Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3#Visiting Students Research Programme

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry liveitup but nothing in the article is verifiable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyhoo (lighting cue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article is not significant or known to many people since it only attracts the interest of those working or studying lighting design in theater. "Ballyhoo" is just a theatrical dictionary term used to define a certain type of lighting cue. As a result, the article is written like a chapter section or glossary term in the back of a textbook, which violates Wikipedia guidelines being that this site is not a dictionary or guidebook. The two book sources in the article are also just manuals and textbooks to stage lighting and I did not find any actual books about the history of Ballyhoo, so this term might not be widely used (I myself am a theater student and have never even heard of this word until now). I also searched the two men who the term "Ballyhoo" was named after according to the article on various search engines, including Google [1] [2] and Bing [3] [4] and did not find anything proving that they actually invented this cue, were major figures in stage lighting, or existed at all. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, WP:Notability, WP:DICT and norm. Iglooflame (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What I could find about Ballyhoo in lighting books were dictionary definitions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—If the article isn't a hoax, then it's a good article. The additional information provided in the article (names of inventors, their background, etc.) move this past a simple dictionary entry. If the WP article stopped at the end of the first sentence, then I'd agree with a deletion based on WP:DICT. But this is not a good application of DICT, and, assuming good faith for the offline references, two references is enough to establish notability for me. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The problem is that none of that historical information is backed up with any reliable sources per verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 10 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) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Teenager with no claim to notability per WP:BIO. His JO experience doesn't go beyond the state meet level (second place in a team event being the only result noted), and the claim of first place in a mousetrap car competition was a team result, not an individual result. The fact that he has competed in the state meet has made me shy away from a speedy delete; an attempt to assert significance is made, but I don't see it being enough. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His 2nd place in the relay team event wasn't the only swimming event that was referenced. 3 individual events have been referenced. Also before you said that the relay was the only noticed, there was 1 individual event referenced. I've added 2 more to further emphasize his notability. Soulboost (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Keep swimming, Brian, and you may warrant your own Wiki page some day down the road.JoelWhy (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish general notability, nor is there evidence of meeting the specific inclusion guidelines for athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the points discussed above. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Per above who (correctly) cited the relevant policies. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:43, 10 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) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Morrisseau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod declined. AFD not done properly by another editor. Seems to be WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. bd2412 T 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google returns social media sites, wikipedia, linkdin and not much else. If someone can update his article with something like an RS, ill reconsider, but as it stands, seems notable for only one event. Bonewah (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Political Graveyard entry no help. Dru of Id (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much of the article can be traced back to WP:OR. It has been suggested that article meets notability via Google hits; WP:GNUM would argue otherwise. In fact, one also learns in Google that the subject of the article has repeatedly declared himself to be the "VERY (caps his) Foreign Minister of the Second Vermont Republic." It is important to note that during election cycles news media often cover even the most obscure candidates, if only for the entertainment of readers/viewers and also so that the stations or print outlets involved are not later criticized for not covering these obscure or fringe candidates. The subject of this article has never received the extensive coverage associated with a committed campaign. In fact, according to the record, the subject here campaigns primarily by letters and Internet postings; and according to VT Sec'y of State records, the subject raises no campaign money and maintains no discernible campaign staff. Despite registering any number of times as a Liberty Union, Republican, Democrat, or independent candidate, the subject's vote getting ability seems only to comparably challenge that of lint; the subject has described one of his showings in an election where 99.5% of the voters chose someone else as having "come in third." Also WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NRVE, and WP:RSUW. The long, rambling, fact challenged (George W. Bush and Karl Rove are not Republicans?) and poorly sourced quote from the subject of the article that comprises the bulk of the text would seem to be the clincher, WP:UNDUE. Vttor (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN. There's a small chance I'm misreading that because of the complete American-centric-ism of the article; if that's the case, fix the article and ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 10 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) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Di Bona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unknown artist of dubious notability. Created by a single-purpose account (User:Hb91), possibly conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Probably created by article subject. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per LibStar Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a few exhibitions, but more or less what one would expect from a professional artist. Professional does not equal notable in this context, and as LibStar has pointed out, this person does not meet the criteria set out at WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 10 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) 23:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyumi Puzzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTABILITY - article offers no claim of notability; the external links lead to sites without even any reviews. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 3 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) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I considered a merge to United Command International, the maker of the game, but I'm not convinced the company is notable either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks pretty run of the mill to me. Chris857 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:RS. If references are added to the article, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 10 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) 23:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyways are highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Definition of a garage-band article. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 3. Snotbot  t • c »  22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unremarkable band. No proof of notabily shown, no links on Google Search, Books and News. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I love the name, but unfortunately I have to say Delete per above. --Coin945 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable.JoelWhy (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 10 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) 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Maddux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sure if notable. All mentions in sources only seem to be name-drops in reference to his company. Musical works are only borderline at best — member of a band, but all outside work seems to amount only to a John Michael Montgomery single that did not make the mainstream charts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Uncharted musician; personal resume; insufficent notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 10 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 Inappropriate venue for a merge discussion. This is an out of process nomination. The result of an AFD can be merge or redirect as a alternative to deletion, sure, but this is Articles for Deletion. A merge discussion is the appropriate place for this discussion. Closing as an inappropriate AFD. v/r - TP 14:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

132nd Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is completely unsourced and I cannot find any evidence that this street meets General notability or Notability Guidelines for streets. We also have an article called List of streets in Manhattan where the information on this article can be put there and the article be redirected. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems of lacking citations and evidence of notability or are suitable for merging/redirect:

17th Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

187th Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

120th Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

10th Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leonard Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Claremont Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Front Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Forsyth Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep All The nomination proposes to redirect and merge the content of these articles. This is not deletion and so the proposition does not belong here. See WP:MAD for more details. Warden (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion, merging, and redirecting are all valid results of an AfD. These should be Merged and redirected to List of streets in Manhattan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect all as The Bushranger says, that is a valid outcome. This forum is actually supposed to be named "Articles for Discussion" (as all the other XfD processes are) but for technical reasons, it has not been renamed. Imzadi 1979 → 08:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect all to List of streets in Manhattan. Dough4872 16:19, 29 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, —SW— ^converse 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All - none of them get close to meeting the notability requirements, almost all of them make no claims to anything of interest. Wikipedia isn't a street directory, they shouldn't even be in a list article. If you want to find your way around Manhattan, buy a map! Sionk (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia isn't an X directory" is really a meaningless statement that could be used as a claim to delete any X. It's one thing to claim that not every street merits coverage; it's another to claim that no street (or a locale's streets as a whole) can be an encyclopedia topic (and if there's any place on earth that merits coverage of its streets, it's Manhattan). WP:NOTDIR is more about the form and content of articles rather than article topics, i.e. articles on businesses shouldn't include contact information for prospective customers, articles on products shouldn't normally include pricing, that sort of thing. One might as well claim that "Wikipedia is not a business directory" means we shouldn't have any articles on businesses. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By street directory, I was referring to the list article, which obviously confused matters here, sorry. Sionk (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per the above without prejudice to splitting off again should sourced content counsel. But I also agree with Warden that at minimum this kind of result should be attempted first through normal editing and discussion (WP:BRD, merge tagging, etc.) rather than resorting to AFD as a first option; see WP:ATD. I see nothing on these articles' talk pages, and we should consider that a failure here. It is a negative aspect of current Wikipedia culture that particular editing outcomes are too often sought through binding pseudo-legalistic processes such as AFD rather than through organic, open ended editing and discussion. People want their way, and they want it within a week. Or maybe AFD should just be made less formal and less time constrained where something other than deletion for blatant policy violation is sought. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment List of streets in Manhattan includes numbered east-west streets. Some of these (e.g., Claremont Avenue and Front Street) don't run east-west; some are not numbered. I'm not sure that merge and redirect is appropriate for all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That article should really be named "List of numbered streets in Manhattan" after carefully looking at it, although we can always simply add the "named" street entries and make some modifications to the lede to fix the problem Malik Shabazz bought up. I honestly would rather have all the articles deleted because when we search an article that does not exist on Wikipedia, we are taken to page that shows us the closest relevant articles and since the list articles already has sections for the streets nominated, it would definitely pop up as a suggestion, so redirects are close to useless here. If we want to add information about the streets to the list article after the individual ones had been deleted, all we has to do is copy the contents to a word document, save it, then add it to the list article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 5 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 Tata_Institute_of_Fundamental_Research. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting Students Research Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The topic does not have notability for having a separate article. It is covered in its main article Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Anbu121 (talk me) 09:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nomination to Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no significant information in it to merge except the lead, which is also present in its parent article. If merged, the remaining information present in this article becomes a trivia in the context of its parent article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:14, 14 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) 00:08, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:57, 27 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, —SW— ^express 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge contents to Tata Institute of Fundamental Research -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. About three lines total should do the trick. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 10 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) 00:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

209: A Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable book. The article tells you nothing other than who it was written by and its date of publication Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable book by non-notable author. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, self-published book; fails WP:NBOOK. Another example of why we need a speedy criteria for self-published books... Yunshui 雲‍水 09:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have found some sources, but they cover one set period in time. I'm thinking that this might be best served as a merge and redirect into the author's article or vice-versa. The sources I found kind of cover the author and the book, but I don't think it would cover notability for both of them. I'm not entirely certain as of yet that it even covers enough to show notability for one of them (so I'm withholding my vote until I find more sources), but it's a start.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: I see where the book was mentioned in relation to a museum exhibit in the Museum of Victoria, but it's such a brief mention that I'm not entirely sure what to do with it, if anything: [5] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 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, —SW— ^soliloquize 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:NBOOK. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 10 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. Sources may exist and if they are found, this article would be a great candidate for WP:DRV v/r - TP 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jori Olkkonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Video game music composer. Fails WP:BIO, no coverage in reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously Keep - Olkkonen wrote soundtracks for several Commodore 64 video games (published through major publishers through retail channels) and wrote a number of articles and programs for C=lehti and MikroBITTI (which were notable and widely distributed publications at the time), so I don't think WP:BIO or lack of sources is an issue. Not that much internet prominence or Google Books hits, but what can you expect from someone who made most notable contributions in 1980s and 1990s. The dead-tree sources obviously exist. (Can't add them myself because my own old copies of the magazines in question are half a country away. Sorry.) This index of old C=Lehti/MikroBITTI articles lists several reviews, program listings and articles by him, and I have a nagging suspicion this list is incomplete. Oh, and the program listings were also released as runnable programs in floppy/tape format - major publisher investing time and energy on a single person's work has to count. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: The list of articles written by him—in a defunct 1980s Finnish computer game niche magazine that was only around for 4 years, I might add—does not help establish notability. WP:BIO asks if the person "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). I have not found significant coverage of him in reliable sources. If you think such coverage exists, the burden is on you to show it. Terence7 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Defunct 1980s Finnish computer game niche magazine that was around for 4 years"? Nope, 6 years (1987-1991). It was published by a major magazine house and distributed nationally. MikroBITTI, on the other hand, started in 1984 and is still being published. What else do you require for a magazine to be considered a reliable source? Please don't belittle these magazines, they were very significant in their day. If you dismiss dead-tree sources, you may as well dismiss the whole requirement to have reliable sources entirely.
  Getting hanged up on being "subject of" articles is ridiculous. He wrote programs. They were vetted by the magazine editors and found to be sufficiently interesting to grace the pages. His works were the subject of the articles.
  On WP:BURDEN: Yep, I'm willing to add the sources, since you're unwilling to do so. Now, the burden on keeping the article alive is on you, not me - I'm not proposing articles to be deleted on unreasonable timeframes just because they lack sources that demonstrably do exist (or, if I bring them to AfD, they just get handwaved as insignificant "niche" publications). I already said I was willing to add sourcing, but it's not available to me personally, being in dead-tree format and thus a little bit challenging to access. I could do it, but I can't do it in AfD timeframe. What is the best course of action to ensure the article is properly sourced and we're actually building an encyclopedia?
  (Also, if you could describe me where you tried to look for sources, that would be immensely helpful. The fact that you didn't get C=Lehti's publication run right, even when it's listed in WP's article on the magazine, suggests this wasn't a particularly exhaustive search.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm getting "hung up on" that pesky requirement that a subject needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What you've described are articles written by the subject himself. That's simply not good enough, even if you can get the sources.

(And I didn't get the publication run right? 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991. That's 5 years, if you assume January 1, '87 to December 31, '91. I'm assuming it was less than that. In fact, it could be as little as barely over 3 years (December '87 to January '91). Indeed, the WP article itself says it was published "roughly every two months" and there were "29 magazine issues in total." That sounds like two and a half years to me.)

