Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 11#Indian Science Engineering Eligibility Test

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

The result was merged with Shutterstock. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Chou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No evidence of notability offered. I expected that the CIO of Shutterstock would have been interviewed or something, but nothing shows up in my searches. I'll gladly cancel this AfD if anyone can find reliable sources, but I'm not seeing any. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the single line of content with Shutterstock and left a redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GLTT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable. I've no knowledge of this ever being used for anything, and the project is essentially dead. Specs112 t c 23:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find some forum discussions but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC (block cipher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

While I can verify the author's involvement in the cryptographic community, there is no indication for notability of the algorithm at all. Note: Not to be confused with ABC (stream cipher), ABC (Accumulated Block Chaining), and ABC (Advanced Block Cipher). Honest statement by the author in his paper: "The author assumes that the expanded SAFER diffusion layer is MDS (Maximum Distance Separable) which, if proven, would be the only new thing in this paper." – Suggest deletion. Nageh (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the article's creator. I understand notability better now than I did back when I wrote it. I've never been able to find even one secondary source discussing the subject. It shouldn't be here—sorry. Ntsimp (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent coverage. There are very few hits in Google scholar for this, and most of them seem to lead back through Wikipedia, so I was unable to find anything that would function as an adequate source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amponanometer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

There is already an article at Multimeter. This would not be an appropriate redirect because there is no evidence that the word is in use (Google search only brought up this page). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is this a foreign language word? I've never heard it used in the context of English-language electronic or electrical engineering. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD A10 as duplicate of Multimeter. In addition, frankly qualifies for CSD G3 as a Google search on the term returns only the Wikipedia page. Safiel (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. She wrote a best selling novel but notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Plenty of reviews in reliable sources[1][2][3][4] and less notable sources[5][6][7][8] USA Today interview[9]. So many hits on Google and Google News. The nominator is proposing a lot of articles for deletion that are clearly notable and seems not to understand WP policies such as WP:BEFORE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She gets interviewed, and people talk about her work, so she is notable. Dream Focus 23:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can understand why someone would think that such a brief, poorly sourced article was ripe for the chop. But in actuality, notability is 'inherited' for creative professionals, as per WP:AUTHOR, point 3. So writing a very successful, well reviewed book makes Roth notable. Sionk (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clearly meets GNG, I threw a few url cites into the article, there are tons to choose from. Another Bad Nomination From Alan Liefting, come on Alan, let's not make this your signature move.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Author a of a series that has been covered in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I've added the following sources to the article:

• Crowder, Courtney (2012). "Chicago novelist sells film rights". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Kung, Michelle (July 23, 2011). "'Divergent' Author Veronica Roth on Her Film Adaptation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Divergent by Veronica Roth - review". The Guardian. September 13, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep authors of course become notable by writing best selling novels (or other notable books) what on earth else would an author be notable for? the details of their personal life and such relative trivia? Following such reasoning, no person would be notable. This is an encyclopedia , and people's professional careers are what is most important about them. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Unanimity amongst the commentators that this school fails our notability standards as do most (but not all) elementary schools. Normal practice is to redirect such elementary schools to the school district and I see no convincing reason in the discussion not to do so in this case, particularly as a redirect meets, in my view, WP:R. As DGG states, elementary schools get little vandalism and I have added this one to the '000s on my watchlist in case it does! The only mergeable fact is the grades and I have added that from the primary source so there is no need to maintain the article history. TerriersFan (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priestman Street Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. Non-notable per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no apparent notability. The alumni aren't notable either. The Fredericton article doesn't even bother to list all the elementary schools! Sionk (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect Fredericton,_New_Brunswick#School_system might be a good target. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No point. There is nothing in the target article about it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick School District 18 is a better target. The usual outcome for this type of school is to redirect to the relevant school board or community. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears non-notable to me although schools seem to require very little notability to "pass the grade". Stormbay (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • High schools articles may be allowed with very little apparent notability but elementary schools are targets for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to New Brunswick School District 18. When a non-notable school is found, the default is to redirect the article to that of the relevant School Board - in this case, #18 for Fredericton. PKT(alk) 21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not simply delete it? A search will find the target article that you suggest. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to that, but there are a couple of hundred "articles" about Canadian elementary schools that are redirected to their boards. Putting a redirect in place is an easier course of action than a deletion. PKT(alk) 15:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it easier? I think unnecessary redirects can waste editors time. They have to maintained forever (or at least until we become extinct!). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of maintenance needs to be done on redirects? Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly protection from vandalism. See also User:Alan Liefting/Redirects are costly. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see such a problem. Redirects can be set up like that. I've probably set up well over 100 of them, very easily. Conversely, I can't delete anything. I can only Wikipedia:PROD or Wikipedia:AfD. PKT(alk) 01:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The default is to merge the content into a new education section in the locality or into a region if the primary school is nonnotable. It does not advance the work of wikipedia to remove good, otherwise policy compliant information. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, do you mean merge to New Brunswick School District 18, in which case it is already listed there? Generally the article is not policy compliant (or good) because the list of alumni, which makes the bulk of the stub, are all non-notable. Sionk (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the district, merging any usable content. Even the nom admits these articles are usually redirected. On the basis of the essay he quotes, he is reluctant to redirect because someone might vandalize, but there actually isn't much vandalism of elementary school articles. The only way to truly prevent vandalism at Wikipedia is to have a closed wiki. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tre'mendous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced article, it's difficult to find online sources when the subject is called 'Tremendous'! The claims to notability are very slim. If someone can show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no evidence of notability that I can find.JoelWhy (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No Not Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.181.248 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - lack of sources is the real killer, though I feel the main claims to fame - being a regular sidekick to Big Mike and featuring on a Top 20 album in 1997 - probably isn't quite enough to satisfy the GNG even if it were immaculately sourced. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The talk page for the article claims he "is an instrumental pioneer in the Houston Music Scene, and has been so for over 10 years" which would qualify him for inclusion under point 7 of WP:NMUSIC. However, there are no sources that I could find to back up that assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete -the sources are mostly real world,although the subject has more web presence than acts he was associated with who are more popular. I think the real problem stems from the fact that the subject went by III (Tre') from 1997 until 2002,when he under went a name change to avoid being confused with Trae the Truth from the same city. More importantly,he has started releasing albums in 2011 through IODA's digital distribution. Also, in regards to Notability-there are quite a few External Links on his page, as well as credit given to him under his birth name AND Tre'mendous on the page of the subjects he was associated with.I believe he is a worthy addition to the wikipedia database. -- MK Menyet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.181.248 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete -the sources that back up his involvement in the local Houston Music scene are other wikipedia articles that weren't challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MK Menyet (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment - What is needed are reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and so it cannot be used to verify information or establish notability. What is needed is coverage in newspapers or magazines that would back up the assertion that he is a key figure in the Houston music scene. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- There is not only a link to an 2010 interview on the articles page, there is proof that the subject is an active musician with a lengthy professional songwriting and production portfolio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Do Not Delete -there are substantial references to the subjects notability from reliable sources in the article now. MK Menyet (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please, only one!vote per customer. If you want to add extra commentary, you can prefix it with the word "comment" as I have done here. -- Whpq (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Branchline (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage. This is a non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a minor zine. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, might be worth a mention in an article about the society (assuming that subject is notable, of course), but no standalone notability to warrant an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hasn't, as yet, played in a fully professional league. There is obviously some interest in the name coincidence but the clear consensus is that the coverage that this has produced is insufficient to meet the relevant notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Messi Nyamsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Aricle about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. All coverage is due to his name, and not significant, meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:BLP1E. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. BLP1E only applies when the event that the subject relates to has an article of its own, which isn't the case here. The reason for the subject's notability may be quirky and atypical, but I do believe it is valid. Many people will come to wikipedia looking for this article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does BLP1E say that it requires an article for the event? – Kosm1fent 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to be implicit in the sentence "In such cases [as this], it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article", that in order to act on BLP1E, an article about the event in question is required. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true, but I also see the first bullet, which reads "We should generally avoid having an article on a person [...] if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which does not imply that it requires an article for the event, and in fact, coverage on this footballer is only in the context of having the same name as Lio Messi. – Kosm1fent 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. – PeeJay 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. What's in a name, anyway? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NFOOTBALL. Being named after a worldwide famous footballer does not grant notability. – Kosm1fent 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesogin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, no independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Seems to be a non-notable phone app. The article author even spelt Pesoguin's name incorrectly! Sionk (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication (or even assertion) of notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farrans Construction Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. A non-notable subsidiary company and WP is not a business directory. It is also essentially spam since there are probably no articles for their competitors or similar companies. This is were the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument carries some weight. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a notable company. Can be mentioned in CRH article. Snappy (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even after disregarding BO's WP:JUSTAVOTE, there is a weak consensus to delete. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IM5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable boyband, doesn't appear to be coverage in any sources (that aren't related to founder Perez Hilton) - Created by Single Purpose Account - Speedy A7 correctly applied as the but removed in good faith as editor believed that article establishes the band to be notable based on who created it. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as WP:GNG. Non-Neutral, Nothing verified, probably falls under a WP:PRODBLP as well Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteI suspect they'll end up being the next Boys to Men (or whatever) given the people supporting this manufactured band, but for now, they're nobodies.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't believe the nominator looked very hard for independent sources. In two minutes, I found these:
  • [10] Not related to Perez Hilton
  • [11] Not related to Perez Hilton
  • [12] Not related to Perez Hilton
  • [13] Not related to Perez Hilton
  • [14] Not related to Perez Hilton

