you've already contacted. I'm not an administrator so I can't pull your original articles out of the dung heap. The best I can suggest is that you might be able to find it on the Wayback Machine. If a company hasn't received adequate coverage in reliable, third-party sources in any media, the article is seen as original research and can be nominated for deletion. If I sold chocolate teapots from a market stall, would it be notable? No - unless somebody wrote about it and published it in a reliable source! Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a popular opinion forum, nor is it a place for generalized, unsubstantiated judgements by those who aren't experts on the subject. Bafflegab, you say you know a "fair bit about photography." What if anything do you purport to know about photographic processing? I did make a thorough search of your contributions and frankly see nothing notable that you've contributed in that regard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not here to wave my credentials under everyone's noses - but is five years of silver-gelatin printmaking, monochrome and C-41 developing and RA-4 printmaking good enough for you? I've also done E-6 developing and Ilfochrome/Cibachrome printmaking, although more years ago than I care to remember. I'm not a single-subject editor - I work on a wide variety of articles, not just photography ones. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, what you are saying is that ECN-2 film needs to be discontinued, so this company can get a similar newspaper article, so that it can justify an article. Film is only newsworthy after it is already discontinued? I've read books going back into the 1970s that specifically mentioned the types of services described in this article and mentioned them specifically. I will post those sources here as proof that the services are unique, unusual, and worthy of reference along with the SFW-XL process, the Seattle Filmworks company (yes, even as *only the biggest* of four companies offering this service at one time).— Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you're putting words into my mouth - I never said anything of the sort! It's Double Exposure Ltd. that requires sourcing, not other company's services. IIRC from that article, SFW-XL was just Seattle FilmWorks' name for Kodak's ECN-2 process. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not satisfied that waiting for the New York Times article on the demise of yet another photographic process is an adequate recommendation. Further, I am going to restate that several of the contributors here have contributed absolutely nothing to photographic content on Wikipedia. I will post a list of those of you who are posting here butare not in my opinion qualified to voice an opinion one way or another. I'd be happy to hear your responses to the contrary. It is far easier to destroy than to create. Instead of reading some books, learning the field and cleaning up, expanding upon these articles, you are out to achieve editor points. Bafflegab: Do you deny you brag about your ruthless editiing? Do you deny that you've made absolutely no attempt to restore this article SFW-XL, any of the other links you purged, to their original forms for fair evaluation? Do you think this is a fair way to evaluate an article, to force the author who had to copy-paste it from an old cache on Yahoo! defend poor grammar and no sources when those sources were deleted by YOU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISOGuru, I'm not out to score points, I'm not denying anything and I'm not taking your bait. And you can post a list of post offices in Pennsylvania for all I care. I think this discussion is a fair way of achieving community consensus about the deletion or retention of the article. Finally I'll say this once again in bold, just in case you missed it: All that's being asked of you here is that you show us how Double Exposure Ltd. is notable.. As for my editing - yes I'm ruthless and I'm proud of it! :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't interpret that as bait, rather a repeated call for you to restore the article to its original form so it can judged fairly, and for you to explain what your knowledge is of photographic processing, finishing, and laboratory work. I've gone through your huge list of edits and find nothing relating to this field. I appreciate, Gene, that this has at least been pointed in the right direction now. I think this article only has a chance for fair critique if the links to SFW-XL, Seattle Filmworks, and the original form the article took were restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.154.66 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISOGuru, I identify with your concerns about this article. Remember: we are not trying harm it or Double Exposure, Ltd. by discussing its notability. All of our interests are in improving the encyclopedia. The fact here, however, is that Wikipedia is built upon the notion that every assertion can be verified against a reliable source, so readers can be convinced that we are telling the truth. When a topic cannot be substantially linked to reliable sources like books, scholarly journals, magazine articles, etc., it is not considered notable according to this community, regardless of its actual influence in the world. Note that our assessments about the notability of this company are irrelevant to the quality of the actual article. While a prior version of your article may have been editorially stronger, the assessment about whether or not Double Exposure, Ltd. has been noticed by independent sources was made outside of the article by searching for mentions of it in literature outside of Wikipedia.
I'd like to say again that a shining component of Wikipedia is the fact that it is open to everyone. Appeals for review solely by topic experts in this discussion will do no good here, because it violates our core principle to allow anyone to edit. I'd also like to add that while the inclusion of information about ECN-2 film and so on in this article is a welcome context, the article is primarily about Double Exposure, Ltd., which means that the majority of sources need to characterize that company in order to establish notability. As important as this topic may ultimately be, your statement that "ECN-2 processing isn't something the public cares about" speaks to the fact that this encyclopedia probably should not have an article about the company just yet. NTox · talk 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was deleted, and the original authors of this move, Fastily and Baffle gab 1978, have made numerous attempts to discredit the article, yet refuse to restore it to its original form. They also seem to feel that reputable industry communities, such as Eastman Kodak's webpage, cinematography communities, and the company's webpage being on Facebook aren't worth credit, yet Google searches for a mostly on-paper organization constitute the sum of human knowledge on this entity.
I'm still confused as to why a unique process, unique facility, and the sole remaining full service processor and printer of these films is nominated for deletion. Let's at least restore the article to level footing before any further judgement takes place. I notice the link section is missing several of the original sources.
I request that this discussion be placed on *indefinite hold* until the article is restored to its original form along with all the links that were deleted from it. --2012-02-27T18:42:37‎ 50.4.154.66/ISOGuru
  • Comment. I have restored the original contents of "Baffle gab1978"'s rationale for the deletion request as of 02:40, 25 February 2012, deleted by 50.4.154.66 on 2012-02-27T18:42:37‎. Also, I have moved 50.4.154.66's text newly inserted at the top of the discussion to where it (hopefully) belongs in the thread, because otherwise it becomes impossible to follow the discussion.
50.4.154.66/ISOGuru, you must not edit/alter other people's comments, in particular not if it changes the meaning. This can very easily lead to a block. Let's assume it was a mistake for now.
Further, please try to fix your browser cookie problems so that you are not logged out for most of your edits. It's hard to follow your edits, if you are editing under various IPs such as User talk: 50.4.154.66, User talk:75.13.44.113, User talk:70.62.196.146, User talk:74.199.103.79, User talk:70.62.196.146, User talk:75.118.66.209 instead of under your account name ISOGuru. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have restored the original edits to the article from back in 2011. The version that was deleted the last time can be found here. Note that the references given are just the same ones that are in the new version, so it doesn't really make a difference to this debate. None of the references establish notability per Wikipedia's criteria. Merely being the only company to offer a service does not confer notability unless there are reliable sources verifying the fact (and even then it could just be a fact with no particular importance). Even if it's a really important service or a really awesome service, etc. This has nothing to do with being an expert in the subject. So yes, if there are no reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the subject, it will probably not end up with an article in Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 05:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for ISOGuru. You write above Instead of reading some books, learning the field and cleaning up, expanding upon these articles, you are out to achieve editor points. Putting aside my unseemly appetite for editor points, which book should I (we) read to find out more about this company? NB not to find out more about the film or its development, but to find out more about this company? (Page numbers too, please.) Or which magazine article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniy Nikitin

