Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 19#Numeric metaphor

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 June	20 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Olathe School District. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Trail Junior High School

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

Posting for Kilopi: There is nothing notable about this school. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

_{Note: This does not indicate endorsement by me for or against the proposal.}

Redirect- To Olathe School District, as was boldly tried by the IP, adequately explained in the edit summary, and unnecessarily reverted. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. Only routine coverage, a couple complaints from students, and, it would seem, a pretty good band. Dru of Id (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olathe School District. This very ordinary Jr. high school does not have independent notability and redirecting to the parent district is a common outcome. I attempted to do this directly, but was immediately reverted. Kilopi (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is no A7 by schools. All of them are considered notable, so there is no reason to merge or delete this article. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not. All high schools are presumed notable unless proven otherwise. Junior high, middle, and elementary schools are assumed not notable unless proven otherwise and, 98% of the time, are redirected per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. While this does not include the Wednesday cafeteria menu — as I recall having seen on one elementary school page once — it does deliver the sort of "in-universe minutia" which illustrates why elementary school pages aren't even close to being pivotal to the encyclopedia's mission. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Unfortunately, there is no claim of notability in the article. Also, I would recommend that it be redirected per common outcomes. --Morning277 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olathe School District per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 22 June 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 Widespread Panic videography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Oakland

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

No indication of notability per NALBUMS — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 May 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) 00:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several independent sources discussing this tour[1][2], so Wikipedia's concert tour notability guideline has been met. Initially, I was going to suggest merger in Widespread Panic videography, but because of the large amount of material in this article, and the existence of articles for 14 Widespread Panic tour videos, merger is probably not possible, and keeping an independent article for each of their DVDs is a better idea. NJ Wine (talk) 01:54, 5 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In order to establish notability, references must mention the topic of the article, which is a DVD. The two references given by NJ Wine mention the tour but not the DVD, so they do nothing to establish notability of the DVD. Some sort of merge to a general article on the band/tour/group of DVDs may be called for, but the individual entry is not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 13 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Widespread Panic videography. Agree that it does not meet notability guidelines for Recordings. Policy is clear that this should be merged unless there is evidence that the album is significant enough (has it won awards? is it on the top of a music chart?) to stand on its own. There is already an article that lists the band's albums and the information from this article would more than fit therein. --Morning277 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Grand Targhee Resort

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

No indication that it passes NALBUMS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 May 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) 00:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several independent sources discussing this tour[3][4], so Wikipedia's concert tour notability guideline has been met. Initially, I was going to suggest merger in Widespread Panic videography, but because of the large amount of material in this article, and the existence of articles for 14 Widespread Panic tour videos, merger is probably not possible, and keeping an independent article for each of their DVDs is a better idea. NJ Wine (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all 14 are to be kept, notability would have to be shown for all of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tour DVDs are clearly notable. For each of the three videos that you submitted to AfD, I have found separate independent sources. NJ Wine (talk) 04:38, 5 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - references discussing the tour do nothing to establish the notability of the DVD. The DVD is not the tour. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 13 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live at The Tabernacle

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

No indication that it passes NALBUMS — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 30 May 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) 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several independent sources discussing this tour[5][6], so Wikipedia's concert tour notability guideline has been met. Initially, I was going to suggest merger in Widespread Panic videography, but because of the large amount of material in this article, and the existence of articles for 14 Widespread Panic tour videos, merger is probably not possible, and keeping an independent article for each of their DVDs is a better idea. NJ Wine (talk) 01:45, 5 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - references discussing the tour do nothing to establish the notability of the DVD that is the subject of the article. The DVD is not the tour. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 13 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 19 June 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) 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Rosfort-Nees

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

This MMA fighter has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. He did win a title (which he lost his next fight) for a second tier organization, but that's not enough to meet WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has a number of professional MMA fights, but none for a top tier organization (thus failing WP:MMANOT). I also found a respectable number of hits on Google, but they seemed to fall under WP:ROUTINE instead of showing significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 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) 00:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Popescu

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

Does not appear to meet the standards of notability for kickboxers/martial artists/boxers given at WP:MANOTE, WP:NSPORTS#Boxing, or WP:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force. The ranking given in the article excludes the 15 champions the WKF has in that weight division, so he ranks 26th out of the remaining 41 fighters in the division (or 41st out of 56 overall).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fighter doesn't meet any notability criteria and the article has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Doesn't meet either WP: GNG or WP: PERSON. The sources listed are unreliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 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 Monster Beverage#Juices for children. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Juice

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

Fails WP:CORP, sourcing doesn't seem WP:RS ready, no real claim of notability, only that it exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the factual information here to Monster Beverage#Juices for Children. (That article needs some serious cleaning up, but the company--and the Hansen's part of it--is notable enough.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge To small a subject for a stand alone article. Should be mrged.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Capital