I'm sure I could find more with more time. To be sure, IM5's notability may well be the result of a huge publicity push, but they do get coverage. I have no love for manufactured talent such as this, but it is the current trend, and this particular version, with the backing of notable backers, is inherently notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources, The one that looks most reliable is artistsdirect but that has been considered not reliable atWP:RSN - Additionally #2 is not independent since they are developing IM5 for Fuller, Perez and King. Notability requires reliability non-trivial mentions (which these all are), and independence besides which they still fail WP:MUSIC, and still have the problem of the inability of creating a neutral verifiable article from these types of sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a weird one because there's little doubt they're about to become extremely notable (even allowing for WP:CRYSTAL, the people involved will surely mean coverage in reliable sources as soon as they actually release a record), but the lack of coverage now (and as it stands, their very existence isn't verifiable - it could all still turn out to be a hoax on Hilton's part, or something) means they don't meet the standard for an article right now. It seems counterproductive to !vote delete on something that's almost certainly going to have to be recreated down the line, but the alternative can of worms seems worse. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BO; talk 17:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Outer Space Treaty. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Preservation Treaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No such treaty. No evidence of notablitity of the proposal. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It certainly sounds like a real proposed treaty, but I find virtually nothing on Google (one of the first hits is to some conspiracy nut website.) So, unless someone has some reliable sources, I think we've gotta delete.JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Outer Space Treaty. Sources indicate its a proposed addendum/alteration to that. Seems notable in that (1) received press coverage and (2) NGOs and member of Congress, albeit a low-ranking representative, introduced it. Because its all in the context of evolving space law, merging it with the OST article is probably the best way to go. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) There is a huge number of weird nonnotable things put through the Congress, a sheer waste of taxpayers' money. (1) Press coverage is from weird press. Again, notability, WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) If taxpayer's money is wasted, that is a matter of public concern. (2) We are not interested in whether the sources are "weird" (I am not even sure what that means), we are interested in whether they are reliable. (3) As to notability, Google Books does produce some results for "Space Preservation Treaty", including this, this and this. James500 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Outer Space Treaty for same reasons mentioned above, the two treaties go hand in hand, this one if passed would most likely be incorperated into the OST treaty, the topic is notable enough to be mentioned in OST, just not enough to stay as its own article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge perhaps one small sentence to the parent treaty; this is utterly non-notable outside of the OST's context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Outer Space Treaty, seems the most logical and sensible thing to do here in this case. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Outer Space Treaty per the reasons cited above. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC for Kids Video Hits Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this video release. This was deleted in a 2008 AfD. I suggest WP:SALT if this is deleted again. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC For Kids Video Hits 2. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to locate any significant coverage for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC for Kids Video Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this video tape. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was deleted in a 2008 AfD. I suggest WP:SALT if this is deleted again. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to locate any significant coverage for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transient (acoustics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it describes a term which is a misnomer for the phenomenon it describes. It's a misnomer that is occasionally used but not common enough to have notability. There are also no reliable sources or references Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect. I don't care which, so long as it's a good redirect if that's the decision. I couldn't find an entirely satisfactory redirect target when I looked before [15], but happy to be proven wrong there. This is a common term for a widely discussed phenomenon (almost six million ghits, and 22 incoming links from other English Wikipedia articles, see article talk), and we need an article describing the phenomenon somewhere, and a means for people searching for this information using this term (however wrongly) to find it. And I am doing some work on the refs, watch progress there. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is jargon, but I'm not really sure it is a misnomer. Using it for the attack phase is perhaps wrong, but a transient signal is a real life occurrence. He writes, while coughing. Greglocock (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A transient is indeed a real life occurance, but the point is what this article is describing isn't a transient. it's a bit like describing a bicycle as a car. Vexorg (talk)

More like describing a Vespa as a Moped, really. But seriously, this term is very broadly used (possibly even the most commonly used) term for an acoustical phenomenon. If there are reliable sources that discuss this use as misnomer (rather than an alternate definition, as noted over at Wiktionary), then they should be included in the article. Deletion is not the correct action for a common misnomer. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - it certainly is a misnomer. The article also has no reliable sources and the editor who is adamant on keeping this article cannot find any. the phenomenon which the misnomer 'transient' is applied to does not just occur in acoustics either it occurs in electrical signals too. the whole article is erroneous on several levels Vexorg (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment very unusual to see the nominator casting a 'vote' in an AFD. Greglocock (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It happens all the time. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'm the editor who is adamant on keeping this article, as I'm the one who requested that it be restored after it was PRODed a while ago, leaving a stack of redlinks. I also posted a heads-up to those involved in the PROD, one of whom then immediately re-proposed it for PROD and has now posted this AfD. No objections to that, but I do rather object to the claim that I cannot find any reliable sources. I've posted one, and I see that there's now another from another contributor (thank you). What we are lacking, however, is any source for the claim that this is a misnomer. I trust this will be corrected. Andrewa (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are the editor that is adamant in keeping this article. While we all know that some people so use the term 'transient' for an attack portion of an audio signal, we all know ( including you ) know that the term is a misnomer when applied in this case. The inclusion of reliable sources is irrelevant as there are always people with the mentality that would fight for an article claiming the Sun is made out of dark chocolate if they found enough reliable sources. just becuase Wikipedia's guidelines are flawed it doesn't mean one has to follow them like an automaton. It's your choice. You can either follow the flawed Wikipedia guidelines or you can think for yourself and help create an Encyclopaedia that has better value for humanity. Your conscious. nothing ever got improved by herd mentality. :) Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is (by your own admission) used, and if there are (as in this case) some reliable sources, then the article should be kept. "We all know that the term is a misnomer" - in that case, what you should do is discuss on the article's talk page what the correct term should be, and move the article according to the consensus to the correct title, or reach a consensus on the article's page on the correct meaning for the term - in either case, deletion is not the correct approach to this editing disagreement. If you can find reliable sources which indicate that this is indeed a misnomer, then provide them and we can add that verifiable information to the article.