Perhaps a sensible approach, so that this content that you care about is not lost, would be for you to move this article out of namespace to your personal userspace until you can show that it meets the notability guideline. Terence7 (talk) 22:56, 21 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) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Probably Finland's most famous video game musician ever. JIP | Talk 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Terence7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per wwwwolf and JIP. ~dee^(talk?) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to argue for a strong keep, you really ought to spell out your reasons more clearly. I've shot down every rationale that has been advanced for keeping this article. Terence7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Certainly some editors are making a claim, even a plausible one of notability. However, WP:NRVE, and I'm not seeing that evidence. As a practical matter, pretty much anything we say in this article is going to be a reflection of the subject's self-published statements, not reflected through independent sources. That's the reason we have WP:GNG, and why, short of better sourcing, I'm left to argue for deletion. --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per joe decker. All articles, especially those on living people, require independent, reliable sources. They are lacking here. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:08, 3 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, —SW— ^prattle 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a BLP that makes grand claims which are unsubstantiated. As others have said, there is one website interview in a 'tell us everything about yourself' format, clearly a non-independent source. Without even one independent, reliable, in-depth source about Olkkonen there is no justification to keep this resumé. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I can't decide either way on this. On the one hand, I have had experiences myself (eg: with Matt Bielby), where the article was put up for AfD, and when I explained there were reliable print sources from the 1980s and 1990s, several people whacamoled it because they couldn't find it on Google in 30 seconds. On the other hand, even taking that into account, this guy doesn't really have seem to have done that much - he's certainly not on the same notability rung as Rob Hubbard who has had numerous commercial works published. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per the seven-year-old article on the Finnish-language Wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I'll assume that the sources wwwwolf is talking about exist. The fact that they are off-line, possibly niche, or foreign have absolutely no bearing on my !vote – these are non-issues that don't detract from the reliability of the sources in any way. However, the subject of the BLP seems to be the author of the articles in the offered sources. Writing magazine articles does not establish notability, being the subject of articles does. If this person were truly notable, then one could reasonably expect that a few magazine articles about him would have been written during his run as a programmer and author. Since none have been offered, online or off, I am left to assume that he is non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:56, 10 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. Guillaume2303's research indicates that the early "keep" opinions likely apply to another, more notable person of the same name, which means that they are not taken into consideration here. The "keep" opinions by Jleibowitz101 and 159.245.32.2 are also not taken into account as they are not based on our inclusion rules and practices.  Sandstein  06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm just not convinced this article really demonstrates notability. He played a small role in a couple films, he wrote books outside his field for very minor publishers, and... er, that's about it. I'm just not buying it, and the lack of good WP:RS - this has major primary sourcing issues - is another mark against it. Perhaps something can be salvaged, but I'm not convinced the case has been made. ETA: Guillaume2303's point (below) that there are multiple people of this name, and this article appears to be on the much less notable one is rather significant. 86.** IP (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Amit Goswami is a thinker in a long line of philosophers and scientists who emphasize the role of consciousness and subjectivity in human knowledge and, indeed, in the construction of reality. Kant himself delved into the subjectivity of knowledge and the distinction between the thing-in-itself and our perceptions. From Kant onwards, much development along these lines of thought occurred. In Schopenhauer, for example, German idealism came to the point of claiming that the thing-in-itself was nothing more than Will and its many expressions. Via Schopenhauer, and others, Freud developed his ideas of the unconscious mind and its drives. Thus, Goswami's work and ideas are very much in one particular 'mainstream' of thought and well deserve presentation in Wikipedia. — Jleibowitz101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Question The article states that Goswami is a physicist at UoO, however I could not find a faculty page for him. [6]. This may have been because he retired, however I cannot find any indication on an official UoO page that he held any notable position within that institution. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "Goswami" (no first name) is listed as a former associate professor at the UoO [7]. He appears also here under his full name [8]. There is also a list of publications by Amit Goswami hosted by the UoO. [9]. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Was Associate-Prof the highest rank he reached? I do not see how he could pass WP:PROF's criteria for notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find it remarkable that Jleibowitz argues that this thinker is an intellectual descendant of Kant, but even if he happens to work in the same tradition as Kant and others, so what? That surely doesn't establish notability, which seems to be the primary issue here. Phiwum (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plenty of Google Scholar presence, with some citation counts exceeding 100. K2709 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in his peer reviewed publications from what I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar should only be used as a rough metric for notability since it counts non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. blogs, web-sites). --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He seems notable enough, both for his work and his public persona. Paul B (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep (but, I wouldn't object to it being deleted). Citation count is nice, so he's definitely had some impact on his field. But, he doesn't appear to be a giant in the field, either.JoelWhy (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide a short summary of what impact he had on his field? For example, what was his most notable discovery. Has this discovery lead to other areas of important study? FYI, the WP:PROF guidelines advise that google-scholar should be used as a "rough guide only" since it may count non non-peer reviewed publications in it's metric. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no idea what impact he's had on the field. But, generally, when you have 100+ articles siting your work, that is a pretty good indicating that you have has some form of impact on the field. I deal with a great many scientists as part of my job, but I am not a scientist and I certainly am not an expert in this guy's field of work. I'm just making an educated guess that he's impacted the field to some extent.JoelWhy (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to see any reliable secondary source that shows any impact on any field. I was just surprised to see the word "definite" used in your original statement. I'd urge you to re-consider your decision if it's based on guesswork alone. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is there any potential we can actually make a decent article? Do reliable independent sources exist on the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are several persons named "Goswami A" in the Web of Science. One of them is a prolific physicist (> 200 articles published), but his address is given as "Bhabha Atom Res Ctr". Searching for "Goswami A AND Oregon" renders 21 articles, with a total of 133 citations, highest count 27, h-index = 7. GS gives a high citation count for his book. Books are not included in WoS' citation analysis, but doing a "cited reference search" for the book title and author name shows a total of 81 citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. As noted by Salimfadhley, the much higher count in GS may be because GS will also counts citations from blogs, websites, etc. (cf. the curious history of Ike Antkare...) Unless this is the same person as the one at the Bhabha Centre, these citation counts don't show any large influence on the field, I think. The link to a small list of publications at the UoO site provided by Paul Barlow above, suggests that they are different persons. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it's a different person, Amit Goswami is at oregon whilst the Other A Goswami is currently at Bhabha Atom Res Ctr: [10]. Goswami appears to be a relatively common second name. Amit Goswami does not appear to pass WP:PROF (81 citations appears low). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who knows, perhaps user:Jleibowitz101 was refering to the other Goswamii! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Best to delete. For notability we require proof positive and it's not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• The article should be kept. Even though he presumably retired some years ago, I had no trouble finding a reference to him on the University of Oregon's website (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/grad/fac/goswami.html). A quick check on Amazon also shows that his textbook "Quantum Mechanics" is still in print and that, as usual, some people think it's a good book while others think it's awful. So clearly he is at least quite entitled to be considered a proper scientist and not some kind of 'fringe' or 'pseudo' scientist. But of course the Amit Goswami article on Wikipedia is not there because he is an important theoretical physicist, but because of the series of books he has written attempting to apply the findings of quantum mechanics to areas which most scientists would probably consider outside the realm of physics altogether. His basic argument, that scientific inquiry can also be based on the premise that consciousness is the primary reality from which material phenomena derive, seems to be no less tenable than its opposite and would no doubt find suport from a number of Western philosophers, from Berkeley to Bradley. His extension of this premise into more speculative realms may strike many people as somewhat bizarre, in English-speaking countries at any rate, but if his books arouse sufficient interest or controversy, or stimulate widespread discussion, that is surely sufficient reason for allowing him space in an encyclopedia as comprehensive as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp10 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Tp10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• That's basically an argument that Goswami would be notable as a fringe scientist, but I don't see any evidence for that, either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, in fact my preceding comment argues, whether rightly or wrongly, that he is "not some kind of 'fringe'...scientist", and goes on to suggest that most of Goswami's books might be better described as falling under the heading of "speculative" science or philosophy.--Tp10 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is pretty clear that he doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines as a regular academic, speculative, philosophic, or other. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Guillaume2303's recent research. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep regardless of if he is right or wrong, at least his theories are new and fresh and deserve that we reflect on them. I say that we should at least have an article on him in wikipedia to at least see what books and article he has written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk • contribs)
  • That's not a policy-based argument; the issue is whether he's notable. 86.** IP (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Guillaume2303 had me at "h-index of 7". Not a notable scholar. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:05, 10 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. v/r - TP 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:GNG. this article is more about yugoslavian- north Korea relations, than Serbia. Fails WP:GNG. Section on trade appears pure original research. Serbia is one of many countries to condemn nuclear tests, nothing surprising. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 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]