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

Sources are short of notability, one about the failure of the company's loans, the other is mundane press release type by a non-RS cite, plus a primary link. Just another bank that made a lot of bad loans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a quick search turned up additional sources. Certainly not a great article, but we judge the topic's notability, not whether or not the article demonstrates it, and it is a required action to make a good faith effort to search prior to nomination for deletion. I don't think that occurred. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From The Author - As a contributor just beginning his work on Wikipedia, I created this article for a couple of reasons. My initial interest was in a man named Gordon Sondland. Since I was able to help get that article altered I have been working on building out other Oregon related articles that branch off of that article which were not yet covered. I plan on continuing to contribute in this manner, moving in one degree of relevance to associated topics that are yet to have an article. The fact that Aspen Capital made some bad loans doesn't qualify them for deletion in my estimation. The bottom line is that this is a business which is referenced in other articles and did not have its own page. They are a substantial player in the Portland economy. I would be open to instruction on how to make the article more legitimate...--Maggletooth (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing. Actually, I think it probably that nost established banks will make the cut for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has enough sources, and as an active bank in the portland community i believe its notable.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 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 withdrawn by nominator. — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. August

Withdrawn as per DS's suggestion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very minor mayor of a small-town, permastub. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. +70,000 people is a "small town"? And on what basis do you claim he was "very minor" ? Note that this article is actually referenced. Strong keep. DS (talk) 23:04, 19 June 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 withdrawn by nominator. — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Audet

Withdrawn as per DS --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced minor sporting figure. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who played in the NFL is notable by default. His page at NFL.com is listed. Ergo ipso facto, strong keep. DS (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Growns

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

Unreferenced stub pertaining to an as-yet unproduced TV series. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything here or on the series' official web site that leads me to think this is a television series likely to be professionally produced and distributed any time soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Artene50 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage whatsoever in any type of sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major Mini-Stick League

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

Appears to be a very small, local amateur sports league. Sources are insufficient to show notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Games are played at players' houses" really, really smacks of WP:MADEUP. Sources are unreliable and coverage is nonexistent. An A7 speedy is probably in order. DarkAudit (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty proffesional looking "small, local, amateur" sports league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmkrangers (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i'm sure they are having fun, but no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this some kind of joke? Specs112 t c 15:21, 26 June 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 Jean-Roch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alright (Jean-Roch song)

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

Subject (a published song) is not independently notable from it's creator. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect, or delete (Anything But Keep As A Standalone Article) - Although the song may meet notability guidelines ("barely" and I would argue that this policy or guideline should be revisited as well) as it is on a national music chart, there is a clear policy statment about songs in gerenal found HERE. Basically it states, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I cannot see this article growing past a stub and would say merge the information into the artist's article and it may even warrant a redirect. --Morning277 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Jean Roch. There is no need for this specific stub, and there is nothing notable about it besides Jean Roch, sao it should be merged. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 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 keep, nominator withdraws and no other comments advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 25964-1

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Is this really notable? Roshan220195 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per established consensus that ISO standards are notable. There are over 350 such articles listed at Category: ISO standards. Expand and improve the article rather than deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Saw that many ISO standards have seperate articles just now. Sorry for bringing it here. Can this be withdrawn or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan220195 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts III

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

I nominated this article 8 months ago, and since there has been virtually no changes in it since then, I am nominating it again. This article is all rumors and speculation, which is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There is still no confirmation that this game is even going to be created. The Kingdom Hearts Wikia doesn't even have an article for this. If Kingdom Hearts III does ever come out, the only section from this article that would even still be in it is the history section. JDDJS (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This has been deleted several times and nothing has changed. It's still nothing but speculation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Salt - if, like you say "nothing has changed" and yet created, why not speedy as CSD G4 - "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"? CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt? Good grief in heaven. Will you be the one to contact the developers, then, once they get around to announcing them, and tell them they cannot make this game because it would not jibe with the lackadaisical editing schedules of WP editors?

Furthermore, while the future contributions of WP editors and the opining experts themselves may or may not turn out to have a correlation with their past lack of contributions, we WP editors can no more say so with certainty than we can say when the game is coming out. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 23 June 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) 02:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of whether or not the game's ever released, it still get's substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources. Look at Chrono Break. 11 years later, and still nothing more than a trademark. And yet, it was brought to good article status. Same applies here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, as was brought up in the last AFD, which ended in "Keep", was coverage from IGN, a reliable source which contains information from the game's creator, which clearly discusses a Kingdom Hearts 3 by name. (http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/118/1181920p1.html) So it's not like it's some phantom game thought up by fans; the company clearly acknowledges its existence. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per a refinement of wording of Blake's reasoning in the second nomination. We could discuss whether speculation should be allowed in Wikipedia all day. Luckily, others already have, and the cut-off is "unverified speculation". Speculation by editors is not allowed; ~~speculation~~ <addition>informed opinion<end addition> by a consensus of reliable third party sources is the definition of the majority of Wikipedia's content. The article contains no speculation by WP editors about future events, and so CRYSTAL does not apply.

Yes, there are virtually no changes. That would be a reason to delete if there were any mention whatever of change requirements in the closer's statement. The article by this name has only been deleted once; despite a blizzard of 'Keep' rationales, the second nomination was held open for eight days. The first nomination was closed 'Delete' after only five days and three votes.