As to your disagreement with the consensually-agreed reliable sources criteria... you have two choices, from what I can see - either start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability and get the consensus changed, or start your own wiki- or other-based encyclopedia, with your criteria for inclusion! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term adamant might be more correctly applied to yourself. I've sought consensus, for example by advising you and the other supporter of the first PROD that a restore was requested [16] [17] which I did not need to do, and offered several options including dropping the whole idea of undeletion [18]. You on the other hand seem to shift ground, for example going from demanding sources and claiming I can't find any to now saying they're irrelevant and that you can but won't because you don't need to, and there is worse on the article talk page (where I am allegedly obsessive [19]). Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Added a cite from the handbook of acoustics, and several more reliable sources appear to be available. As near as I can tell, this is better defined as an alternate definition of the term than a misnomer. Even if incorrect, it appears to be a notable misnomer. If there is a more appropriate term for a short duration sound, then the place for that discussion would be the article talk page. Incidentally, the military sonar term appears essentially unrelated and probably should be split into another article. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Common term in audio compression/processing. Do a Google Scholar search for transient audio compression algorithm. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom really. Standard case of a technical article being created before it has done anything in the field. It will quite possibly be recreated when he makes it debuts on loan somewhere like the new iPhone next season but for now no professional contracts means back to the main article Sonarclawz (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Que? Greglocock (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was worth creating this proposed deletion entry just to hear the name Greglocock. May I extend my fullest respect for your comedy genius! Vexorg (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No, the nom really wants this deleted, not merged, deleted and nothing else will do. This is their third try (the first PROD succeeded, I'm puzzled that the 22 incoming links didn't alert anyone that there was something going on, but there you are). There has been no willingness to consider creating a meaningful redirect, just the opposite, the reaction to my attempt was to delete its target paragraph [20] (which I hadn't created, it was already there). Nom wants to change Wikipedia and the world, see Talk:Transient (acoustics). No argument with any of that, it's just that here ain't the place. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• reply LMFAO at being accused of wanting to change Wikipedia and the world. Wikipedia is indeed flawed, but just goign along with those flaws in an automaton manner is even more flawed. Vexorg (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is, a merge and redirect isn't a useful compromise, because it doesn't address the issues which are the reason for this AfD. Is that a fair statement? If it's not, then perhaps we can work out a strong consensus after all, one that you can support. That's the best outcome, in all ways: It satisfies everyone, and more important, it's likely to be the most encyclopedic outcome too. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references now in the article are sufficient to justify keeping this article, although I'll concede that more references are needed. If this is indeed a misnomer, I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if some reliable independent sources verifying that to be the case can be provided. In that case, a redirect or merge might be more appropriate, but failing the provision of such verification, this article should be kept. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. Not even sure that it is a misnomer. Greglocock (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? You've already "voted" above, and made the same point. Or am I missing something? Nom is clearly the only one who favours deletion at this point, so maybe it's not all that important. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it is a misnomer, explain in the article, with sources. It's used enough that people will want information DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC) �[reply]

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

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

The result was close as speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacie Porilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Almost certainly a WP:HOAX. Unreferenced, and not a single mention of her online, let alone any WP:Reliable sources in English or Spanish to support any of the claims made for notability. Article's creator has a history of disruptive editing. Scopecreep (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed !vote attempting to impersonate. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a hoax The images are of Paulina Goto. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, thank you. Now tagged db-hoax. Scopecreep (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shiatsu. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equine Shiatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable topic. I propose that this article should be merged into Shiatsu - possibly a short note to say that some practitioners have adapted Shiatsu for use on non-human animals including horses. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It's Shiatsu on horses. One sentence in the Shiatsu article saying it can be done on horses should cover it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per nominator and Aircorn. There is not enough significant coverage found for a separate article, but enough to suggest it might be a search term. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Lawks a mercy, whatever next.TheLongTone (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (first choice) or merge Definitely doesn't need its own article as such an obscure topic but I'm not even sure it belongs in the main article due to the lack of secondary sources. SÆdon^talk 01:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Family_Guy_characters#Bruce. Protecting for a week, if it gets reverted after that then it will be longer Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

non notable minor character, never a major or important role in any episode and has more then enough coverage at List_of_Family_Guy_characters#Bruce. User:JohnnyLurg keeps readding the page with no edit summary and ignores my query on his/her talk page. CTJF83 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, especially while the only source provided is a wiki. If the article is retained then that will need to be dealt with in any case. Doniago (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability. No subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect since that's what the nominator actually seems to want, rather than deletion, and that is more in line with WP:ATD anyways. While the redirect may not be terribly useful, it strikes me as a reasonable search term for someone who's familiar with our naming conventions, and it's easier for licensing and whatnot just to keep the redirect protected with appropriate contributions visible in the edit history. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect as not-notable. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect We should have a redirect for a named character in a major show. We can protect if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect as not-notable and yet a named character. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Our Version of Events. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Kind of Love (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 song, article is almost entirely WP:OR, no sources, bad formatting (e.g. WP:CAPS). A UK chart placing of #178 does not assert notability as far as I can see. - eo (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I've notified the original creator of the article (User:Bachmannlover) about this AfD. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I have a half belief that the content in the article is verifiable, and a couple sources came up through gnews. But I can't really find a clear keep argument. {{underconstruction}} has been placed, so lets wait to see if some reliable, significant coverage comes through the creator soon. Tag the article as well. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is the upcoming single from Sande - so it is a notable song. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Version_of_Events for the release as the fourth single and music video. http://www.radio1.gr/music/forthcoming_uk_singles.htm for the release as a forthcoming single. --User:Bachmannlover

• Redirect for now to Our Version of Events, the song's parent album. Per WP:NSONGS, songs that can't support an individual article "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist." The single has not yet been released, but the title is a reasonable search term, so I favor a redirect until in-depth material on the song surfaces.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Sounds good, I second this proposal. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: - Is it really not released yet? It says so in the article: "While many media outlets expected 'Where I Sleep' to be the fourth single, 'My Kind Of Love' was released as the fourth single." And the use of past tense in the section "Background and Composition". Which contradicts the "it will be released" in the lead. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not completely sure, but from what I can find, I don't think it's been released. There's a blurb from three weeks ago on a fansite stating that "My Kind of Love" was chosen as her next single. Around that same time, it was reported that she is shooting a video for the song. But I can't find anything about a specific release date. Knowing that would obviously be helpful, but whether it's already been released as a single or not, there's also the issue of an apparent lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. All of this together suggests that it's probably a bit too soon for an article.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song hasn't even been announced as a single yet. --ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍºᵀᴬᴸᴷ 09:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Striking vote from blocked sock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, #178 isn't much, and no sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, a website for a greek radio station will never be considered a reliable source for uk singles releases. 77.101.49.156 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Unnecessary content fork that is merely copy-pasted from the university article, with no indication of how this subject is independently notable. Additionally, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination for deletion and recommended a redirect, making this articles for deletion discussion moot. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PUP Pylon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Proposing to merge with Polytechnic University of the Philippines as the article in question is very short and may be non-notable at that, thus it does not warrant a separate article of its own. Article has already been tagged with a WP:PROD in the past. I just checked the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and seeing as the article in question has its content copy-pasted beforehand, I propose to just redirect the article to the main PUP one. Xeltran (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have, of course, ignored the SPAs who offered no new perspective on the issue Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Vedat Akman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF (neither of the two journals of which he is editor is notable itself)" (both journals are now also at AfD), dePRODded without any stated reason. In the absence of evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note See also the related AfDs for EMAJ and CINEJ. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is the TV/media stuff more "notable" than the academic stuff? This stuff: [21] (Msrasnw (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment BEA TV seems to be a TV station associated with the university where Akman works. In addition, the "reference" for his involvement with this TV station is a program page that does not even mention him. Searching that web site for "Vedat Akman" does not give any hits. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy of relevant discussion from article talk page:

• BEA TV is a channel associated with the university where Akman works. Searching their site for "Vedat Akman" does not give a single hit. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tick the name of the program "Türkiye 2023" you are ticking the wrong phrase also Maxihaber is not associated with either BEA TV or Beykent University. The Foundation that owns Beykent University also the owner of the BEA TV but they are separate legal identities and totaly separated from each other. So please search before making assumption or talk to someone that knows the region. Thanks. --ozkazanci (talk)

• It seems to me there is evidence of his hosting the programme - Türkiye 2023 ( [22] and [23] and more...), but I am not clear what the status (viewing figures and the like) of this programme - TV channel are or indeed of the source: maxihaber. If it is anything like a national channel with viewing figures in the 100s of thousands then this would seem it might be enough for notability but we have the suggestion that it is the only cultural and educational channel (like the PBS in USA) in Turkey. Can anyone help with providing sources about this? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Maxihaber again is not associated with either BEA TV or Beykent University. Maxihaber is an independent online newspaper check the owners please... Celik Foundation that owns Beykent University also the owner of the BEA TV but they are separate legal identities and totaly separated from each other. So please again search before making assumption or talk to someone that knows the region. I know it is difficult to chase all the details but truth lies in them. Thanks. --ozkazanci (talk)

• This and this suggests that it is a campus-wide TV channel, not a nation-wide one. This suggests that there is a link between the university, BEA TV, and maxihaber, making it a non-independent source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• please check your facts if interested. Your info's are not correct. they are not related. Especially Maxihaber is owned by a totally different owner no association what so ever... read above my explanation please. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Part of a walled garden of articles probably created by Vedat Akman himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. Vedat Akman is working on BEA TV which Beykent University's tv channel (educational channel). He have 27 book and too many social responsibility projects. --Alenbohcelyan (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Don't Delete. He is currently full-time faculty at Beykent University/Istanbul. He is a respected academician and person. --beykenthoca (talk) — beykenthoca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. Just a reminder as CAVEATS to guideliness (wikipedia) 1.Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field... 2.An academic who is not notable by these guidelines could still be notable for non-academic reasons... Just as a point he is good for criteria 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity... --beykenthoca (talk) — beykenthoca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.248.168 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — 85.97.248.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment You are right that an academic can be notable without meeting WP:PROF. Akman does not meet WP:PROF, but could meet WP:GNG and that would make him notable. The only claim for that, however, are his TV appearance(s). To accept that as anything substantial, though, I'd like to see better independent sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi again, well forexample his books helped visually disabled(recorded)at Library for the Visually Disabled of Turkey(link to recording http://www.turgok.org/kitaplar/1335), Assistive Technology and Education Lab. for Individuals with Visual Diabilities (recording of the book link: http://www.getem.boun.edu.tr/subDetails.asp?ID=9418) He donates earnings from his books to charities such as Theodora Foundation (http://www.theodora.org/TUR/en/100-TUR-en.html) Theodora Foundation is to help ease the suffering of children in hospitals by helping them laugh and have fun. ("Gercek Basari Oykuleri II" Book By him which tells the story of Theodora Foundation as well, the book's copyright fees is being donated to Theodora Foundation-Turkey)... Forexample BEA TV that he appears is an national TV actually the only cultural and educational channel (like the PBS in USA) belonging to Beykent University which he emphasises on social responsibility and education in his programs... like that well if you look deeper you will see a lot of that… He is involved in many social responsibility projects which he does not advertise around... Thank you. --beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Don't Delete. He a respected academician and person here, could meet WP:GNG he is well known and respected here . --sitkisonmezer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment He is highly rated among university students as well a popular rating site for faculty members pls. look at http://www.hocalarim.com ... rated very highly there 2nd place among thousands by votes http://www.hocalarim.com/?act=hoca&id=37597 --sitkisonmezer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC). — sitkisonmezer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment To the above SPA comments: you're confusing "notability" with "good" or "worthy" or something like that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment . http://www.prmia.org/events/view_events.php?eventID=4940 keynote speaker there… look at the speakers from IMF, Moodys Worldbank. -- dmboatis (talk)

• Don't Delete. If someone worthy and good but not notable with all his accomplishment what more? Oscar or Nobel price? Wiki clearly states there are exceptions and exceptional people like that… http://web.ebscohost.com.library.neu.edu.tr/cgi-bin/koha/opac-MARCdetail.pl?bib=82714&author=Akman,%20Vedat,%20%20&title=T%C3%BCrkiye EBSCO listed reliable source. -- dmboatis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC). — dmboatis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Response to above two comments: Publishing is what academics do and so is speaking at conferences. Unless this is somehow noted by independent reliable sources, that does nto contribute to notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to your response I checked the link you put on reliability it say "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. " so my question is you dont find Pittsburgh University or Pittsburgh University Press reliable ??? It is a highly ranked research university or do you have a different opinion about reliability because if we consider the link you gave for reliability if Pittsburgh University is not than Who, Which ??? I am really confused about where this is going... I am a first time user so please excuse me. Thank you. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC). — ozkazanci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment PUP is a reliable source and it confirms that the journals exist. Now all that needs to be established is that the journals are also notable and meet either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In my view there is insufficient evidence to pass either WP:Prof or more general notability requirements. The status of his TV work, which I suspect might be the best route, has not been shown to be sufficiently notable by independent reliable sources. (I note the Turkish WP article has been blanked for copyright issues) (Msrasnw (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

PS: The Turkish site has the following explanantion for blanking the article:(Genel 9 - Telif hakkı ihlali yaratan sayfa: https://vedatakman.com/?lng=tr)

• Don't Delete well let me explain how Turkish vikipedia works (it is called viki rather than wiki) editors there can delete an article without openning discussion and usually you dont even get a response or explanation as to why. You will not see the detailed discussion like here so no loss there for him... well again here at wiki terms and expressions are used personally and making generalisations and assumptions very common unfortunately... As a first time user that is what I noticed immediately reading above... Forexample did you see an explanation as to why with specific reasons ? You will not see because viki in Turkey works quite different way you can delete without any reason editors view is enough... Who are they and What makes them expert ??? So when you say copyright issues you are directing in the wrong direction and what copyright issues can you tell or do you know ? Certainly sounds so wrong the way you emphasize it like he did something wrong ??? Probably who ever prepared the page used a link or used guys personal website for info something like that most commonly... Here at wiki a lot of opinions without proper explanations, points or feedback... Plus no action to improve really just criticism it sounds. Always asking for independent reliable sources which sounds fine but who sets the standard because it seems everyone has different set of standards and agenda there... What reliable or independent to ones not to the other and so on. Also different cultures have quite different perceptions , standards and way of look... So what happen to flexibility, understanding, inter-cultural dialogue and exceptions that wiki expresses in its rules... Himmm realy lets be reasonable please... sometimes it sounds more like an accusation than opinion or generalization rather than assumption... Thank you. (ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Some questions - answers to which might help: can we provide any evidence that Vedat Akman's academic work is notable according to our WP:Prof criteria? Is it well cited or reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources? Is the TV show a "notable" show? Is it a nationally broadcast show with many viewers (What kind of channel is BEA TV - is it like PBS in the US) and do we have any evidence of this from reliable sources? What is maxihaber? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Some answers - Pittsburgh University Press is as reliable as Cambridge Press (look at the university ratings) that should clearify notability as well because he is the editor in chief and founder of two journals there... TV show is broadcasted on cable D Smart 245 very popular well known nationwide cable network and program is available on Setallite nationwide TurkSat (it is not a university campus tv channel) you can look at the frequency detail on tvs web.... Maxihaber is an independent online sectorial newspaper very popular especial with IT firms. Well again all sources are in Turkish so you need to speak Turkish to really to verify but if you like I can post you Turkish links there are many... Plus this not his first TV programs he did programs with Channel E Turkey's first Business channel sold later and became CNBC-E, he had program on TV8, Karadeniz TV which are national tv channels... hope this answers question. Thanks. (ozkazanci (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Again: PUP being reliable confirms that the journals exist, but does not contribute in the least to notability. And entities don't need to be owned by the same organisation in order to be (in)dependent. If Akman is so notable/beloved/well-known as you say, then it should be much easier to dig up reliable sources showing this than apparently is the case. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is: it is easy to show if you have spoken Turkish because most sources here are in Turkish. English speaking population or publications not much here yet. All general information is available in Turkish. If you are interested I can post the Turkish links selectively... but what you are saying about entities being not needing to be owned by same owner to be in(dependent) very suspicious and shows you dont trust even the basic facts which you can also check yourself if you dont believe others points... Owner in Turkish is "Sahibi" you can look on internet but what I said is the fact so I am very confident you will find the same answer I gave earlier. Trust seems to be a real issue here and being on the side of proving everything for some reason is not easy task I thought we share points and check them ourselves and if we dont understand something we ask but it is like prove this, prove that and than prove more I wish I was a lawyer but I am not and I dont think this person needs one either. I stated my opinion about him which is positive. If you dont agree I respect it but the level and expectations about the discussion should be on reasonable boundries please. Thanks.