edit
Evgeniy Nikitin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An IP user tagged this for speedy deletion arguing "This page is a total fake, there is no proff links and nobody in russian sports community knows who is the person mentioned in the article." This is taking it a bit far, and a Google search revealed some webpages that mention him, e.g. [49]. Still, the proposal for deletion isn't all that unreasonable, because I was unable to find that Nikitin has been a major well-known figure in triathlon sports. The content of the website I mentioned does not seem to give evidence of Nikitin passing the WP:NTRIATHLON criteria. Many of the citations linked to pages that didn't mention Nikitin at all. Therefore, I think this matter deserves discussion at AFD, and I am weakly supporting deletion at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

totaly agree. As an argument you can tranlate this topic on Russian triathlon forum there this guy is "unstripped" from all his false titles http://3athlon.borda.ru/?1-1-60-00000577-000-0-0-1318413182
plus here is the Igor Sysoev (famous russian traithlete) post in other russian site with some critical overview http://www.trilife.ru/blog/igorsysoev/show=689/ and but if you read (and translate) the comments you can see a confession from Никитин Евгений Сергеевич / BeasTMachine in this article's comments. Hу just aт ordinary fithess-level triathlete with big imagination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitrisupport (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no evidence this person is competing at the top level in his sport. His ITU profile shows no competitions or results. The claim that he was the 2010 World University Games champion in Rome is suspect for multiple reasons. There was no 2010 as they are held in odd years, but a check shows 2009 was in Belgrade and 2011 in Shenzhen. There is a World University Triathlon Championship held in 2010 but it was in Valencia, Spain, and won by Etienne Diemunsch from France. Fails both notability and verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 02:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Not mentioned in English Language sources. Russian sources have passing mentions showing him competing in three events with a best placing of 13th. Tigerboy1966  02:37, 25 February 2012 (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. I'm sorry Mark but there's a consensus here that your podcast isn't notable at this time. Maybe later if it gets more coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flaps Podcast

edit
Flaps Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This podcast is not notable. It received the equivalent of a "third place" "award" in a barely notable award presentation, and it was listed with another several dozen "finalists" in another barely notable award presentation. There are no independent sources which discuss this subject in-depth, it fails WP:N, and hence should be deleted. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hope I am editing this right. I am one of the producers of Flaps Podcast; I thought making an award-winning podcast was difficult enough. But no - justifying its Wikipedia existence is more challenging!

I certainly question the argument of its lack of notability. "Third place" in a "barely notable award presentation"? The Sony Radio Awards are the premier radio awards in the UK; they are possibly the high-water-mark for radio awards in the world. To come third, in such awards, are indeed notable. If you've not heard of the awards, I'm sorry, but it doesn't invalidate their worth within that particular industry. Since this deletion note was created, I have modified the citation for the awards. The original web page supporting this fact had changed address. Also Flaps Podcast garnered success in the New York Festivals Awards. We have since gone on to create work for the British Civil Aviation Authority - proving how new media is "breaking through" to long-established industries. I could also point to references within print aviation magazines within the UK but there are no online references apart from this story http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=1154.

I make no apologies for wanting to keep a Wikipedia page for Flaps - it is a primary reference point for many people. I am grateful that we have a page - let's not forget, this page was approved in the first place. If Wikipedia is anything, surely it's a reference point for all new media, of which Flaps, as a high-standard, award-winning podcast, is very proudly a part. Deleting this page would be unfair on a non-profit making podcast that serves a community of aviators. It would certainly make me wonder what editorial processes go on at Wikipedia - this page is an accurate, impartial explanation of Flaps Podcast - an industry-leading production.