To dispel any lingering doubts in the uninformed about the notability of Kingdom Hearts: it is wildly popular, with handfuls of spinoffs. Quite the contrary; the reason for its delayed release is actually the opposite of being non-notable. The Kingdom Hearts franchise is being milked for every last dime; they'll bring this out once they have extracted the maximum out of fans waiting for KH III. Does not really matter when that is; its release is a foregone conclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directly from WP:CRYSTAL, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." and that all that the article is. JDDJS (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read that "History" section? None of that is speculation. It's all info from developers, reported on by reliable sources. That's the part that really makes it meet the WP:GNG, which trumps your WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I have retracted my statement, which was rhetorically strong but factually weak to your good scholarship, and revised it, so my argument still stands. I believe that the sentence you quoted was not intended to remove from WP the informed opinion of experts on the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section cab easily be added to Kingdom Hearts. JDDJS (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's clearly enough for a stand-alone article here. That part of CRYSTAL you quoted says that an article can't be based entirely on speculation. But it's not; there's the reliably sourced history section. Beyond that, CRYSTAL does not keep speculation off of articles altogether; speculation is fine if it is sourced and represented as speculation and not fact, which is exactly how I'd describe the speculation in this article.

Short version: The History section alone helps it meet the GNG, and the amount of sourced speculation provides enough verifiable content to warrant it it's own article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to a lot of the reasons the others have stated. There's enough evidence that the series will happen. And unlike Chrono Break which also has an article, it will be published in the next few years. That makes it relevant enough to let it stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRYSTAL only applies when it cannot be verified and has not coverage by WP:RS - not the case here. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article could be kept just on the History and Expectations sections alone. Just because 1 of the sections has speculation doesn't mean the whole article is speculation. And stated before, speculation is allowed in certain circumstances if it is sourced, which it is. Overall, this article informs readers, and without it, they would be attacking the talkpages of other articles in the series with questions about it. I don't see why you would want to remove an article that informs readers of so much. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's pretty much all been said. The article isn't speculation, it's well-sourced statements from the developers themselves, they just don't happen to be sharing solid information on a lot of stuff one would want (such as dates, etc). It doesn't matter what a KH wiki says, it certainly doesn't matter if people want to re-nominate articles for deletion or propose salting the topic (to that: seriously? is that a reflexive response on your part, or do you want to actually come up with a valid rational for that statement?). Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese numbered policies

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

A smart observation, but unfortunately a wikipedian's neologism and original research. Let's see, who besides wikipedia uses this term? Wow! bestbuy.com! 233 of them found on sale there! The page was created in 2003, when it was not so clear what wikipedia is to be, but unfortunately today this page must go. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYN poster child. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the rules on lists. Since its creation 9 years ago, consensus has changed on what Wikipedia is and is not. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced OR, though have anyone bothered looking on Chinese sources on this concept? I highly doubt that there is any good Chinese sources however as this subject area is probably the most common in Asian historiography written in English. If this concept isn't covered in English journals and books, unlikely that there's any sources for this. Secret ^account 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. Although I've made quite a few edits to this page (and have been notified of this discussion), I don't really think I can decide on what to side with. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources since 2009? This has to go from wikipedia. --Artene50 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No references just add on to the fact that this is original research, which is against our policies. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Never heard of that when I was in China.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant WP:OR. Specs112 t c 14:21, 25 June 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 Albert II, Prince of Monaco. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Coste

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

It's been over a year since the previous AfD resulted in the closer stating "more sources and inline citations are needed so no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination if these issues aren't addressed." No sources have been added since. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This would be the simple solution. Since the only notability of the article is for Albert II, Prince of Monaco, then this could be merged into that article without taking away from the importance of the issue that the article is notable for. (WOW! That was a run on sentence if I have ever seen one but I think you get my point). --Morning277 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not object to a merge and redirect. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Albert II as above; certainly deserves mention there as mother of one of his children (and she's already mentioned) but not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Maslach