(ozkazanci (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.183.2 (talk) [reply]

• Comment I have finally lost my patience and filed a sockpuppet report. Note that the last edit was made by an IP tracing to the very university where Vedat Akman works. I have given many responses and pointed several times to the applicable policies above and am done responding to all these SPAs. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again this university uses a single link out (there is no individual links attached) so it is collagues or students who knows and I am his friend from university and I am writing from the University. All you need to do was ask. If you are interested I also work here. I admire his work and him as well as most of his collugues and students do too. Thanks.(ozkazanci (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.183.2 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, I am asst. Prof. Sitki S. From Beykent University. I lost my password so I continued with this nickname previously it was sitkisonmezer. I did not start this page or any other pages. I only became a user to support a friend (I learned recently from a collague of his nomination) whom I sincerely believe deserves recognition. I am writing this message from our Taksim Campus location we have 3 campuses. Unfortunately I find the privacy issue very questionable at wiki and I value my privacy so my wiki days are over. The enviroment here is very hostile and unsupportive. I wish you luck with your investigation. I am completing my discussion here and other related pages as well. Best wishes. Sitki S.(ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Reply: My view is Turkish sources can be fine - and in any case Google translate can be used to help those of us who can't read Turkish - but the key thing is the sources need to be reliable and indicate notability. I think we don't have these in the article yet. On the TV channel I think, as I argued before, it might have been useful to have some verifiable indication of the notable nature of this channel earlier. On the journal I think it is not yet wp notable as it is too new and is not yet well enough established with it not yet being well cited and the like. If there were to have been proper sourcing to indicate that he was nationally notable via the TV channel it is far more likely there would not have been a problem with this article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)) PS: Nicely sourced articles on the TV channel and maxihaber might be nice! I have already look at doing this myself but I couldn't find much to do it.[reply]

• Reply:Hi, I am asst. Prof. Sitki S. From Beykent University. I lost my password so I continued with this nickname previously it was sitkisonmezer. I did not start this page or any other. I only became a user to support a friend (I learned recently from a collague of his nomination) whom I sincerely believe deserves recognition. I am writing this message from our Taksim Campus location we have 3 campuses. I thought a proper introduction is necessary since there is a privacy issue here at wiki. I am very very uncomfortable as a first time user. The environment is very hostile to first timers. Actually I wish my friend was not nominated at all. Again thank you for the question. The answer to your question I think lies in this link where you can find a lot of press cillipings https://vedatakman.com/basinda.php please further down to pass maxihaber news clips there is a lot there (jpeg) downloadable… Well so much for supporting him. Unfortunately I find the privacy issue very questionable at wiki and I value privacy so my wiki days are over I am completing my discussion here and other related pages as well. But I thank you for decent questions and a chance to at least answer. Goodbye. Best wishes. Sitki S.

Ps. He is also the founder and honorary president of JCI İstanbul Crossroads International Film Festival which is at its 7th year now. http://www.jciistanbulcrossroads.com/eng-2011.asp this years winning film was fantastic. I found this link on internet but probably someone will cancel that too so before that happens please look at the history of the festival. It is a great event last year winners came from France. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads_Uluslararas%C4%B1_K%C4%B1sa_Film_Festivali Bye. (ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• I am sorry that you feel this way, but the sockpuppet investigation did show that you had been using two different usernames (and you !voted with both, a big no-no here; somebody else also used two usernames, but !voted only with one; in any case, it seems that the sockpuppet accusation was not completely unfounded). I have been trying as much as possible to point you and your friends towards the applicable policies and guidelines. You might also benefit from a look at the lists of deletion discussions linked above, just below the nomination, to get an idea how debates like this are done and what argument carry weight and which ones don't. As for your privacy concerns, if you had used just 1 alias and had not edited when not signed in (so that your IP was visible to all), there would not have been any problem. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable by our standards (PROF and GNG). Guillaume, I thought about closing that SPI but it's too complicated for me--as you know I'm in Liberal Arts so you can't ask too much. Good luck with it though. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks to me more and more like an vanity piece. BO; talk 17:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

CINEJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without stated reason, but with addition of two non-selective databases. Hence, PROD reason still holds: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note See also the related AfDs for EMAJ and Vedat Akman. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part of a walled garden of articles probably created by Vedat Akman himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. There are too many articles in Wikipedia about journals like that. In these article have so many reference. I think it don't need delete. User talk:Bir Miktar Bilgi —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC). — Bir Miktar Bilgi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a policy-based argument. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete. I think you need this informations. --Alenbohcelyan (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of these databases really is selective, so being included in them is not really a distinction and does nothing to meet WP:NJournals (and even less to meet WP:GNG). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete. Just look at the Peer Review Board, it is the best in the field. --beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC). — beykenthoca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Perhaps, but notability is not inherited. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please consider some caveats to guidelines announced at proper wiki page on the topic which states " 1.Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field... " Thank you. --beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Absolutely correct. But you give not a single argument as to why this particular journal would be an exception. There is not a shred of evidence that any of the (few) articles published by this journal has made any measurable impact yet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As much as I know CINEJ collaborated with important project such as BREAKING THE STEREOTYPE with Dr. Veronika Bernard (University of Innsbruck/ Austria) and set up conferences together in Italy /Rome, Turkey/Istanbul, and Austria/ Vienna and published a conference book together as well. Also collaborated with National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty, Rome/ Italy on the same Project. CINEJ seem to appear in incredible organizations around the world. These people are so dedicated and a chance would be great, I hope… Thank you.--beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Don't Delete. I trust publications supported and published by Pittsburgh University which is a highly decorated research university in USA. This journal is also listed under publications by Pittsburgh University Library System Pittsburgh wikipedia page too... Thank you. --sitkisonmezer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC). — sitkisonmezer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Don't Deletehttp://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9539599 CINEJ at Stanford notable? ; http://www.sub.uni-hamburg.de/recherche/elektronische-zeitschriften/detail/titel/179551.html Hamburg Germany and http://www.uu.nl/hum/staff/QHan/0 her article recently published with CINEJ … http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/4651136 CINEJ Hong Kong ... http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/fah-coverage.pdf EBSCOHOST CINEJ -- Dmboatis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC). — Dmboatis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Yep, the journal exists, it's available for free on the web and so libraries will include a link on their websites. Sorry, but that is nothing out of the ordinary and absolutely not a sign of notability in the WP sense. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Noppp, no of course not... libraries are selective in their collections mostly if have agreement with EBSCO or Worldcat which are expensive listings and services they may choose from their collections because of their membership still even than libraries are selective and certainly they dont put everything that is free on their collections please look more carefully... it seems it is very common at wiki making assumptions... --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC). — ozkazanci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Not really. Linking to an OA journal basically costs nothing. For books we sometimes take library holdings as an indication of notability. Generally, hundreds of holdings are needed for that, anything less will not do it. So adding a smattering of library holdings to the article on this journal really does not do much towards establishing notability (and even less so because it actually doesn't cost anything to do so). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to your response... please look at the link on reliability at wiki which states "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. " so my question is you dont find Pittsburgh University or Pittsburgh University Press reliable ??? It is a highly ranked research university or do you have a different opinion about reliability because if we consider the link you gave for reliability if Pittsburgh University is not than Who, Which ??? I am really confused about where this is going again... Thank you. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Yes, I think PUP is reliable and their website confirms that the journal exists. But existing is not enough for notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark...Hi, I am asst. Prof. Sitki S. From Beykent University. I lost my password so I continued with this nickname previously it was sitkisonmezer. For the record, sorry for any confusion. I am writing this message from our Taksim Campus location we have 3 campuses. I reside in Ayazaga Campus usually... Unfortunately, I find wiki very difficult for first timers. I feel very uncomfortable... I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the future of CINEJ and EMAJ which I both support but I think I should complete my discussion on all pages because I really said all there is to say. Thank you. Best wishes. Sitki S--ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per Guillaume BO; talk 17:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Not yet notable by our current standards. I note that only one regular issue and one special issue have been published, and this is not enough to show the journal will become established.