By all means have a fair vote - but at least listen to the podcast first. It's very well produced and even more well-received. (If I have edited this wrongly, I apologise.)Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.75.169.89 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 02:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a WP:SOFTDELETE. If anyone wishes to refocus the article to the book (Cerebellum for example), feel free to request undeletion with any administrator or at WP:REFUND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan L. Henry

edit
Nathan L. Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 02:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valentia Young Islanders

edit
Valentia Young Islanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, junior, Division 5, Gaelic football club from an island in one of Ireland's counties. Lacks multiple, substantial, independent RS coverage. Was PRODed, but an IP removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 02:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine" coverage is the kind of coverage that Obama gets.  WP:ROUTINE that the previous poster cites, as a hidden Wikilink, is part of WP:Notability (events), and this topic is not an event.  "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG identifies a source that is not trivial coverage, and even within the context of events, no WP:ROUTINE-type coverage meets the definition of trivial coverage.  Possibly the previous poster's viewpoint is that, as per the nutshell of WP:N, that the coverage is not "sufficiently" significant, where a notable topic is one that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large...over a period of time".  But if this is the viewpoint, how does the previous poster objectify it...and what about that "over a period of time" factor?  I haven't looked at any of these sources, people seem to mostly agree about what is there, my main point is that even if there are questions about the "world at large's" interest, an institution this old needs to also be considered in terms of its WP:NRVE coverage that is not available on the internet.  Also, I recently referenced a sports team in New Hampshire that won a state title, so I know that it is not the case that all non-notable teams get coverage, this particular team was an 8th-grade girls team.  Again, getting routine coverage is an indication of notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, I just don't believe that the coverage we've seen is enough. There is one news report about an injury and another about immigration, both from the same source. Other might disagree and, if that is the case, then the article will be kept. Personally, I am not convinced that two news stories from a single newspaper is sufficient coverage to establish notability for a sports team. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an injury? You mean, an article about an injury that ends in a court case. And that is certainly not routine. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Per the discussion, there appear to be several problems with this article:

  1. It consists almost entirely of original research/synthesis (only one of the sources actually mentions female privilege)
  2. The phrase "female privilege" is a neologism which does not appear to be well established (compared to "male privilege")
  3. The scope of the article is already covered by Men's rights and Male privilege#Against the notion of 'male privilege'

None of the sources mentioned in the discussion appear to deal directly and significantly with the subject of "female privilege" per se. In other words, it looks like there are no reliable sources primarily about female privilege. Thus this article will never contain a substantial amount of content that isn't original research (within the context defined by the title). Of the few reliable sources that do mention "female privilege", they seem to mostly be within the context of the men's rights movement. I believe the proper disposition of this AfD is to delete the original research and merge the remaining content into Men's rights leaving a redirect. If "female privilege" becomes an established term at some point in the future, this decision can be revisited. Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female privilege

edit
AfDs for this article:
Female privilege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Provides no evidence that this is a valid sociological concept. Is a product of an organized raid on wikipedia by the Reddit.com antifeminist forum Contrada10 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)— Contrada10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. A hogepodge of synthesis, none of which is supported by sources present, which all just present bare facts. Sourceable facts like "X number of women were killed in combat in WWII. Y number of men were killed in combat in WWII" are synthesised into "[female conscription privilege] has contributed to a discrepancy of casualties by gender". No sources present which discuss the idea of "female privilege" as a sociological construct, which is what the article purports to be about. In short, the article is a whole lot of OR and synthesis which attempt to support a persuasive-essay-style thesis that women are privileged, and pretty much nothing else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Synth synth synth. By the way, I had to restore the AFD tag after it was removed, so one ought to keep an eye on the article to make sure that people are being directed here properly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page is rather new and if every new page that was incomplete or missing sources was deleted then wikipedia wouldn't exist. I'm also not seeing where the site you linked to is anti-feminist and I wonder if you could elaborate more on that assertion. Further more Wikimedia can not remain neural if being against a main stream ideology is cause to bar you from editing. I do not that the lack of sources as a deletion claim has any merit as long as vandals keep removing citations from the page as the history page shows. Also, from viewing the post linked i can not see how this constitutes a "raid" on wikipedia as no malicious intent is shown Kyleshome (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not reddit is anti-feminist or not is immaterial to this AfD, unless someone is trying to use reddit as a reliable source in Female privilege. In addition, I don't believe anyone has been blocked for opposing any ideology, or specifically blocked for editing the Female privilege article at all, so that dog won't hunt. And lastly, can you point to where you say the article is being vandalised? I see a number of editors removing inappropriate content and explaining their policy-based edits to the article, and a number of IPs and new editors reverting them with no explanation. The former (editors removing content with explanation) is not vandalism, and the latter (undoing with no explanation) is mildly disruptive but much more likely to be a case of new editors not understanding our content policies than it is to be "vandalism", which implies malice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandalism claim refers to full on blanking out the article, as seen in the history page by ip users. You can also see childish comments replacing whole sections. And while you can claim no one's been barred from editing. My assertion still stands that by focusing on the editors Anti-Feminism ideas in a negative tone (by the user who started the deletion request) It comes off as an attempt to discredit the person based on an assumption of what website they came from. This entire deletion request along with the tone surrounding it comes off as a violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF Kyleshome (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to male privilege (I know, that sounds sexist, cant be helped). the phrase has some use, but is not significant, not on a par with male privilege (probably due to the fact that male privilege is rampant and well documented, while female privileges are few and far between) [53] this use is an example. Article as it stands is synth, but i dont think it could be reworked.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also - and importantly - fails the WP:GNG. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there's nothing to improve upon; all the editing in the world is not going to change the fact that the central premise of the article is made up. Risker (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only "made up" premise is the term "female privilege". This fact at most warrants a rename of the article; deletion would mean lesser access to information on Wikipedia. If no academic literature is able to be found coining the term "female privilege", then this article could be repurposed as a list of statistical female advantage, probably under its own section in Female privilege. 24.93.169.212 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, that's the thing about reliable sources. Without them, we can't say what's an "advantage" and what's a "disadvantage" to begin with, let alone amass a list of what we claim to be advantages. Without reliable sources discussing female privilege and/or female advantages, we simply can't go and create list of things we have no evidence exist. Even with sources saying "Numbers of women for X is foo, numbers of men for X is bar. Women's number is higher," how do you define an advantage if the source doesn't say it is one? Is it an advantage if fewer women die on the front line of a war, or is it a disadvantage because it means women who want equality aren't being treated equally by the armed forces? Which of these one things is the "right" perception seems to be largely a matter of ideology, and Wikipedia doesn't take positions on ideological stances like that by labeling them "advantage" or "disadvantage" on our own wherewithal. Which brings us back to the need for third-party, scholarly, neutral sources - if we don't have substantial sources saying "this is female privilege", or even "females have an advantage here", then we simply are not able to have an article about female privilege (or a list of female advantages). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The central premise of the article is that there are many ways women are unjustly treated better than men simply on the basis of gender. That premise is demonstrably true. I note that all the arguments against such as "synth" etc. apply equally to the male privilege article, which has remained untouched for months.Celdaz (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is if you actualy look at the books they don't appear to be talking about the same thing as the article.©Geni 10:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kind of funny that you cite a point from arguments to avoid.. and then instantly start going all WP:GHITS, another point in the same essay. The fact that two words are used side by side in several thousand books does not in any way shape or form establish notability. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