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

Notability is not inheirited. causa sui (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete in current form. Agree that notability is not inherent. Would support the article if it is re-written. A good place to start is HERE and her notability could start from "she is best known as one of the pioneering researchers on job burnout, and the author of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)" Just a note to the creator if they want the article to survive Rfd. State the notability in the article and cite it. --Morning277 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the nominator care to say what he found for her citation record in the Google Scholar link above? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Not particularly. causa sui (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Full professor at Berkeley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Professor of the Year" by the Carnegie Foundation, president of the Western Psychological Association, Chair of the Faculty, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at one of the top ranked schools in the world. Most of her books have been translated into multiple foreign languages. Could the nominator say what he or she feels Prof. Maslach's notability is being inherited from? It seems like she has far more than enough on her own. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article creates the impression that notability is inheirited from Philip Zimbardo, obviously. causa sui (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps obviously to someone reading the article with the sexist viewpoint that women can't be important in their own right and must only be evaluated by what their husband does. Should we take out the single dry sentence that she's married to Zimbo, since it seems to be causing such problems? But given the connection between his and her work I think it's relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, and your presumption of sexism on my part is repulsive and offensive. causa sui (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. To the above, we can add that her (WoS) h-index is 24, far above the threshold region of 10-15, with citation counts: 1160, 1061,... This is a conclusive pass on WP:PROF. Any perceived problems with the article can be handled by editing and we do not need to spend any more time debating notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong and clear Keep as above. Agricola44 has answered my question that the nominator was unable to address. On GS the subject has 6 refs with over 1000 cites, by our standards a stupendously good record. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hopefully some of this information will be added to the article before the AFD closes. In general I tend to disregard the sentiment that memorizing lengthy rulebooks is a requirement for participation. causa sui (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not an obstacle to participation in AfDs, but I think AfD nominators should be held to a higher standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Scott Cuthbert and Agricola44. I'd also like to add that the fact that an article needs improvement is never a valid reason for deletion on its own. It's a valid reason for improving it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Scott Cuthbert and Agricola44. WJBscribe (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:PROF#C1 (six publications with over 1000 cites each; ten times fewer would still be easily enough to convince me of her impact) and #3 (AAAS fellow). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per David Eppstein. The nom is advised not to be so casual about guidelines. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no non-keep !votes The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya Wikipedia

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Wikipedia but in a differant language, meets [WP:GNG] Seasider91 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reason stated by Seasider. Not sure why this article was not created previously. --Morning277 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 89#Are articles about WMF Projects exempt from WP:N?. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was already proposed for deletion once, and contested. So please discuss it with an Admin before nominating. And Category:Wikipedias by language, more than 80 Wikipedia pages are there, you think all are notable except this one ? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROD is a different process than WP:AFD. Any editor can contest a prod because it is only for uncontroversial deletions, which means that a rejected prod has no bearing on whether an AFD can or should be started. postdlf (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not all Wikipedias are notable, but this one has potential. Oriya Literature is fairly significant in India, so I'm surprised there are not more sources that could not be added. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has now been demonstrated in the article with substantial coverage from The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Outlook and others. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept by nominator - notability has been demonstrated. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating a well-referenced article on the subject — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Authors

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

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with notability guidelines for actors, nor through the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Article states that the subject is best known for his role as a main cast member of Falling Skies, but the sources don't support this. IMDb does not list him in the main cast and only shows him appearing in seven of 20 episodes. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Fails WP: GNG for this reason. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As with alot of actors, I'm not worried about the refs as I'm hoping he passes WP:NACTOR. Falling Skies is on my Netflix queue, so I haven't seen it. However, not all 20 episodes have aired as the show just started airing season 2. IMDb generally doesn't list details about episodes that haven't shown, so they would only have details on 12 episodes. Also, IMDb is not that timely at updating acting credits. The star of the show Noah Wyle is only listed in 10 episodes. Be careful at what IMDb says at it is updated by volunteers. Looking around, he is not a main character and would be best described as a recurring character. Other acting jobs are either minor or best described as "recurring". I'd say he is close to notability, but needs a substantial part or two to kick him over the line. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 20 June 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 keeps and deletes are split pretty evenly right down the middle, however nearly everyone (including most of the delete voters) seems to agree that the topic is notable, but the majority of the list entries are inappropriate or derive from original research. In this case, deleting the article won't accomplish much, as the article will likely be re-created in a few months. Therefore, I would like to see a discussion started on the talk page of the article to determine clear inclusion criteria for the list, and once that has been decided the list must be cleared of entries that don't meet the criteria. -Scottywong | yak _ 17:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies generating losses