But with respect to some of the arguments: I think library holdings are very relevant for open access ejournals, and I think I can prove it. As a librarian, I would not --and never did --add free material to the catalog unless there was good reason. It takes actual work to add anything to the catalog, & continuing work to keep it up to date, and an academic library does not aim at facilitating access to worthless material, even free worthless material. In fact, since the faculty don't need the library to buy Open access journals, even if the faculty want the journals, there won't be many requests to catalog them. For example, look at this very title: Examining WorldCat for library holdings, I see it's cataloged by only 3 US libraries Viginia Commonwealth, Iowa and Stanford. (Were what Guillaume2303 said correct, we would expect hundreds of US holdings). The traditionally best film schools, NYU and UCLA, don't list it.

As for listing by Ebsco, they have very liberal standards, since the large number of journals to which they provide full text access is a selling point, but they also want to maintain a serious reputation. And even DOAJ, which wants to promote OA publishing, has at least minimal standards, since they want to promote the idea that OA ejournals are a respectable mode of publication.

Judging the journal by library criteria, I'd wait for another issue. The editorial board is from a limited range of universities, and so are the contributors (in fact, they're from mostly the same universities--quite common, since the usual way to get good people to contribute to a new journal, is to offer to add them to the editorial board, and then ask them to help by contributing an article.) The journal has the sanction of a good university press, but in a special project. The rules of the project seem demanding. According to its web site, their "Selection Criteria: We are seeking partners who: Ensure quality through a rigorous peer-review process; Support Open Access to scholarly research; Are supported by an internationally recognized editorial board; Possess the staff resources needed to ensure timely publication; Solicit new original scholarly research through an open call for papers; Practice selectivity regarding published content. All of our peer-reviewed journals are also published in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh Press. "[24] I think this is sufficient to differentiate them from the sort or irresponsible e-journal publishing that is unfortunately become so common. But as far as I can tell none of the journals are yet established, and only Études Ricœuriennes / Ricœur Studies has a truly first rate representative editorial board.

Personally, I would support a more common-sense view of any journal notability--I think our standard of requiring indexing in a major selective index is overly rigorous, and we would do better to consider any journal published by a reputable scientific publisher or university or notable society as notable if it has actually published an issue. But I don't think that currently has consensus. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

EMAJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without reason given, but with the addition of some non-selective indexes. hence, PROD reason still stands: Delete Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note See also the related AfDs for CINEJ and Vedat Akman. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part of a walled garden of articles probably created by Vedat Akman himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete check this informations. --Alenbohcelyan (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review.