edit
it is over 6 months old so hardly new. More significantly the term Female privilege doesn't appear in the article.©Geni 23:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Synth. MrDrak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Synth, dubious biased sources, provides no evidence from respected sources. Dr kmaxwell (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree with much of the concern, I see no reason to remove this page entirely. The term "female privilege" is clearly in use by parts of the population and that alone justifies an encyclopedic entry of the term regardless of whether the object it is describing exists or not. I encourage every editor to look at the counterpart male privilege before deciding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlife (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have mentioned this is the direct counterpart to Male Privilege and is becoming more and more prevalent. Also would like to point out that Contrada10 has no edits aside from proposing this AfD - I find this highly suspect. Subverted (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's kind of funny to bring up the edit count of the nominator as suspicious when I (~5000 edits), Risker (~20,000 edits and an arbitrator,) Fluffernutter (~26,000 edits and an oversighter,) are all saying delete and most of the keep votes are from people with next to no edits. Not that I'm saying edit count actually matters, mind you, this is just an especially weird instance to bring it up. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Im sorry you feel it is funny to bring up, to me it seems like a rather interesting point. After looking into some of the history of Roscelese, Paintedxbird, and a couple others on here...I am not too surprised to see their posts bearing "delete" at the beginning. Subverted (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is reasonable to claim that "female privilege" does not exist as a real-world phenomenon (although I would disagree), but it is unreasonable to claim that it does not exist as a concept when "male privilege" is a well-accepted concept, and thus unreasonable to use non-existence as a basis for deletion - it's like suggesting that Unicorn should be deleted because it doesn't exist. The article is a little bare right now, but there seem to be plenty of sources (for example this editorial [54] from a women's magazine), so it definitely has potential. Pirsq (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An area of verifiable examples of female privilege is that of deviation from gender norms and sexual orientation. One example would be the male/female dress code in particular in professional corporate environments. Men not only have a narrower choice of acceptable attire, but will also suffer more severe consequences when failing to abide by those standards.
Hard evidence can be found in the case of hate crimes against homosexuals where male homosexuals are targeted with far greater hostility and efficiency than female homosexuals resulting in a far greater male victim count. An extremely strong example of this kind of female privilege is the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The most reliable estimates are that 10.000 to 15.000 male homosexuals were deported into concentration camps of which around 53% perished (source:Rüdiger Lautmann). Some estimates are far greater because of the unknown number of homosexuals who were murdered for other reasons such as being Jewish for example. Female homosexuals were not persecuted for their sexuality. They did not fall under the homosexuals-paragraph 175. No evidence has been found confirming the persecution of even one single female homosexual under the Nazi regime because of their sexuality. Source: Joachim Müller: "Comparability of the living circumstances of lesbian women with the living circumstances of gay men in national socialism (and after 1945)", Berlin 2007. The "grey literature" copy is listed in the America-Memorial Library in Berlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlife (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually read the pages I linked. The problem is not that your facts are necessarily wrong, the problem is that synthesizing facts to make any claim not present in reliable sources is original research by our standard and unacceptable. You cannot make claims like this to advance the idea of female privilege unless you can post a reliable source that makes those same claims. Kevin (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only point of contention in that example might be that female privilege does not necessarily follow from having a systemic persecution of only male citizens of said characteristic. That challenge is not likely to be taken seriously in any discourse. Otherwise, if I understand you correctly, the problem is that the sources do not necessarily explicitly use the term "female privilege". In that case I ask you what would constitute sufficient reference to the term when a descriptive reference such as "men did not have the freedom that women had" is insufficient by your standard. What about synonyms or foreign languages the translation of which can result in different wording dependent on slight differences in the interpretation of words like "privilege"? Scarlife (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whether or not you think it's a challenge that is likely to be taken seriously in any outside-of-Wikipedia discourse, within the confines of Wikipedia that is not the sort of claim that editors are able to make on their own authority. If it's a noteworthy claim that is worth including in a Wikipedia article, you can find a reliable source outside of Wikipedia that has already made it. Otherwise, it's original research. And yeah, for an article on the neologism female privilege to be kept, we'll need to find sources talking about it as a term. For concepts which are frequently discussed in foreign languages but for which no English language term exists, we do not get to make up an English term or use a non-notable English term - we use the foreign term. So if an idea similar to this is widely discussed in Finnish sources but labeled as 'kunnia naaraat' instead of 'female privilege' then our article would be called 'kunnia naaraat', not 'female privilege.' More guidance on how to title articles that deal with things only discussed in foreign language sources can be found at Wikipedia:Article_titles. Kevin (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all the recent people voting keep... please remember that this is not a democracy. The closing administrator will close the discussion based on the balance of policy compliant arguments put forth. If you don't explain why, according to our policies, this article should be kept, then your vote will be meaningless. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin, please be aware of how you come off. I have read through each argument (but I didn't find it necessary to look up everyone's edit history) and am treating this as a discussion between people, not a competition between Wikipedia accounts. Just touting some Wikipedia jargon like "synth" without engaging valid viewpoints is alienating and appears brutish to people who are not especially active within the wiki-microcosm. While the closing administrator does have final say, Jimmy Wales *did* intend for Wikipedia to operate democratically on politicized articles such as this one (obviously STEM articles, in which there is only one truth, are different.) I will remain anonymous for this comment; I really don't care if this article is kept or not, as this will likely be the first and last time I read it. Still, the implications of Wikipedia editors acting in your dismissive and totalitarian way leaves a sour taste in my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.93.130 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, it's always fun to be called a dismissive totalitarian brute. In my mind, the really dismissive thing I could do here would be to just not respond at all. Whether or not I mention it, this AfD would have been closed by the closing admin on the balance of policy compliant viewpoints. Mentioning it allows y'all to look up the policies I mentioned, and figure out how to argue from a policy standpoint that the article should be kept, instead of simply getting confused when the article is deleted in a week. I am more than happy to answer the questions of any good-faith newcomers about any of the issues related to this AfD. Kevin (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could "engage in discussion" all you want, but the fact remains that WP:SYNTH is a policy "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. " It applies to this article (and every article) and if you want to ignore that, then all the discussing in the world is simply wasting time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you did choose to reply and engage with me. I agree that original research is bad and does not belong on an encyclopedia. SYNTH is a valuable policy. But most of the "keep" people do seem to be arguing that any original research can just be removed and the article edited to conform with standards. The article in its current form is quite a piece of work. I agree. However, I do think the concept of female privilege deserves to be covered in an encyclopedia so comprehensive, it has articles on obscure anime shows. Improve the article, do not delete it. The *concept* of female privilege was not just cooked up by some kid in his basement and posted to Wikipedia, there is an active community working on gender issues from *both* sides. 67.194.93.130 (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If you think there is an article here, YOU can make it happen! by adding content from reliably published sources that specifically discuss the concept of "Female privilege" (and not just a collection of "I know women being treated better than men when I see it") and we wont need to go through the rest of the process. I did a quick look in google books about for "Female privilege" and "sociology" thinking it would be easy to make this a viable stub, but I found nada to work with.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC) expanded -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The problem with the strategy of just removing all the synthesis and OR is that if we did that - if we removed everything where the article was drawing a conclusion not in the source, everything where the source quotes facts but doesn't discuss them in the context of female privilege where the article cites it as if it does, everything where "the practice of X involving women exists" is being used to claim "this sociological concept exists and is notable" - there would pretty much be no more content in the article. That's what some of the delete voters mean when they say they don't mind a re-do with better sourcing, but that there's nothing salvageable in the current article or its history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any content here worth keeping, but this is a plausible search term because we have an article on male privilege. With plausible search terms, we can do better for our readers than a redlink. Find a suitable redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