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

Firstly, this list is a new version of essentially the same article, which was deleted in September, 2009. The current iteration was created just over a month later. As I've outlined on the articles talk page, this isn't a list of notable box office bombs with outside references naming them as such or outside analysis that points to failure - it is a list of movies, their production and sometimes marketing budgets and theatrical grosses on a table with the difference between those two sets of numbers presented as the 'loss'. This is clear WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have no idea if these movies actually generated losses since this list only takes theatrical distribution into account, or if so, losses for whom, since often times multiple studios and distributors share the burden of cost - for example MGM posted a loss on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, while other studios/distributors involved apparently made it into the black. It also relies on editors here to do math that's often based on incomplete or inaccurate numbers. If the article isn't deleted outright, I'd recommend a massive scale cleanup/rewrite to include only films that are notable for losing money, with outside sources backing up both statements, not just films that didn't gross more than their purported budgets. Williamsburgland (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update - it looks like the deleted article I linked above was the second instance of this type of list being deleted - another was deleted in 2006 for roughly the same reasons. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly - there's an old discussion on the Biographies of living persons notice board (old version linked). --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the last deletion discussion contains the same type of vote that I am thinking of right now ("yes, no, maybe, kind of"). I would say Keep the list if there can be an established criteria for what makes the list (an agreed upon criteria). I believe that is Williamsburgland's main contention is that you can basically source anything from anywhere and put a movie on the list (forgive me, Williamsburgland, if I misunderstand your contention. As there is really no method of determining what makes the list, then it should be deleted. Not voting, just food for thought. --Morning277 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, it should have the word "films" in the title, not movies. Lugnuts (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Morning - That's fairly accurate (in terms of what I'm trying to say), but my biggest gripe with the article is that it cites no outside sources that state that any of the films on it lost money - it simply presents their cost (which may or may not be accurate), their grosses and presents the difference as a loss. That's OR/SYNTH if you ask me. At any rate, I appreciate your input and I hope it will continue to foster discussion on this topic Lugnuts - I agree with this statement. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole concept seems to be made up, and fairly meaningless. Even before home video movies where shown on TV and there were also sometimes spin-off products. And yes, producers and investors were smart enough to take that into consideration. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confident that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will do fine on DVD. Everyone's heard of it. It just wasn't a good date movie. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hollywood accountants are notorious for obfuscating matters so that it's impossible for outsiders to figure out the actual financial status of films. Exhibit A: Buchwald v. Paramount. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite as list of movies with biggest losses. This is a notable topic[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The topic of movies that lose large amounts of money is a notable topic (box office bomb). I see this article was actually was titled List of biggest box office bombs until it was moved a few months ago. Consider that this pages notes Alexander, which grossed $167,000,000 on budget/marketing cost of $201,000,000. That is, it made 83% what was spent to make and market the film, which hardly classifies it as a bomb. That is why I think it would be nice to have a (high?) specific threshold for this page, so only the biggest bombs would be listed here. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 13:27, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Response I agree with the bulk of what both of you are saying - it's certainly a notable topic, and I'm working on a rewrite of the Box office bomb article right now to focus the definition of failure, rather than just saying 'if it doesn't earn back it's budget in box office receipts its a bomb', which is fairly ridiculous. While the article should be fairly easy to rewrite, this list is another story. It needs a complete overhaul, every single entry needs a ref like the one Colapeninsula used (I actually added that to the BOB article yesterday), and we should remove the Budget - Gross = Loss format since its OR. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the films in this list have nothing to do with losses according to Hollywood accounting. However the list was initially nothing more than an extension to the article Box office bomb, and the movies on this list was selected according to this definition. Somebody a couple of months ago changed the title of the article from List of biggest Box office bombs, to List of movies generating losses, and made the list completely confusing. I believe that if the list is going to be kept, it should be clearly based in a well-defined term. The old article which was deleted in 2009 was not in accordance to the wikipedia definition, since it used only US revenues and not worldwide revenues in the film data. Clicklander (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion over the article title change, but at the time there were problems reliably verifying a films losses were "biggest" and how to clearly define what a "box office bomb" was, so "List of movies generating losses" was a compromise stop-gap solution. That said, if there was consensus on the criteria for "box office bomb" (e.g. those that have been noted as bombs by secondary sources, per Colapeninsula) then a title like Notable Box office bombs might fit a severely pruned list. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree with this notion; it would just be a fairly large undertaking, but I think Clicklander's original intention was a far better project than what exists today. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list has always been problematic and will remain so until we determine some real inclusion criteria. There are plenty of films that actually make a ton at the box office, but lose money by not overcoming their costs at the box office. Additionally, there are many films that lose money for their studios even when they take in more than their production and marketing costs, as the revenues must be split with the distributors, but these are excluded here. Additionally, the list doesn't take into account other ways films can make money such as video/DVD rentals and sales. And even if we overcame all this, as others have said, Hollywood accounting still obfuscates what films actually cost and earn. The topic is notable generally, but this current iteration is extremely problematic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic list but improve with specific reasonable finite criteria, and then a change in title to go with that if necessary. KTC (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal So why not rename the article List of Notable Box Office Bombs and go through it with a fine tooth comb to remove uncited entries. I also suggest the table/formula is removed and replaced with some kind of short summary for each film, like director, cast, studio and reason it's notable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename setting some clearer criteria, as suggested by Williamsburgland and Colapeninsula. Cavarrone (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, restructure and edit per Williamsburgland. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic I can't Believe Mad City is on that list - that's my favorite film ever... :( Oh and Keep and severely prune so that all that remains is clearly identifiable to a source. A rejig of the scope of the article probably wouldn't go amiss in this regard either 90.216.118.113 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with renaming as Williamsburgland proposed, however if you remove the formula there will be no way to order the films and have an indication for the size of the failure in the box office. Perhaps we should rather keep the formula and put a threshold in order to eliminate the small bombs. Additionally it might be a good idea in the beginning of the article to mention that this formula is just an indication for the size of the bomb and has nothing to do with the actual studio losses, so that there will be no misunderstandings.Clicklander (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Again, the formula is a major issue for me - its inherently OR. The difference between gross and budget isn't an indication of profit or loss - either can be much more or much less depending on a variety of factors, and it's highly unlikely that anyone can find even remotely accurate numbers to that effect. My suggestion is to utilize outside sources like the ones used in the Box Office Bomb article that specifically name bombs and describe why they're notable. We could also include a notes section for losses, if they're available, or for short summaries - for example - a Disney boss was apparently fired/resigned in the wake of John Carter. That's notable and verifiable and in no way OR (again, because there are a number of reliable sources out there). --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To my understanding, it is not the loss that makes a bomb, but its unsuccessful performance in the box office compared to the initial investment and therefore the studio´s expectations for the box office. According to the definition: ¨To earn this distinction, the film must also fail to earn more than the reported cost of its production, distribution and marketing by a wide margin¨. I do not see any other way to determine and classify a bomb than this formula with the difference between gross (box office sales) and budget (production+distribution+marketing). I agree that the formula isn´t an indication of profit or loss, however it is an indication of a bomb. I am not sure that the use of the formula consists OR as long as that definition of the bomb itself implies the use of this formula.Clicklander (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually my verbiage, and the key word would be also, meaning there are other criteria that must be met. At any rate, the way to classify a film as a bomb without the formula would be to A) Find verifiable, reliable sources calling it such, and/or B) Finding a reliable source stating that it lost a great deal of money. If it brings us to the same conclusion that the formula would, great - OR isn't necessarily erroneous, but it's still not allowed. Take, for example, the practice of adding production budget to marketing cost. This could be a fallacy in and of itself since we have no idea who spent that money. ABC studio might have sold distribution rights to 123 Distributors for X amount with a stipulation that 123 pay for Y amount of marketing (and that's just one scenario)... if the movie bombed, would you be able to tell me who lost how much money based on the formula on the page? Again, I suggest a list of movies, heavily cited, and if any of them have ref's that state how much they lost, then by all means include it... otherwise I say leave numbers out. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta agree that using a formula to judge a film's earnings/losses as the criteria for inclusion is OR, unless the formula is a widely accepted industry or commercial standard. What makes a notable bomb a notable bomb is that a secondary source has characterized it as such. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current list is original research. all the debtate about what this list could be is really advocating for a different list and not this list. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to the recreation of a non-OR article. There is agreement that the current content violates WP:OR, a core policy. As Whpq notes, the "keep" opinions argue that what we should have is a completely different article with a different title and different content. This means we can delete this one and all are free to write a policy-compliant new article. Sandstein 05:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete some elements of the article. There should be only 50 films in the list. J4lambert (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - If kept, why should the list be limited to 50? -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wondered that myself. My feeling is that any such list should include any and all notable box office bombs; though I suspect that number will be below 50. Clicklander - do you have the bandwidth to perform a rewrite of the article? If so, I am up for assisting. We could sandbox a template out and do a rewrite if you like. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move and rewrite. As it currently stands, the article is OR and almost certainly wrong. You can't deduce losses from the very limited information available. If the article is going to stay, it need to be about box office performance only, since that is the only thing we can find data for. It also shouldn't try to calculate losses, since they are meaningless without knowing all the costs and all the revenues. If we need a metric to order them by (can we not just use alphabetical order?), I suggest box office revenue as a percentage of production costs. It's not a meaningful accounting ratio, but it gives a general idea of how big a bomb it was (it ignores the fact that different films have different levels of non-production costs and non-box office revenues, but at least its something). There is still an issue of inclusion criteria, though. I'd like to base it on whether reliable sources have described the film as a box office bomb (that's in keeping with our standard policies on inclusion), but different reliable sources use such vastly different definitions (and often don't really have a set definition) that it doesn't really work. For that reason, my preference would be to delete the article. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS Brand Clothing