• Don't Delete. It is recenly accepted to be listed in Cabell’s Directory as well. --beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC). — beykenthoca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment on the two above !votes: even if the journal would be accepted by all the databases where it currently is under review, it still would not meet WP:NJournals: none of these databases is a major and selective one. Cabell's, DOAJ, Journalseek, OCLC, etc all basically try to be as inclusive as possible. This is all way too soon. Wait a few years until the journal has had time to establish itself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just a few more points EMAJ neither CINEJ are citiation index journals but they are peer-reviewed semiannual indexed journals published by a very reputable research university in USA and listed with indexes such as EBSCOHOST, CABELL'S Directory (recently accepted) which are well known indexes. These journals are part of OJS system which is the same concept wikipedia uses... Because they are free does not make them un-exclusive ??? I don't recall wikipedia listing about which is exclusive or major and selective ??? if there is such a list by Wikipedia please direct me too it so all scientific community can benefit from it. But you make it sound like your point is absolute like there is such a list with wikipedia that cleary states which indexes are so... Major and selective according to you or is there a list which clearly states EBSCOHOST or DOAJ or CABELLS and many others are not ??? Please dont make your opions sound so binding on all scientific community or wiki... --beykenthoca (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.248.168 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to clarify more there is also a lot of criticism on those what you call exclusive indexes (mostly citation) because it has become a big business... that is why we chose to start and stay with OJS Open Journal System its free and available to all like wikipedia plus our journals are published with one of the leading research universities Pittsburgh University Library System (supporter of OJS)and Pittsburgh Press which we are very proud to work with--beykenthoca (talk)
• Comment And also have any one looked at the Peer-review Board ??? I think that will tell a lot about the quality of the journals.--beykenthoca (talk)
• Comment please consider some caveats to guidelines announced at proper wiki page on the topic which states " 1.Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field... " Thank you. .--beykenthoca (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.248.168 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point, there is no evidence at all that any article published by EMAJ has made any impact at all. And some selective and widely accepted databases are the Social Sciences Citation Index (including many business and management journals) or Scopus. There are many more and using them to assess the notability of a journal is unconroversial among participants in the Wikiproject Academic Journals. Outside of that project, their use is not always accepted, but people that don't accept inclusion in the SSCI as indicating notability will not accept any indexing (and certainly not trivial ones like DOAJ) as evidence of notability. But if you can show that EMAJ meets WP:GNG, that would be sufficient, too (but in my experience, very few journals clear that bar). At this point, EMAJ clearly fails both NJournals and GNG and you have not provided any reason why this particular journal should be an exception to all that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As much as I know EMAJ collaborated with important organizations such as Institute for International Research (IIR), International Strategic Management Conference (ISMC) and International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management (ICLTIM) and received papers from them plus conference proceedings from these organizations were also published by Elsevier in its “Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences” publication, which is indexed by the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) of Thomson Reuters as well. President of the Conference and some board members of ISMC are also with the editorial team of EMAJ too. Well they are very active people in the scientific community. EMAJ team is really very solid and EMAJ deserves a chance…--beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Notability is not inherited, so regardless how notable and important the organizations that EMAJ collaborates with, that does not show that EMAJ itself is notable. Nobody wants to deny EMAJ a chance. If it is as good and important as you say, then it will soon be recognized as such by many higly-cited articles, good independent sources, inclusion in selective databases, etc. As soon as that happens, we can write an article about it here on WP. But just now, we need a crystal ball to see whether or not this new journal will succeed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete. look at Social Science Research Center Berlin link http://www.wzb.eu/en/library/collections-search/e-journals?page=detail.phtml&bibid=WZB&colors=3&lang=en&jour_id=179553 good articles get published there and get citation by others and it creates scientific productivity...I have an article published there as well. The success of journals like EMAJ also depends on our support and trust. Nothing in life is cystal and certainly I wish I had a crystal ball too. This journal is published by Pittsburgh University which is a highly recommended research university in USA. I think it has future --sitkisonmezer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC). — sitkisonmezer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Don't Delete. http://www.prmia.org/events/view_events.php?eventID=4940 keynote speaker their proceedings will be published with EMAJ… look at the speakers from IMF, Moodys Worldbank --thezibidi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC). — thezibidi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Remark... I must say it here too, please look at the link on reliability at wiki which states "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. " so my point is Pittsburgh University or Pittsburgh University Press is reliable as well may be more... It is a highly ranked research university or do you have a different opinion about reliability because if Pittsburgh University is not than What ??? where is this discussion going just look at the wiki pages on related points it clearly states that there are exceptions to rules requests felixibility and commonsense and being reasonable... criticism is good but needs to be constructive also please. Thank you. --ozkazanci (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — ozkazanci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• And I say it here, too: the PUP site confirms that the journal exists, which is not the same thing as conferring notability. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark...Hi, I am asst. Prof. Sitki S. From Beykent University. I lost my password so I continued with this nickname previously it was sitkisonmezer. For the record, sorry for any confusion. I am writing this message from our Taksim Campus location we have 3 campuses. I reside in Ayazaga Campus usually... Unfortunately, I find wiki very difficult for first timers. I feel very uncomfortable... I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the future of EMAJ and CINEJ which I both support but I think I should complete my discussion on all pages because I really said all there is to say. Thank you. Best wishes. Sitki S.--ozkazanci (talk)
• Delete per Guillaume, basically. The "Abstracting and indexing" section is a pretty blatant and unsuccessful attempt at academic plugging. Some of the entries are basically library holdings, and this--really, this is supposed to make it notable? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guillaume BO; talk 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as in my comment for CINEJ. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crowd funding. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdraising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This seems to be a neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. I'm not finding in-depth coverage for this term.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Crowd funding. More or less the same thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to crowd funding. There is no sourced content to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – New editor Kfairhurst made a few edits to crowd funding, then started crowdraising and crowdcapital with screed-y hype, as well as cut-n-pasting verbose observations on the associated Talk pages. I merged crowdcapital for expediency, but simply redirecting seems fine absent support for value of content. ENeville (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Whpq and ENeville. Lord Roem (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. While it may seem appropriate to redirect to crowd funding as they are essentially the same thing, the fact that the term "crowdraising" is not a widespread term itself, as a quick search demonstrates absolutely no hits using the term in this manner, it would be far more appropriate to just delete this outright than to keep it as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyoulster United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No indication of meeting football notability criteria or general notability. Only source is the club website. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. They have played in the FAI Intermediate Cup but have not qualified for FAI Cup. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to List of terrorist incidents, 2012. While there isn't strong agreement in the discussion below when you look at the bolded votes, there does seem to be strong agreement within the discussions that this article diverges significantly from the format and inclusion criteria of the dozens of articles covering 1970-2010, for no particular reason. Deleting the article wouldn't accomplish much, as it contains a lot of information which does fit the long-standing inclusion criteria. I'll move this article over the redirect at List of terrorist incidents, 2012, and I'd encourage interested editors to remove entries which do not fit the long-standing inclusion criteria in the 1970-2010 articles. I'd also encourage the same work to be boldly done on the two 2011 articles. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" has developed into a score card for those committing non-encyclopedic mayhem to keep track of and coordinate their efforts via Wikipedia. The entries include a variety of motives, (political, criminal or other unknown), a variety of actors (state or non-state), and a variety of incident types (conflicts and attack) so long as the incident involved the use of a weapon (armed). This is contrary to the long-accepted inclusion criteria listed at List of terrorist incidents. Moreover, the list alters the 1970-2010 pattern of stand-alone sub-articles developed for the "List of Terrorist Incidents" topic (See the older articles linked from Template:List of Terrorist Incidents). In addition, "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" misappropriated the {{List of Terrorist Incidents}} template so that List of terrorist incidents readers are brought to the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012." While the "List of terrorist incidents" topic generally was found to provide encyclopedic information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents, the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" goes well outside of encyclopedic information. "List of Terrorist Incidents" and its related 1970-2010 articles have long term consensus. "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" exceeds the scope of the long consensus developed in connection with "List of Terrorist Incidents". The article should be deleted. As for redirecting to List of terrorist incidents, 2012, the creator of the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" page,[25] User:X17:2l, is blocked indefinately as being a sock puppet. In this case, it may be better to delete and wait for an editor in good standing to create the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No policy-based argument for deletion. If some content should be deleted, then edit the article, but some of this is valid content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This strikes me as a POV-skewed list — where is the March 11, 2012 incident involving US soldier Robert Bales, in which he allegedly made an "armed attack" that killed 17 Afghan civilians? We have every car bomb, IED, grenade by Arabs or Afghans or Muslims around the world — but not one single American drone attack? Hmmmm. So we might legitimately say this is an indiscriminate and uncompletable list, or we might say that it's a POV exercise disguised as general information... Does that mean it should be deleted? Not necessarily. But my backhair is up, for sure... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and get the other two, too. These three are POV forks of List of terrorist incidents, 2011 and List of terrorist incidents, 2012. The "armed conflicts and attacks" articles have substantially less well-defined inclusion criteria (what is an "armed attack"?), do not follow the consensus system of presenting terrorism information, and differ from the "terrorist incidents" articles primarily in including US drone strikes (such that they were reachable via Template:List of Terrorist Incidents). Regardless of the outcome of this AFD, however, I have boldly edited that template to direct readers to the "terrorist incidents" article for 2011, in line with the other 30+ articles in the series. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amended my comment. I'd somehow managed to reference only the 2011 ones despite the 2012 one being the actual article at play here; there are 3 of these in total. My justification still stands, copyedits made to reflect the real count. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of terrorist incidents in 2012 (and all those other lists with commas instead of "in"). The current contents don't match the unacceptably broad criteria: any armed non-military attacker anywhere for any reason. Then, delete the mentally ill gent with the baseball bat. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename & Shorten:I am one of the people who edits this article and have been doing it for at least half a year now. Last year I just used the shorter '2011 terrorist incidents' one but somehow this year this split in two and I decided to use that one. I live in Europe and have a purely personal interest in international politics and modern terrorism in general - so I would agree that the R. Bates attack could be included here, as well as various drone incidents. However some drone attacks are included and then later removed by other accounts... I suggest we rename the article and shorten it substantially to involve only major attacks with a high number of casualties (also in the context of what the country's population is), an important target or are otherwise significant. This would include approximately half of what you see in the article right now. I think it will be a waste to just delete all of it - personally I take some time almost every day to monitor at least three news agencies and a few other websites on Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria & the Maghreb, Russia, Somalia and numerous others and I would hate to see all of this wasted because of someone else's interventions. Skycycle (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What are the criteria for inclusion? Would the Oikos University shooting be an "individual violent attack" or an "attacks by state and non-state actors for political, criminal or other unknown motives"? Location (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not see that this article violates the long standing principals of inclusion at List of terrorist incidents. It does need editing though. Birdshot9 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Im with user Birdshot9 on this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because of POV problems, but the incidents here are almost entirely duplicative of what is covered in the List of terrorist attacks. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to One Direction and protect the redirects. There is no justification for overriding the result of the previous AfD after so short a time. Any appeal should be made at WP:Deletion review, but off-site canvassing and SPA activity will not help there, either. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Louis Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Harry Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zayn Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Niall Horan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Liam Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: Re-creation of previously deleted articles. Pop singers who aren't individually notable outside their group. Any minor notable details can be, is they aren't already, edited into One Direction. Can I suggest that the closing moderator protect the articles from re-creation? SplashScreen (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect. I see no need for a second AfD so soon - nothing has changed since the very recent last one, and these can simply be re-reverted to redirects. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I also recommend protecting these redirects, as we are just going to have new sets of fanboys every few weeks recreating the individual articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect and protect per above. The articles all repeat the same info, so nothing will be lost. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these pages are are better and more detailed, members section is overgrown Isy1995 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If by "more detailed" you mean "all five state the same damn thing", then yeah. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What has changed to enhance their individual notability in their own rights (outside of the band) since the last consensus? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some of it is painful reading Niall Horan#Personal life, just sound bites for the press. None of the band are notable outside of it. There are plenty of blog sites that can used to post this "information" on, but its mainly unencyclopaedic. Murry1975 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEEP this isn't right do the guy or gal above every article states different early, personal, influences they're not the same people and this is way better than the member section since there way for individual points of view and more detail on individual lives. The members section is gone on the main page so the "same" is gone since the section is gone! + it is better the main page should go about one direction as a group you should not have these weird members sections Flickrphotogod (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Flickrphotogod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Above is the fanboy's, I mean user's, first edit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP- I personally think they are very notable by themselves, The members section of the band is getting way too overcrowded! We could add way more details on each member if they have their own pages, and at least that way it won't be overcrowded, They have over 2 million followers for each twitter, I think they are notable enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) — XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. It appears the fans are canvassing off-wiki. See User talk:XDITZRACHEL...