edit

It really amazes me that people here can argue that an article on female privilege is unworthy, has no worthwhile content, etc. when there are reliable sources that show women are given lesser sentences than men for identical crimes (after factoring in criminal record, etc.) Meanwhile, the article on male privilege is safe and secure, when it describes such things as "full-time working men earn more than women" (because they work longer hours and choose harder, higher-paying jobs). Celdaz (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • note: Celda is a promiment /r/mensrights user, his comments ought not be taken as those of an impartial wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.78.110.69 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always fix the other article if you want, Celdaz. Or, if you think it's irredeemable, you could propose it for deletion. Arguing that other crappy stuff exists, however, is not a valid argument to use in an AfD. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons Fluffernutter, Kgorman-ucb and Risker have laid out: badly sourced synthesis on a topic which isn't actually used expect outside of the confines of men's rights activist forums. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviewing sources on Google Books, I see a number of relevant hits suggesting this is a notable concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: I'm going to pin my colours to the mast here and say I found out about this through SA (and personally hold (pro-)feminist views). If you've been following the news recently, SA has taken a rather dim view of subreddits such as r/mensrights. That said... the article, much like most misogynist men's rights bullshit, is pure synthesis of something like "well, women got off the Titanic first" and "women in the UK cannot be prosecuted for rape". This is why such a topic cannot be notable: because it doesn't exist in real life. The idea of male privilege has been discussed for years, and has plenty of actual real-life evidence, and that shows in secondary academic sources. But there's no equivalent academic discourse of the idea of female privilege because it doesn't really exist outside misogynist MRA circles. That the phrase "female privilege" appears in a few books in a Google search doesn't change that fact: this topic is not treated as any more of a small footnote in the discussion of male privilege. I also note that the article about men's rights is on article probation, and I would recommend that an admin officially notify any significant contributors to the article as toward the probation. Sceptre (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't actually need to be an administrator to notify someone of the probation, just to enforce it. Feel free to notify any participants of the terms of the article probation following the procedure laid out on that page - I may put up an editnotice or something to make sure more people are aware. Kevin (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is all of five days old. This seems like an incredibly hasty move. There are articles that exist as stubs for months, if not longer - the article's quality is no reason to delete it. Indeed, the aforementioned stubs often have poor or even no citations. The rebuttal section on the male privilege article alone offers sufficient evidence that this is a notable topic, and its sources satisfy WP:SYNTH concerns. Furthermore, the initiator claiming that this article "is a product of an organized raid on wikipedia by the Reddit.com antifeminist forum" is nonproductive. Calling a men's rights group antifeminist is itself inflammatory. I hesitate to step outside of assuming good faith, but it would appear opposition to this article is based on topic rather than wikipedia policies. 131.151.68.66 (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I checked the scholar link at the top of the page to look for sources, and this was the first link, which firmly repudiates the WP:SYNTH argument:
"Having denied that men are privileged relative to women, this movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation. Whereas the women's movement has created new options for women, men have not been given the same range of choices. Thus, a new sexism has been born, a sexism that thrives on male bashing and male blaming. The agenda of the men's rights perspective is to bring about an understanding of the new sexism and to create laws that protect men against current injustices in such areas as divorce, child custody, affirmative action, domestic violence prosecution, and sexual harassment." http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/en125/grif/en125105.pdf It's at the bottom of page 11. 131.151.68.66 (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The context of the text you quote is important: the book discusses a number of perspectives that various groups hold regarding masculinity, and what you quoted is the perspective attributed to "the men's rights perspective" - that is, the author is not saying that this is his opinion, or that he holds it to be true, he's only saying that within the men's rights movement, this is the view they hold. The author also characterises feminism, gay masculinity, conservatism, and few other viewpoints according to their internal beliefs, and it would be disingenuous to cite the paragraph you quote as evidence for the reality of men being discriminated against when it's actually evidence for "this is what men's rights activists believe to be the case, which is different from what these other seven groups - each of which disagrees with all the others - believe to be the case". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not men are discriminated against or not is irrelevent. The earth is demonstrably and factually not flat. Yet Flat Earth is an acceptable article because there have been reliable third party sources that discuss the concept, define it, give its place in history and otherwise place it into context. So far, there are no sources shown that do the same for "Female privilege" without coming through the lens of Wikipedians making "original research" claims. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment kevin clatterbaugh doesn't support, define, expound or justify the idea of "female privilege". quite the opposite. he's simply citing that it's what MRAs claim to be against. if you read more of the source and explore his career he repeatedly attacks their arguments. the source is being intentionally misinterpreted and doesn't fit the claim. Paintedxbird (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As red, fluff, and painted have said - this brief mention does not provide enough background to write an article that is not riddled with synthesis and original research, and one brief mention is not enough to meet the GNG. Kevin (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I support the clearly SYNTH article as currently written, but the topic is notable exactly for the reasons Paintedxbird just described. Coverage is coverage whether it is critical, in support of, descriptive, from whichever point of view, describing another point of view, confirming, denying, painting as fact or fiction. WP:N is about notability, or being noteworthy. The independent reliable source found the subject of note and covered it. That is what WP:N is based on. The rest of it is an argument against WP:V which is where we get into controversial content that need strong citations. But the subject is notable and there should be an article on it; just not this one.