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP, namely significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. A Google news search for “THIS Brand Clothing” shows nothing. Nothing in Google books either. A Google news search for Scott Lombard shows no clothing related articles. Likewise nothing for Buddy Jackson. The article itself currently has three sources. One is to a single page article in a Canadian fashion magazine. I have not read this article. It is unclear whether it covers the subject in any depth (it is given as a source to the date and location of the company’s founding). The second, to ABC news, does not mention THIS Brand Clothing. The third is to a free monthy community paper. I have not read this article. It does not appear in the online edition [14] but it may be print only. The depth of coverage is unclear--it is given as a source for the company's location and that it makes tie-dyes. I have deleted a couple of other questionable sources, for example an untitled article from “Business Daily” on the grounds that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory says there is no publication with that name. Finally, lending support to the concern that this is just a promotional page, the company’s own website [15] (under THIS COMPANY) links directly to this Wikipedia article to provide company information. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP: GNG, as there are no reliable sources. The one source that can be considered reliable has an article that has nothing to do with the listed company. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I wasn't able to access the sources given but they do not appear helpful. I was not able to find anything useful through the usual Google searches. In addition, the article appears to be an WP:Advertisement. Msnicki (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per aforementioned reasons. I also tried to find reliable third party sources for the article through google but none were available. It would seem that this brand is indeed not notable at all. - Takeaway (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication

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

Written like a textbook, hopeless case for re-write, blow it up start again. Article is too specific and technical to be useful, written about a specific experiment, could possibly be reduced and merged into the Entanglement article. Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 14:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominator. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some content to Entanglement-assisted classical capacity which seems the most relevant article. Appears too specific for a stand-alone article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion of a paper with only 7 cites on GS. Too early. When it has 700 cites we can take another look. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Too narrow a topic for an encyclopedia entry, no inline citations, few sources, and waaaaaaaay too long. Famous_dog 08:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grim logik