• Keep - I don't love these articles, but this is pretty much IDONTLIKEIT defined. The nominator should give these nominations a miss. Sources are showing, that's enough. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did you even look at the article? There are only 2 sources showing for condemning nuclear tests. When almost every country does. Are there sources covering state visits, trade, aid between the 2 countries? Please show evidence of actual Serbia -north Korea relations, otherwise your !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article needs some tidy-up and possible updating, but the content is a valid discussion of the relationship between Serbia and North Korea. I am tagging it to WP:Korea and WP:Serbia as they will be more knowledgeable about in this proposal. NealeFamily (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

being a "valid discussion" does not mean it's notable.LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment both of the above !votes fail to provide any sources to establish WP:GNG. nor do they address my other concern that this article is more about Yugoslavia North Korea relations. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Foreign relations of North Korea and Foreign relations of Serbia, with a redirect to the former. Not notable enough for an independent article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 40 years with a close relationship, between Yugoslavia to Serbia and PROK on the other side. Sounds notable to me. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the length of the relationship does not confer notability. please provide sources of actual relationship. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge - Back when serbia was part of communist yugoslavia there were consistent ongoing relations between the two, as Bearian mentioned above 40 years is quite a great deal of time for relations to form, granted its slowed in the last 20 years since Yugoslavia's fall, the topic itself is notable, a merge would be fully acceptable and practical, though with reference improval if someone has any to share the topic could be easily salvaged. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment none of the keep !voters have supplied evidence of significant coverage in third party sources as required for WP:GNG. I'm still waiting. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Bilateral relations articles have been consistently kept at AfD, and are considered to be part of the "gazetteer" part of Wikipedia's mission. I.E., they are "automatically notable", or as close to it as any subject can be - the sources in the article currently are, in fact, sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. they are not inherently notable. there are a mere 2 sources describing Serbia's condemnation of north korea nuclear tests. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My observation has been that they tend to be kept, and they should be kept as part of Wikipedia's gazetteer remit. Are there only two sources? WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have done extensive searches for sources and cannot find anything, as a keep !voter the onus is on you to fix ut and find actual sources. This whole AfD demonstrates a complete lack of sources because none of the keep !voters can find a thing. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 3 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, —SW— ^speak 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist rationale - Would like to see more discussion on the sources used in the article as well as the availability of other sources. —SW— ^spout 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can understand such a topic 'has legs' because of its international scope. International relations can hardly escape the news radar, can they? A request for expert help, or more references at least, would be a better solution to this problem. The existing sources are poor, but then so are the sources in almost all the other diplomatic relation articles at the moment. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again another keep !vote without a shred of sources supplied. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. just because other similar articles are poorly sources is really a very weak reason for justifying keep for this one. this article has been listed for over 2 weeks and not 1 person can find additional sources. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made my argument quite clear. As Bushranger has said, there is general consensus on WP that these international relations articles are likely to be 'notable', because of the nature of the subject. WP:GNG says "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Are you seriously suggesting there is no likelihood of finding IRS about the subject, in Serbo-Croat or another language? Sionk (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quite simply, there is no inherent notability to bilateral articles, instead of saying there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, show some. I doubt any of the keep !voters have spent even 5 minutes searching. But happen to turn up and say WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't fancy answering my question then? Continually repeating the same response hardly moves things forward. Sionk (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

didn't fancy looking for sources as what is normally required to show a poorly sourced article as notable? is it because there aren't any? LibStar (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a 'No'. Sionk (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit there are no additional sources?LibStar (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While there definitely is not inherent notability for bilateral relations articles, this one appears to be substantial: during the communist period in Yugoslavia, there were substantial ties between the countries (unlike Warsaw Pact states, North Korea wasn't a threat to Tito), and as Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia, it would be silly to have one NK-Yugoslavia article and another NK-Serbia article. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again not one source provided. There are separate articles for predecessor states, eg Japan–Soviet Union relations. far from silly. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering doesn't seem to be working. If the countries involved are bigger than a breadbox and if there are sources showing, the nominator would be advised not to waste our time with these nominations, consensus being what it is. Yes, most of them are pretty bad in their current state. I wish people wouldn't bother to create them unless they were gonna do a good job of it. But as topics? Encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have you bothered to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Nobody has demonstrated significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources about North Korea–Yugoslavia relations are not relevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree partially, although I still support the merges to the "Foreign relations of X" articles as I said above. But sources about North Korea-Yugoslavia relations are relevant...to a hypothetical article about historical North Korea-Yugoslavia relations. And given the amount of sourcing there is for that historical relationship, that article should probably be created, since notability is not temporary. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course: but they are not relevant to this article or this discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Simply because I don't think that relations between these two countries have been notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Even casting a very wide google net, nothing significant showed up. The subject is already covered in Foreign relations of North Korea#Serbia, but interestingly, there is no back reference in Foreign relations of Serbia, which one would expect if the countries had any notable dealings. There's really nothing worth merging here, so in my opinion, deletion seems like a reasonable solution. I take a very dim view of any "x is inherently notable" arguments in general, and the rest of these arguments seem like paraphrases of WP:OSE. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:31, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perverse effects of vaccination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A large pile of stuff cobbled together about vaccination. None of the references directly address the subject of the article. No merits as a standalone article. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research/synthesis. Not a likely search term, and nothing worth merging, so no redirect to Vaccination. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge, Interesting idea, so I like the idea of merging it in the vaccine page if there are good citations to it. Heck, w/ enough citations, it may warrant its own page. But, I just don't see enough at the moment to warrant inclusion. I even did a search on pubmed for Perverse + Vaccination but only came up w/ 3 articles.JoelWhy (talk)
• Delete. It's an interesting read, indeed, but doesn't really stand alone well, nor stand well at all in the scope of this project. WP:SYNTHESIS, aye... — Isarra ༆ 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SYNTHESIS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Agree with the previous editors... it's a good read and well written, but a high percentage of the article draws conclusions based on published sources. If all the SYNTH was removed, then there wouldn't be enough left for a standalone article to make sense. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristino Carrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was recreated less than two days after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. And per links provided in the article, has never played a game for a team in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maid Jaganjac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally on the grounds that this article has been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG & the Serbian First League is not fully professional nor is the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina so he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Mutants (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Page does not meet the GNG, has zero supporting references from reliable sources, all the information appears to be OR. A quick search of Google shows multiple websites created for the show (on Weebly and Webs, among others) that haven't been active for some time, along with a Facebook page that appears to be used on rare occasions. Outside of that, there isn't any outside sources showing a notability for this "radio show" (which is actually broadcast on a cable television channel, not radio).