--v/r -TP 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Comment how can it be notable when kevin clatterbaugh only mentions the term in passing without clearly defining what it constitutes? the passage he used the term is centred around men's rights, not female privilege. there's no explicit explanation for the term that can be arrived at without synthesis or more coverage. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Paintedxbird (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above source uses the words "female" and "privilege" next to each other - but in the same clause that uses the words "male" and "degradation" next to each other. It is not at all clear that this source is using the phrase "female privilege" as a specific and definable encyclopedia topic any more than it could be used to justify "male degradation" as a topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has yet brought forth sources that indicate notability. A passing mention in a book isn't the type of coverage that WP:GNG or WP:NEO is looking for. I dug through half a dozen pages of google books without finding enough sources that offer substantial coverage to the idea of female privilege to meet the GNG. It's possible those sources exist, and if so, the article should be kept - but I haven't found them, and no one has brought them forward. (editconflicted this) Kevin (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Kevin: I went through the book sources and they arn't passing mentions; you're selling them short. @ TheRedPenOfDoom: that is the worst argument in the history of AFDs. I'm not going to paraphrase how I read it because of this article probation, but if any other administrator thinks along the same lines as me, that argument will be ignored. Arguing that a phrase and a corresponding sentence that describes that phrase does not indeed describe it as a phrase but as two different words is quite a stretch of the tongue.--v/r - TP 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Kevin: Family interventions in domestic violence: a handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment by Tonia L. Nicholls; Hamel, John on Page 30 details Female Privilege: "a large number of the female perpetrators she works with slap their male partners when they behave badly, and she said these women dismiss such assaults by calling them "sopa opera" slaps. This is an example of what may be called female privilege, and it is becoming a disturbing trend in our society today" 64.42.240.5 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and immediately recreate with a new article that has proper citations that describe the subject, the citations are independent and reliable, and the article is written in a neutral point of view that doesn't contain WP:SYNTH. The subject is notable but the currently article does a poor and unsalvageable job of describing it.--v/r - TP 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--v/r - TP 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here are three sources I base my !vote on. The first is a book and I quote a passage that clearly describes this subject: "The director also told me that a large number of the female perpetrators she works with slap their male partners when they behave badly, and said these women dismiss such assaults by calling them "soap opera" slaps. This is an example of what may be called "female privilege, and it is becoming a disturbing trend in our society today.". My searches also led me to believe, although I could find no online copy of it, that there is a description of this in the "Journal of Marriage and Family", Vol. 61, No. 1, Feb., 1999, in an article called Maternal Gatekeeping... by Allen & Hawkins. Except here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/353894. My reason for believing this is not in the except, but I've found citations in other books that point here. Also [55] this segment also describes this. This is clearly not enough for a FA, but the sources are enough for a stub article on the subject.--v/r - TP 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you want to start a stub starting with a sentence that defines female privilege as the beliefs held by women who slap their partners? that's all it specifies without synthesis. you'd need multiple sources to establish the notability and verifiability of that definition. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Paintedxbird (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would read something like: "Female privilege is (blah blah blah). According to (whomever that author is), an example of female privilege has been described as (however he described it that case)." Where is the WP:SYNTH? The first sentence would be the lead per WP:LEAD and summarize the rest of the article; unless you consider WP:LEAD synonymous with WP:SYNTH, this should be acceptable.--v/r - TP 22:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment your lead is not exempt from needing citations. i said the synth would arise from any interpretation of "female privilege" deviating from the specific description in the text. separately once again i would say this needs corroboration from other sources so that it's shown to have a wide acceptance and prove notability. Paintedxbird (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh I see, so you're dispute anything you don't like? In that case, see WP:POINTY. Welcome to Wikipedia, we have a policy/guideline for everything. Arguing [citation needed] because you don't like what it says is disruptive editing. If you have a specific dispute with a sentence I haven't even written yet, it should be better than "I'm disputing it for the sake of invoking WP:V and getting it removed." The lead summarizes the article, citations for content can exist in the body of the article. And just because a subject is hard to author prose that meets WP:V doesn't make the subject less worthy of WP:N.--v/r - TP 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please don't attempt to mind-read or put words in my mouth. once again civility and agf. i'm not disrupting anything. if the page deserves to be published it will be. i'm contesting your definition for the reasons i have said. there isn't a clear definition of the term and what explanations you have aren't necessarily shared by multiple sources which questions notability. Paintedxbird (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that if the article does get re-created based on more acceptable sourcing and premises, then you guys can work out what the lead should say? Arguing about it here and now is a bit of a derail. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I editconflicted posting this, and need to run out for a couple minutes, so I can't update it to reflect new posts.
The only one of these sources that clearly supports the existence of this article is the first - and that's the only source that has so far been put forward that is clearly talking about "female privilege" instead of just using the word female next to the word privilege. The second source you posted you have not read yourself, so you cannot know if there is coverage there, or how substantive the coverage is - so using it to support your !vote at this point is weird. I'll see if I can get it when I'm on an academic network later today, and if I can I'll let you know. The last book you linked is from the early 20th century, well before the idea of privilege (social inequality) was suggested. Although it does say 'female privilege,' I don't think it's intended to function as a meaningful phrase - I can find thousands of books that have the phrase "Your dog died" in them, but it would be ridiculous to write an article called "Your dog died" just because it's repeated a lot in books. Additionally, since it antedates the sociological term 'privilege' by at least 60 years, I don't think it can possibly be used to support the existence of this article.