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

Fails notability except for one event, fails music bio. GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 17:33, 12 June 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) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as per WP:MUSIC. TOW talk 08:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising operations

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

Notability as a distinct article. Wikipedia has extensive articles on advertising and marketing. The author who created this has three edits to his credit: creating the page, creating the talk page for his article, and making one other minor edit to this article. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 June 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) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Does this denote anything distinct from marketing, advertising, etc? Recruitment is an industry full of buzzwords, but we don't need to have an article on all of them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:25, 12 June 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) 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself even says that the expression has no clear meaning. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article implies that the term is in broad use but I found no evidence of that, or even (as noted above) consensus as to its meaning. Dictionary definition issues would apply if there was consensus; as it is, it just doesn't seem to be notabile. Ubelowme (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted according to the WP:CSD#A7 tag that was placed on the article. The sources fail to meet WP:SIGCOV requirements, and the claims of notability were not credible or meaningful, therefore the article qualified for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It is disturbing to see the single purpose accounts that have appeared here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GameShampoo

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non notable website fails to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:WEB. Article has 4 references. Two are press releases from gamasutra.com and due to the lack of independence, cannot be used to establish notability. One is a list from BayCon2012, a SciFi convention. The coverage is not significant or independent and can't be used to establish notability. The last is a shottily written press release from develop-online.net with no author which in my opinion isn't reliable or independent and can't be used to establish notability. I can find no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources in a Google News search or a Google News Archive search.

The only claim of importance in the article, in my opinion, comes from the sources listed and as none can be used to establish notability, I believe the article qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. An SPA editor with 7 edits removed an A7 tag placed by another user. There have been 6 WP:SPA editors editing the page with a total of 20 edits between them which in my opinion and in the opinion Hairhorn, stinks of a sock drawer. Since it's an online community, it could also be meatpuppetry. I only bring it up here in case there's ballot stuffing. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the talk page:

This page should not have been marked for deletion. Reasons are as follows:

The references establish notability, including three articles from reputable sites that mention the website
Website is based in a physical location (San Francisco) as shown in the references
Website has made appearance in a major convention, as shown in the references
According to Alexa, this website is in the top 20,000 visited in the US, and top 100,000 in the world (as of 6/18/2011)

Based on the above, I argue that the website's notability is established, and the page must remain Matrimater (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Matrimater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Commment - I use the site, and from the Alexa ranking it seems to be more popular then other sites here. The physical location established and convention appearance also contribute.CorporalBB (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— CorporalBB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - This is like a Yahoo Answers for video games. It is used by me and my friends to help us with video games. Since Yahoo answers has an entry in wikipedia, why wouldn't this one? 166.250.33.191 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 166.250.33.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - I verified that this is a top 20,000 US site according to Alexa.. 198.228.216.23 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 198.228.216.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Completely non-notable website. Every single "source" provided in the article is a press release, which, of course, never counts as a reliable source. Searching for sources on my own gives me nothing about the site that isn't first party. I noticed that the article was already tagged for Speedy Deletion (as it should have been), but a non-admin user with very few edits removed it, which is not proper. I'll go ahead and restore the Speedy Tag, with the hope that this article can just be deleted without having to go through the whole week of AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I should have addressed this is my nomination as the argument was already made on the talk page. Alexa rankings do not prove notability. Notability is defined at WP:N and it has many subsections. The subsections that would apply were noted in my nomination (WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:WEB). There may be another but I can't think of one. The essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions covers making arguments about hit, specifically in the section WP:GOOGLEHITS. As the essay explains, Alexa rankings, page hits, or search hits for a topic don't help to establish notability which is needed for a subject to be included in the encyclopedia. The only reason Google News or Google News Archive search results or relevant is because it can help satisfy WP:GNG and even then, specific articles must qualify to be used to establish notability; it's not just based on search result hits. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:50, 19 June 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 close; relisted at MFD Achowat (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox

Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus of some users. This box violated the rules of Wikipedia. It invents the numbers taken from space, nonsense percentage numbers and establishes the rights inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. These calculations (OR) also introduces false information to article, erroneous data underestimated. Also, article name of "List of best-selling music artists" suggests that it will be the total number of records sold, but - this is only records sold for gold, silver and platinum CD's. Also, user (co-author) makes use incomplete sources - not presenting the complete data. Template for delete. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close : Not an article, and hence not valid for AfD. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (We could quibble about whether it's also WP:SK#1 as the sole deletion rationale is now objectively false, but the outcome here is clear enough.) j⚛e decker ^talk 19:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine films of 2008

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

Only one item in the list Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you fill it out a bit, perhaps using the interwiki links on the side of the page, or your other research skills, rather than wasting everyone's time with a spurious deletion debate about an obviously notable topic? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOFIXIT. The solution is to improve the list not delete it. -- KTC (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per KTC. I've added almost 50 films out of about 120, will add the rest later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work, Blofeld. This is now a passable list. Snow keep. Specs112 t c 14:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
obvious keep. Sasha (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (even before Dr B's excellent work). This is part of a bigger series (see the sidebar on the article...) Having one item on the list is inviting YOU to expand it, WP:BEFORE listing it here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Mustafa