With the lack of sources, the page not meeting or violating WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:RS, along with WP:NPOV, I am nominating this page for deletion. Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong (or Speedy) Delete: As nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete it isn't technically a viable speedy, but it should definitely go. Doesn't even try to assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Terrible article about a lowly-viewed/listened radio/cable access show in a non-notable market. Squarespace is that-a-way, fellas. Nate • (chatter) 03:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking WP:RSs, without which we can't even begin to measure it against other requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 10 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zafarullah Jan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not assert notability per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Cricket. Zafarullah Jan meets none of the three requirements nor has he met the basic requirements of participating in an international event. Originally listed as CSD but article creator removed CSD tag. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she has... appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". Jan has played first-class cricket, which is a major form of cricket, at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. He meets one of the requirements of WP:CRIN and the requirements of WP:ATH. Unfortunately there seems to be little known about this guy, but that isn't rare among Pakistani cricketers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:ATH#Basic criteria “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” So far only one source has been given: the Cricket Archive which looks to me to be a trivial source. I will concede that it he did apparently play in the first-class cricket which apparently is at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. According to the one source he only played in one game and he seemingly did not play very much in that game. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CricketArchive is an authority when it comes to information on cricket, as such is a highly reliable source. There's also no "apparently" about either of those two facts: He did play first-class cricket, and first-class cricket (alongside List A and Twenty20) is the highest level of domestic cricket in the ten full member nations of the International Cricket Council. We have plenty of cricketers who played one first-class match: Neville Shelmerdine for example simply turned up. At the end of the day, cricket is very selective on what is deemed notable: as they've played first-class cricket, regardless of the number of sources (note sources for living people require at least one reliable source, of which Jan has), then they're deemed notable, once again by WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. This AfD back in 2010 is very similar, or even more extreme, an AfD for Hooker (Kent cricketer). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet the basic notability requirement of multiple sources. Only one. Even the one listed below is just the same information regurgitated. Since neither is a newsworthy source nor a printed material (just stats) I do not see how this is not trivial. Regardless of whether he played at the top level or not, there is no non-trivial sources. Much like the two AfDs that you listed above, this AfD will be responded to by mostly WikiProject Cricket members, so it won't be deleted. I would wholeheartedly withdraw my nomination if someone could find multiple non-trivial published sources. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's also ESPNcricinfo which presents exactly the same information as CricketArchive (but there are only so many ways to present this kind of data). While Jan has passed the requirements of having played in at least one major cricket match, in these situations an article of this sort is worth so little I can't vote keep, but neither can I happily vote delete because "I don't like it" isn't policy. I'm sure this article will be kept, but if it was to be deleted it would not be a terrible loss to the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Nev, but I do fear we open up to attack from the mob that has in the past attempted to have less notable cricketers deleted. I'm quite the deletionist, I'll openly admit that! But, when it comes to major cricket and those who have played it, I feel our job is to provide full coverage of it, be it Wilfred Rhodes 1,110 matches, or Jan's one. As Nev points out, there's only so many ways to present data on cricketers - even ones with distinguished careers, such as Neil McCorkell who I'm working on, are presented in the same way, other than book sources which are hard to come by, it wasn't until he passed his 100th birthday the other day that multiple sources appeared online. While it wouldn't be missed, first-class is first-class, saying one player can't have article because he played once as opposed to fifteen times, is being selective and doesn't represent full coverage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He qualifies under WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Doesn't mean that it's not in need of work. Johnlp (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' per Johnlp e^xtra999 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Johnlp says it well. --Dweller (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Meets a subject-matter notability guideline (WP:CRIN). Needs work, but that's not cause for deletion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:43, 10 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 / nomination voided. The article was redirected to American Idol (season 11) independently of this discussion. No administrative action taken. Deryck C. 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This non-notable American Idol contestant that did not even reach the semi-finals of American Idol (season 11) fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the sources in the article consist of videos of her performances in the audition/Hollywood phases of the show. Aspects (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her performance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show surely gave her notability; many fans were raving that she was "amazing" and "unjustly cut." Perhaps the article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia right now, unless she makes another comeback. Creativity97 (Talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - generally, participants in reality TV shows only get their own WP article if they become notable in their own right outside of the show. In the meantime, a listing in the American Idol season 11 article should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, I suppose a mention in the American Idol (season 11) page would be sufficient as well. Delete if that's what the consensus comes to. Creativity97 (Talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to American Idol (season 11). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge—I'm honestly surprised that there is not more coverage about her, considering the apparent outrage at her getting cut... you would think the Ellen appearance would lead to some press, but it hasn't. I found one feature article in her home town newspaper... and that was it. Merge it, redirect it, and someone can re-fork it later if she becomes more notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per above. I think WP:USUAL comes into play as well, here - she's in the early days of what might end up being a promising career. If she were to end up with a hit single or album, an article might be appropriate. Not yet, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have no problem with a merger here, but I don't want this to be a precedent. Some people have been cut early from Idol, yet have gone on to notable careers. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 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 SPEEDY REDIRECT. Nominator is also article's only contributor. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Go-Topless Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

housekeeping--article already exists at Go Topless Day AltSkitMan (talk) 18:17, 3 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) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bandzoogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Product just doesn't seem at all notable. JoelWhy (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure about seems, but the first hits on google are primary, twitter, a2im, facebook and myspace in that order. The only refs I found close to reliable weren't, including a blog article written by someone who works at Bandzoogle, written for the Washington Times[11] (would fail WP:RS on several counts), and a few other blog articles and a news release or two that all would be short of clearly demonstrating notability. I'm open minded, but I found lots of social media linkage (good SEO) but nothing significant from an independent, reliable source. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The journalist who wrote the Communities at The Washington Times article sited above does not work for Bandzoogle. She works for Communities at The Washington Times, which is completely separate from Bandzoogle. Please see also revised reference list. --CandleOfFaith (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but "My comrades at Bandzoogle - a music website development platform - are sponsoring SeeTalkGrow with web-hosting and site layout templates. They were even kind enough to offer me a special deal for SeeTalkGrow viewers. Specifically, six months of free webhosting and site design widgets when viewers use SeeTalkGrow as a referrer." (SeeTalkGrow is the author's project) so I still question the independence of this blog article. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. Perhaps the best thing to do then would simply be to remove that particular reference? I have recently added others that are more objective.