The totality of the sources posted so far would be insufficient to write a stub, and badly fail WP:NEO. Kevin (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources I found pointed to this journal article when they mentioned female privilege so I'm hopeful and optimistic it is covered there. I'd appreciate anything you find. The last quote, despite it's age, actually covers the modern day concern of this right's movement. Discounting it based on age would be wrong. There are many books that have the terms "female privilege" and I linked to this one specifically because I felt it matched the context of the modern definition. This passage for example from the same book has historical significance and relates directly to the subject at hand. Although the examples are outdated, the subject is the same.--v/r - TP 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--v/r - TP 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the IP posted the link, my searches also led me to the Maternal Gatekeeping article as a potentially useful source. But we still seem to be lacking anything concrete in what I would think would be pretty essential, a source for "Female privilege is (blah blah blah)." -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source I linked earlier could easily be paraphrased as something along the lines of "Female privilege is the discrimination in favor of women in such areas as divorce, child custody, affirmative action, domestic violence prosecution, and sexual harassment." Although the source does not attempt to show that this is true, it very clearly defines the concept. As Subverted said below, this isn't the first place this term has appeared on wikipedia; it's hardly original research. 131.151.161.156 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a little bit too much "paraphrasing" - the source is one author stating his interpretation of what he feels is the men's rights movement's definition of the term. For the Wikipedia article to use that as its basis for the "definition" of this concept would be stretching a bit far in my opinion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's poor argument for an AFD. Arguing a source is not suitable because it's one authors interpretation is exactly counter to WP:N. We cover topics that have received notice by sources. Sources most often are single authors perceptions. Even if the author wrote about what the 'men's rights movement' says rather their his own perceptions, it's still notice of a legitimate topic and can be phrased as "Men's rights see themselves as...". The source is legitimate as far as WP:N is concerns, how it's used is a matter for WP:V.--v/r - TP 16:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ". If we cannot tell that the author is specifically disussing the topic of the article, (which applies in this case since we do not even have a definition of the topic) it is absolutely based on application of WP:N. for example, someone may put the words "attractive" and "nuisance" next to each other, but that doesnt mean they are talking about Attractive nuisance -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to stop replying to you since you consistently try to argue to obvious isn't true. He is talking about female privilage and your argument that despite that he uses the exact phrase "female privilage" in the exact right context that men's right's activists put it in, it isn't what the author is talking about. It's like you are saying "Despite that the sky is blue and there are clouds in it, that doesn't mean it's a sky." So, you're pointless argument is going to be ignored now.--v/r - TP 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as has been said before it's not even clear that's what he meant. he uses the term "female privilege" as well as "male degradation" and then lists what the men's rights movement is about. superficial usage isn't significant coverage required for notability. nor are there any multiple credible sources that back the claim. also, it'd still be original research as you are reinterpreting something that doesn't promote the same view. "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (and as presented)."Paintedxbird (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to The Red Pen of Doom, same goes for you. Your making a WP:CRYSTAL argument here. "I havent even seen what your going to say, but I'm telling you now I'll oppose it despite that it's WP:POINTY. So you're being ignored now too until you make a real argument.--v/r - TP 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what do you mean i haven't seen what you're going to say? you've illustrated it already. again, it's not actually WP:POINT to criticise an edition. everyone is entitled to do that according to WP:V. all you have are cherrypicked quotations from sources of varied relevance using the term in a broad and sometimes incidental way and no elaboration on what constitutes female privilege without synthesis. this is a fringe view coatrack that doesn't even meet notability standards. Paintedxbird (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to a specific edit that you find problematic - and, in doing so, please keep in mind that according to our content policies, it is in fact appropriate to remove synthesis and original research from any article (though, as a minor note, I haven't removed anything from this article myself. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is a good source from USA Today to show that Female Privilege is a significant topic. It's called Girls get extra school help while boys get Ritalin. Here is another one from Psychology Today called The End of Boys. According to the articles, men who are already mature are not in much trouble, but boys and young men are not being given as many resources as girls and young women. There is clearly a problem here. I would go further and say, from my own personal experience as an adult male with Asperger's Syndrome, that this phenomenon has had devastating effects on us. Men get punished simply for being men. Every man can identify with this. Whether it's feeling afraid to walk on the street and look the wrong way, or it's no access to shelters that accept men or boys over a certain age (16, for example, even though the boy is part of a family with a mother who is the primary recipient of the the abuse). Women get more services and have more privileges than men do. Personally, I think if "female privilege" is deleted then "male privilege" should be deleted. Whoever it is that wants this deleted is just angry, and possibly scared. It's a shame really. I hope they can learn to play fair. "Female Privilege" is an important concept people should know about. I have read this whole page and not seen one legitimate reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles deals, specifically, with 'female privilege.' To have a Wikipedia article about 'female privilege,' we need sources that explicitly discuss the concept - not sources that talk simply about differences or inequalities between men and women.Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TEHO