"Hey bad news the articles are up for deletion again like before. This time tell every directioner you know(twitter, facebook tumblr) tell them make wikipedia account and go to the pages>>> click this article's entry and write why the page should stay !!! #STRESSED

I just posted it on twitter and tumblr for you, i will tweet seperate people to do it too, they look really good by the way!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that canvassing or meatpuppetry? Murry1975 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)I don't know why you are posting that, it has no relevance. There are still loads of info on each member, that haven't been added yet, you could delete some of the info in the members section on the one direction page, and keep it on the individual's pages. I know lots of info that hasn't even been added yet.[reply]

If there is off-wiki canvassing going on, then it is very relevant to this discussion. (By the way, you should put your signature at the end of your comments, not at the start - see the way everyone else does it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. The "number of members is growing and we'll need separate pages", or "each have XYZ million followers on Twitter" were never good reasons to keep articles like these filled with rather unencyclopedic tabloid-like information. Lynch7 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Most of the info added is from their books, not tabloids.[reply]

• Speedy redirect and protect - per previous AfD and lack of notability outside the band. Information can be covered in the band's article itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment GUYS!! COULD EVERYONE PLEASE GO ONTO WIKIPEDIA AND MAKE AN ACCOUNT AND GO TO 1D'S PAGES AND SAY WHY THEY SHOULD STAY THEYRE GETTIN DELETED [26]. SplashScreen (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's called canvassing, and that's no good here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP i'm fan maybe you have noticed i only 1D pages mainly because i think people were missing some stuff but anyway these article are more relevant than the individual articles of cold play, maroon 5, back street boys, nysnc, big time rush members with the exclusion of Chris martin and Adam levine so this argument is already unfair and pointless. You should not comment on users as people by the way. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Will all this really go on for 7 days? I mean with the canvassing and SPAs falling from the sky. Lynch7 18:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)May i just say, There is still loads more info that hasn't been added to these pages yet, They have only just been made. Most of the info is from their books and have been said by themselves, not by tabloids, And the members section of the one direction page will get way to messy and overcrowded if you keep putting more information on it. You could add more detail to the info if they have their own pages. And please do not post tweets i have on my personal twitter, it has no relevance here and i like to keep it private from people.[reply]

Again. Signature goes AT THE END. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter where a signature goes? I don't think so.--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes your post look neater. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't care about making it look 'neat'. --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented for you. Murry1975 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Twitter and privacy. Good one. (I respect your privacy btw, I'm not a huge fan of tweets being made public). I don't think its worth replying to this, but I'll say this: We're trying to measure their notability, not the amount of information available about them. So it really doesn't matter how much information you gather from their books, it matters whether there exists individual notability for them (i.e. do they have notability on their own in reliable sources). So if you try and present sources to satisfy that criteria, then you should be better off. (Note: People who are thought to have arrived here by canvassing are likely to be filtered out anyway). Lynch7 18:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, public tweets can and will be read by the public and reported on. If you don't want them read, make them private. Like Mike, I'm not a big fan of tweets being made public knowledge, but if you're going to publicly post something, expect it to be discovered and potentially remarked upon. Reporting canvassing attempts is pretty standard around here. Secondly, if you're trying to get people to come to this AfD in the hopes that ballot stuffing will keep the article, then that's something that absolutely needs to be mentioned here. I'm sure it's been said already, but these things are not decided on a vote. A million fans could descend on this AfD, but unless they make a good argument per Wikipedia guidelines, those "votes" mean nothing. They could be reciting 'Mary has a little lamb' for all the good that "keep, this band is popular" arguments do, which is to mean that those types of arguments don't really do anything as far as keeping an argument goes. I've seen articles deleted even with a ton of such "keep" arguments and only 2-3 well thought out "delete" arguments. Telling people to go on here to try to sway the votes doesn't accomplish anything except that it irritates everyone involved and unless those fans are going to produce reliable sources per WP:RS, it's quite frankly a waste of your time and theirs. It doesn't accomplish anything. I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend that you read over WP:MUSICBIO, WP:RS, and WP:AADD to see what would keep an article and what arguments should be avoided at all costs. I also recommend that you look over WP:CANVASS to see why canvassing is seen as a negative thing by many users here on Wikipedia. Sometimes it can be used to help, but when you're asking people to vote one way or another without actually asking them to back their claims up via Wikipedia or actually improve the article, that's when it's seen as a dishonest move by many. I'm trying really hard not to be too "bite the newbie", but you've really got to understand how negatively stuff like this can be seen. Getting caught canvassing and then telling people not to post the evidence of your canvassing isn't really helping you out any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if I don't want people on here posting MY tweets or looking at MY twitter. Some of you are being extremely rude. 'New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.' --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you either make your twitter private, or stop posting asking for people to come over to this discussion on twitter. Either one would solve the problem of people here looking at your twitter. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the tweet.. Nobody even looked at it anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a farce. Will a sysop with sufficient balls just close this and redirect the pages as per the last AfD and fully protect them please?. We don't need this wasting our time. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G10 by Jimfbleak (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: highly pov, accusations of corruption). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Hat east Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I can't find any references that mention this group, under either name. Reference provided does not mention them or hacking at all. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G1 by Jimfbleak (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Stevania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not a notable Micronation Shirt58 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, unreferenced, WP:NFT. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteWhat the heck is it? Perhaps just a hoax page? Unless there's more added, this is an obvious delete.JoelWhy (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably qualifies for an A1 speedy deletion, which is how it was deleted last week. Regardless, call this hoax/joke/self-promotion "micronation" what you will, but there's absolutely no chance of a reliable source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources currently in the article and I could not find any reliable sources for anything in the article. GB fan 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Motorsport Car Jousting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This seems to be a certain way of playing the Forza Motorsport video game. I cannot find significant coverage of this particular variety. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete this article is arguably a hoax or a joke. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Something you and your mates play is not intrinsically notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - *If* there were significant coverage it'd be worth a merge to Forza Motorsport 4, but there isn't. --Teancum (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage on this. Looks like something some college buddies came up with, and are trying to get it to spread or something. Non-notable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Though the bolded "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", sources have been presented in this discussion and there has been no discussion/rebuttal of them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carratu International (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 meet WP:CORP ThatManAgain (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really notable, this borders on advertising, rather than anything more substantial. It looks like it's only employees who are editing this too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Dan653 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]