• Reply That link is fine for what it is, it doesn't have to be removed, but it would probably be good to note that she is involved. The key is that the link isn't "independent", thus can't establish notability. It can still be used to provide information, like any other primary link. WP:N covers notability, and to be demonstrated notable, it is generally accepted that a subject needs a couple of articles by publications that are independent of the subject matter, ie: not primary links such as their own website or written by someone affiliated. Primary links can't be used to prove the subject is "important" (notable), since they are talking about themselves. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bother It seems someone already deleted the Washington Times link. It's weird though, I don't see it in the edit history. Anyway ... I added new objective references including Hypbot and TechDirt, both of which seem like reliable media sources. I know Hypbot is. Also, a site called BandWriter. The article is pretty enthusiastic sounding, but it is a source unconnected to Bandzoogle. Let me know what you think. Thanks! CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandleOfFaith (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Billboard Also added Billboard.biz reference. Billboard is one of the most high profile magazines in the music business, so I think these new references should fix our problem. CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyperbot is a self published blog, it isn't professionally vetting, and written by one person,Bruce Houghton, so it generally fails WP:RS as a reliable source. Techdirt is a group blog, with articles submitted by the readers. Slashdot.org is exactly like this and is not a reliable source, so my guess is that it isn't as well. To be "reliable", it must be vetted and edited by professionals. This is broadly defined, but almost every small group blog, user submitted blog or self published website is not going to make the grade. They are sometimes useful for non-controversial material, but not to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete plain promo Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Constructive Feedback? Can you point out what in the article comes off as promo so it can be edited? Thanks. CandleOfFaith (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems are a.o. tone and details. I will make a draft on the talkpage insterad of discussing it here in detail. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome! Thank you. I usually write freelance PR so any help you can give me to get a more journalistic tone would be great.

• Delete as lacking coverage by independent third party sources. Ping my talk page if they're added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 10 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) 00:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barnes (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This biography is a borderline WP:GNG/WP:ATHLETE case. DYK seeks further resolution on whether this is a notable subject. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator and DYK nominator Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. From WP:ITSLOCAL: "Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage." Also, subject may meet NSPORTS as a competitor in the World University Baseball Championship, which is an international competition. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Boston Red Sox minor league players as a bio that is insufficient for its own page at this time, but that has the potential to deserve one in due time. The question is whether any of the national coverage is more than routine game summaries or statistical summaries. Note that WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". This is the type of article that I personally would like to see kept but that fails WP:ATHLETE. There is no consensus on WP that being an All-American confers permanent notability for college baseball players. There was a time when he would have until the end of the season the following year to meet either ATHLETE or GNG. I personally, would prefer to hold him to this standard and give him a chance to be called up this season or set some Minor League records. The benefit to wikipedia is retention of encyclopedic detail. If the article result is deletion, maybe we could agree to hold this in the article incubator until the end of September out of respect for the old policy. I would vote to keep if this article had sufficient biographical detail about his high school career to give the article the feel that we have the ability to produce a biographical sketch with encyclopedic content. It would then pass WP:ITSLOCAL in my eyes. One fact about his high school career fails this standard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see several articles about him (not just stats or game summaries) as sources for the article, which should be enough to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Accomplished amateur and high-profile first-round pick. Meets WP:GNG. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Every first-round draft pick gets massive local and regional coverage, plus some national coverage (Baseball America, etc.). It seems that people have shifted the standards here in the past few days. How is this AfD, and several other pending AfDs, different from the dozens if not hundreds of previously merged or deleted pages for first round picks or minor leaguers? — NY-13021 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for unnamed articles, but the only ones I see getting merged or deleted have no coverage outside of the routine variety. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main difference is that people are paying attention on this one. Most of those other articles on first-round picks could also have been kept by the WP:GNG (which trumps all) if anyone had bothered to look for sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:22, 4 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. Article deleted as an intra-Wiki copyright violation The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Ground Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is a content fork of Libyan Army (1951–2011) and National Liberation Army (Libya). Its "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya period" and "Combat Experience" sections are verbatim copy-pastes from the former article, and its "2011 transitional period and restructuring" section is a copy-paste from the latter. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly for futher discussion of this issue please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan National Army. No point in copy-pasting arguments and posts. Secondly, content fork is no reason for deletion or merge. POV fork is. Also as the nominated article deals with organization in existence since 1959 till today, while second one deals with 1959-2011 period. That one is POV fork. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Libyan Army (1951–2011) has a history of years, whereas Libyan Ground Forces is merely days old. I think everyone can see which of the two is the fork. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to National Liberation Army (Libya) – WP:POVFORK and copyvio. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see my comments here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan National Army. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete duplicate article. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted. As large parts of this article were taken from (1951-2011) without attribution, this article was a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 4 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Generacia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Band article, has remained unsourced since it's creation 8 years ago, and it's notability is questionable at best Jac16888 ^Talk 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe the band are notable. The first page of Google News archives results when searching in Bulgarian include [12], [13], [14]. Given that searching for the band's name is likely to result in as many false positives as searching in English for "new generation" it might be significant work to go through the available sources. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable Arved (talk) 13:16, 6 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 National Liberation Army (Libya) . v/r - TP 14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan National Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This very recently created article is absolutely redundant. We already have Libyan Army (1951–2011) about the pre-2011 army and National Liberation Army (Libya) which describes the 2011-onwards army. Everything written in this new, third, article can be easily inserted in either of the two older articles. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article TaalVerbeteraar refers to was moved without consesus and without any source backing this move, he himself provided no source for his claim that "state ceased to exist" and that "armed forces ceased to exist". Morever there is no single source which refers to current Libyan army as "National Liberation Army" which was used to describe all anti-Gaddafi militarized forces during civil war, including local militias and also Tripoli insurgents or tribesmen such as Tebu during Fezzan campaign and their push to Murzuq and Qatron. In reality no unified, centralized organization existed and its existance caesed with end of civil war and loss of unificational goal of anti-Gaddafi forces which in some cases fought against each other (current events in Sabha or before that in Kufra for example). However name of current armed forces is sourced, Libyan Navy for example, as a branch of armed forces, celebrated back in November their 49th anniversary [15] what goes completely against what TaalVerbeteraar claims (armed forces, navy included, ceased to exist and post-2011 navy is completely new). Lastly, fact that I didnt nominate moved page for deletion, as I should have, has nothing to do with fact that before creation of Libyan National Army article there was no article dealing with armed forces of Libya which is now created, backed by sources and aside TaalVerbeteraar no one raised one objections towards it. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The move EllsworthSK refers to was not actually carried out by me, but by User:Petri Krohn, although I supported it. In your consideration of this deletion proposal, please also note Libyan Air Force, a content fork of Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) created by the same user, and Libyan Ground Forces, yet another word-for-word content fork, again created by the same user. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, wikipedia is not democracy but move has to be backed by consensus, sources and in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Two of these things were completely ignored by User:Petri Krohn. As a for fork article, there are two of them Libyan Army (1951–2011) and Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) bytheway both copyvio per Wikipedia:CSD#G12 of these sources [16] and [17]. I´ll get to that later, however thanks for notification. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. And let me relate on National Liberation Army beeing the armed forces of Libya issue just a little more. NLA is name given to all brigades/kateebas/militias units, for example also Misrata militias. If those militias are therefore armed forces of Libya than how come that they are beeing (or at least government is trying to) integrated into armed forces like this source states [18]. Naturally there are gazillion other sources saying the same thing, we have a lot of them in wiki articles already, for example in National Liberation Army (Libya)#2011_transitional_period_and_restructuring article itself. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, EllsworthSK, there's a thing called the 'history' button, using which everyone can see that Libyan Army (1951–2011) and Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) have a history of years, whereas the articles created by you (Libyan National Army, Libyan Air Force) are mere days old. Everyone can see which are the original articles and which are the forks. Trying to save your articles from deletion by pretending that the original articles are the forks is not going to help. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. Not that surprising given ignoration of rest of my post. So let me repeat it clearly, you created article dealing with armed forces of Libya from 1951 till 2011. I created article dealing with armed forces of Libya throughout the whole history of Libya. Clear enough? However if you are suggesting that 1951-2011 articles should be merged into the ones you nominated for deletion, I agree. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to National Liberation Army (Libya) – WP:POVFORK and copyvio. – Same applies to its sister article discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan Ground Forces.