edit
TEHO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But ... fi:Wikipedia:Poistettavat sivut/Energiajuomat (the 2008 discussion) doesn't discuss fi:Teho (energiajuoma)? /Julle (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a collective deletion discussion about all articles about energy drinks. TEHO was one of those discussed. JIP | Talk 04:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. Should have done more than just glanced at it, of course. /Julle (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. without quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

220 (t.A.T.u. song)

edit
220 (t.A.T.u. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS. No valid charts. No cover versions by multiple notable artists. No awards. Sourced to blogs, fansites, and social networking sites. —Kww(talk) 23:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Aurélio (born 1986)

edit
Marcus Aurélio (born 1986) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject appears to be non-notable and fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Babovic

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ivan Babovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Previous AfD was cut short due to speedy delete but a strong consensus was building for delete, so I am going to send this back to AfD so the process can play out to its conclusion. Safiel (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I briefly tagged for G4. But then I looked at the deletion log and decided to take to AfD instead. I agree that it DESERVES a speedy delete, but taking it through AfD is a better way of making the delete actually stick. Safiel (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well as I said before it has been deleted several times before so there is no reason it should need to be AfD'd, actually the time it was deleted during discussion it was because it was under G5, but before that it was deleted per A7 and PROD'd, it should also be noted the creator is a suspected sockpuppet but no investigation has taken place JayJayTalk to me 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr..
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_February_25&oldid=1142635370"