  What this article does, is uses sources form the Gaddafi era to make statements about the current military on the new "free" Libya. It falsely claim a continuity between the Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the National Liberation Army (Libya) (or what ever military Libya now has). This is not true, the Jamahiriya forces were decimated and totally wiped out in the Libyan Civil War. The new army is being built around revolutionaries and rebel fighters, i.e. practically from scratch. For this new army we cannot use pre-2011 sources. Anything said must be based on fresh new sources about the post-revolution army. It may be, that some people or even small units have moved from the old army to the new. If this is so, we need sources to prove it. Some of the old Soviet arms have been taken into service, for this we need fresh sources. Most likely the Soviet arms, what ever remains will be abandoned and new weapons will be bought from the US and the West.

  Even more complicated is the fact that the Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the National Liberation Army (Libya) are or have been fighting a bloody civil war. There is absolutely no way we can squeeze two sides of a war into the same article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to adress several points. No copyvio, if you can find one, source it. Secondly - as I wrote twice before, it was you alone who moved the article without any consensus on the talk page and without any backing of source. Thirdly - Armed Forces of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya existed only at one phase, before that it were Libyan Arab Republic Armed Forces, before that Libyan Royal Armed Forces. Now they exist in new one. Following this - you claim that is beeing built from scratch is a nice one, however it goes against situation like for example in case of Rwandan Defence Forces which were decimated even more after genocide than Libyan, yet article says they were founded in 1962. Or Iraqi Armed Forces founded in 1921 although Iraqi military was formally disbanded by CPA on 23rd May 2003 and formed officialy anew months later. Till dissolution of CPA it was under foreign authority. Other examples include Republican Forces of Côte d'Ivoire where opposition forces led by Ouattara defeated with international help Gbago government forces and as you can see on Second Ivorian Civil War article page, military of Ivory Coast is included as combatant. Armed Forces of Liberia is another example, country went through two civil wars, both times won by anti-government forces. Yet, article states they were founded in 1908. Spanish Army article states that these forces were established in 15th century. Surely, I dont have to tell you that between now and than, government, with armed forces on its side, was defeated numerous times. Most recently in Spanish Civil War. I could find more, but I think I made my point- Although your claim that formation of army in current form is right now focused on integration of militiamen into its structure (and structure of ministry of interior, let´s not forget about that one) is true, it´s commanders were officers in pre-war army, air force and navy is composed in vast majority, if not solely, of professional soldiers which enlisted also before war to army. Hence we can use them. It is true that post-war phase should use solely post-war sources, however they are scarce and from those several are used. Wether new weapons and from where will they be bought is irrelevant. Royal army was equipped mostly with western arms, after coup it shifted towards Soviet weapons, however it doesn´t change anything. And although I wrote extensively about the issue of NLA, I will once against repeat that it is not any military organization, nor ever was. It is collective name that has been used during war for all militias and defected personell which was, however vastly outnumbered. So there is no need to squeeze two sides of war into the same article, simply leave pro-Gaddafi side with military, while NTC forces with NLA - ie all armed anti-Gaddafi forces. Can´t really see an issue here. That is if you still do not believe that National Liberation Army is current armed forces of Libyan state. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per nom, but move National Liberation Army (Libya) to that page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete and move NLA (Libya) per Kudzu1. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete and move per Kudzu. Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and NO moves or merges how are people supposed find information when they are looking for the article "national liberation army" , what do you people claim that the "national liberation army" does not exist anymore or is somehow "irrelevant" , that amouts to WP:ORIGINAL Ocnerosti (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note User:Nyttend's deletion of Libyan Ground Forces, bypassing the AfD process, on the absurd basis that duplication of Wikipedia material on Wikipedia was plagiarism : "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Unattributed copying of much of Libyan Army (1951–2011))" Anarchangel (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely nothing absurd about it. Unattributed copying between Wikipedia articles is a copyright violation under Wikipedia's licensing terms and conditions. See WP:CWW: If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. Also note that discussion of another deletion is not relevant to this deletion discussion and, if needed to be discussed, should be done at WP:DRV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 6 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 seems to have already been deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Corradini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a well-presented article, but it is about a sixteen-year-old footballer who plays for the local team in a small Italian town with a population under 7,500. He is evidently a keen lad, who started playing for a team "affiliated to Juventus" at 12, but this is far short of the notability standard of WP:NFOOTBALL, and no notability other than football is indicated. I have already twice deleted this per WP:CSD#A7, but on its third appearance an A7 was declined, and the author removed BLPprod and maintenance templates, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Article fails both WP:BLP for sourcing and WP:GNG for coverage. As well, there is no assertion of notability here -- this is a youth club player for non-notable teams, which does not meet notability standards for WP:NFOOTBALL. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt. This article has been repeatedly recreated by multiple users (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fccorra -- a SPI page that has remained open for an unusually long time!). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and SALT. Sources do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:FOOTBALL, and a Google search turned up nothing promising. Article does not make a qualifying claim of notability, anyway. Sorry, but this reeks of self-promotion, with pretty obvious socks/meats involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and relevant football guidelines. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:53, 3 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 but without prejudice per Jorgath's argument. However, if someone recreates the very same article then CSD G4 will apply. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Kesha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly formatted list for an artist with a minimal output (1 album, 1 EP). Most of this is covered in her discography page. Article itself is poorly formatted, unsourced (unreleased songs, supposed songwriting credits) and uncategorized. - eo (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Poor formatting and lack of categorization are fixable, as is lack of sourcing; if a song proves unverifiable, just remove it (see, e.g., WP:NOTCLEANUP). Whether this is a useful list in addition to her discography is another question. Past AFDs seem to have varied between merging/redirecting and keeping. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs by Ashley Tisdale, a keep, was for a recording artist with a similarly-sized discography. See Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers for more comparisons. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simple as this, WP:OR farm of leaked tracks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poorly sourced and insufficiently coherent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As Kesha has a relatively modest output quantity-wise to this point, a separate list of Kesha songs seems redundant considering the detail of her discography page. I don't believe an exact threshold has ever been established, but perhaps this list would be appropriate after another album or two.  Gongshow ^Talk 07:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gongshow, but without prejudice towards recreation when her output passes a reasonable threshold. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esmond Pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of adequate notability. Louiedog (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete full of unreferenced claims. Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Vanity page, no notability as we understand the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, my usual rule of thumb is that if a bio describes its subject as an "entrepreneur", then it's probably a vanity page of a non-notable businessperson. This does not appear to be an exception to that rule. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• I would add that people described as entrepreneurs nearly always turn out to be the very opposite of entrepreneurs, i.e. to have worked for large, well-established organisations rather than establish businesses themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greife (Airforce) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence for this usage: no Google hits, references in article do not support it. Prod was removed without comment by creator. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promoting a 'neologism' allegedly based on a spelling mistake. Nothing in 10 pages of ghits, even after removing Brandon Greife and Dale Greife from the search parameters. Peridon (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced foolishness. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as something made up one day or hoax (take your pick). This may even qualify for speedy deletion as unreferenced nonsense. Note that not one of the "See also" links leads to anything using the term greife. The one "reference" is nonexistent. The single "External link" does not show anything using the term greife. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be speedied as "unreferenced nonsense", sorry. Unreferenced doesn't come into speedy, and it's understandable, so WP nonsense also doesn't apply. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article author notes that they hope to get it into Webster's in three years. We're not for things made up one day, for any reason. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the above reasons. Risker (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:Neologisms. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entertunity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A neologism, for which I found eight ghits. Four are Wikipedia (one deleted), three are predating the alleged creation of this word by a company (info was in now deleted article), and one is incomprehensible. The three uses of the word are in probably unreliable sources - blogs, etc, and will most likely be unconnected to this article anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable neologism. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." The first, deleted version of this article included: "The term was first coined in 2012 by the founders of Stellman Global Agency (SGA)." That has been removed, but it is clear that (a) the term is very new and (b) it is being pushed by its inventors. Wikipedia is not here to help with that. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear case of WP:NEO - Wikipedia is not a place to spread the usage of a neologism. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a pure neologism. There are hardly any Google hits for this word once you exclude citations to Wikipedia itself and mis-scanned publications which did not actually use the word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entertunity is a term derived from the words entertainment and opportunity ... to denote ceasing new ventures through strategic opportunity management. "Ceasing" is probably more accurate than the writer's actual intention, whatever it was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 4 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 on the issue of "keep vs. delete" and no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Park Cable Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article has no sources and the subject matter isn't likely to be independently notable. It's an attraction at the Ocean Park theme park, and that's a good place for re-writing some sourced material. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cable cars on this scale are definitely notable. We have many articles on specific attractions inside theme parks (Haunted Mansion, Goliath (Six Flags Magic Mountain) for examples). This topic has received significant coverage, even from The New York Times. [19] --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough for the NYT to describe it [20], [21]. Notable enough for the NYT, notable enough for WP. Collect (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ocean Park Hong Kong: While the cable car system meets notability requirements being that it appeared in The New York Times, it does not make sense for it to have its own article if its only purpose is to transport people between areas of an amusement park. Since this article is relatively short and not likely to be expanded being that no one really cares about the cable car system's history or features except for those working or visiting the park, its contents can easily be added as a section of the Ocean Park article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "if its only purpose is to transport people between areas of an amusement park" What about articles like Disneyland Railroad and ExpressTram? Jeffrey (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the length of those articles. Look at the length of sourced material in this article. When merged and the length of this subject matter in the parent article grows it can break out again and be replaced by a summary section. That's the way topics should get attention and grow. There isn't enough sourced material as of now to justify a stand-alone article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Keep per Oakshade and Collect. The system is notable and this article got a lot of room for expansion, such as its technical specifications, accidents, demand, arrangements at time of service suspension, and comparisons with the Ocean Express. Jeffrey (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ocean Park Hong Kong per The Legendary Ranger. The stub is four sentences long, and based on the sources there doesn't seem to be much that can be reasonably written about this cable car system. It makes sense to merge this with the theme park it belongs to. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is the obvious solution. If that unbalances the target article, it clearly needs to be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cable car systems are generally considered to be notable and I can frankly see no reason why this one shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 10 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Parker Cable Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough sources to determine that this is independently notable. Three sentences unlikely to grow larger - I suggest merger into another article's history section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a very weak reason for deletion. There is more than enough here for a stub, and in the future we may also have text about its cost construction how it worked, its demolition. Wikipedia is not improved by removing small articles. With a topic as old as this it is not surprising that online sources are weak. Before deleting this a proper newspaper search should be conducted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete/merge. I want this to qualify for an article but sourcing is extremely weak. No results in Google Scholar, only one in Google Books and a dismal 36 in a regular Google search, most of which are either from the blog gwulo.com or from flickr.com. It's hard to establish notability with results like that. If we can find one other quality reliable source with significant coverage, my vote would shift to keep. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good argument for merger, where the sourced info can sit in an umbrella article until more sources exist to take it out. Eventually everything is independently notable, but while it grows this is a better way for an encyclopedia to organize and present the information. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Keep While the English name doesn't get many search results, I searched for the Chinese name and got quite a few more, several of which seem to support notability; this isn't surprising for a cable car in Hong Kong. I can't read Chinese, and would appreciate if someone who can could tell me how good the Chinese results are as sources, but it looks like this is a pretty well-covered topic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The alternative would be to merge it with both the peaks that it connected, both of which have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I'm afraid the system didn't connect two peaks. It connect a pass with somewhere near the coast. Jeffrey (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cable car systems are generally considered to be notable and I can frankly see no reason why this one shouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Warzycha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD contested by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) with the explanation "might fail gng but not "uncontroversially"". The article does indeed fail WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable footballer. Jared Preston (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another of the plethora of recent MLS draftees who are yet to play. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 9 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 both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budo Jake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rolled Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)