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

The page is full of hoaxes and sources are NOT reliable and cannot be verified. also there is not neutral view. unreliable sources provided recently to keep the article and prevent it from deletion JohnRak (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable and The page is written by one side only and one person: user:banimustafa and External links in the article are leaded to a personal webpage and has no relation with topic. it is a personal webpage for the author.--JohnRak (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author banimustafa removed AFD template! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRak (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's my fault. When I PRODded the article several days ago, he inquired at my talk page and I informed him that, if he improved the article by adding reliable sources, he could remove the PROD template, according to policy. He was confused and apparently did not realize that PROD and AfD are two different things. Again, my fault entirely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. WP:COI. AfD template restored and author given only warning. He is about to be blocked given recent behavior. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong warning template, but that's not a big deal. It deserved one, anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an AfD template is considered vandalism, and he's had multiple "final warnings" this month already. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed we were meant to use uw-afd4. Regardless, the sooner this is over, the better. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- possibly speedy, per WP:COI, and WP:VERIFY. What few RS's there are (Peake and Field) are improperly formatted so aren't even verifiable. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just thought I should mention that User:Banimustafa accused User:JohnRak of being a sockpuppet of User:Historyfeelings. I have no clue if this is true or not, as I am only involved via my original PROD of the article, and am not familiar with any associated content disputes. I just figured everyone should be aware. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I found this on Google Books.~~ I don't really know much about the topic, but I'm prepared to AGF and relist this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The GBooks reference is actually irrelevant. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 19 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious COI, not reliable. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Snowball this article. I tried to find external sources but all that I come up with is names of people. I found the Google Book source as well but it is irrelevant as noted by Tom Morris. Would love to save an article but even someone like me (who would rather see an article live a few days to have a chance for improvement) sees no hope for this page surviving. --Morning277 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 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. Davewild (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kunkeshwar

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

This page was previously deleted under CSD, and I don't think it's current incarnation is going to fare any better. Zero indication of notability. JoelWhy? talk 12:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Speedy delete per nom. Specs112 t c 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)~~ I changed my mind. Specs112 t c 14:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable, named populated place, which are almost always kept regardless of whether GNG is shown to be met, per Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer. Prior version was speedy deleted as an advertisement, which doesn't apply to the current version, nor does any other CSD category. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt may be fine to keep it now that it finally have a citation. (I removed a number of statements in the article which may have constituted advertising, which is why it's no longer a CSD candidate.) JoelWhy? talk 15:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you were able to fix it from being promotional just by excising some POV language[16] means it was never a CSD candidate in the first place. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can always fix a promotional issue by excising POV language. JoelWhy? talk 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. Try "Kunkeshwar is the best place on earth. No place is more beautiful, and no place provides a happier way of life. People flock from all over the globe to Kunkeshwar." Or "Foo, Inc. is a highly innovative company leading the way to the future. Come work at Foo and start an exciting career! Salaries and benefits are top of the line." The qualifying phrases "exclusively promotional" and "would need to be fundamentally rewritten" are in WP:CSD#G11 for a reason. You merely removed two adjectives and one sentence and the POV problem was fixed. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep places, towns, villages are inherently notable. Kunkeshwar is a major tourist shot [17], [18] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, this does appear to be an actual settlement and a tourist-attraction at that.--Oakshade (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Lavo

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

Very little here to indicate notability. JoelWhy? talk 12:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Close, but not quite. According to her bio HERE, she is "about to become." In order for her to be notable, the article needs to show notability criteria for for musicians and ensembles. If I were to grasp at a few straws, I would change my vote if a reference can be cited that any of her music (which is not much at this point) can reach any of the criteria points for notability, even #11 (which is a low threshold for notability). She is a day away from meeting the criteria, but not today. --Morning277 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I can only find press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Midnight

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

Fails WP:BIO. Cannot find a single relevant result from searches for 'Vincent Midnight' 'Vincent Midnight Runway Media', 'Vincent Midnight Runway TV'. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no independent coverage at all relating to the subject--nor, for that matter, any independent coverage of the various projects mentioned in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered all appear to be WP:PRIMARY and not helpful in establishing notability. Google searches failed to turn up anything useful. In addition, the article appears to be a possible WP:Autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete. This is a real person. He can be easily found on www.Facebook.com/runway , its hard to dispute that the owner of /runway on facebook and twitter is not a real magazine. Kable distribution verified distribution of this magazine since 2007. This magazine can be found at every Barns and Noble in every state. A simple call to Barns and Noble HQ will verify that. Please help with the research and not put down the work. I would love some help fixing this and getting a RUNWAY 'magazine' page as the magazine is extremely high quality and employees lots of good writers and photographers. They are a made in the USA company also. WP:Autobiography. fashiontalk (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.66.108 (talk) [reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 25 June 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Google Street View

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

This article does not seem encyclopaedic. The main part of the article is near impossible to verify and accurately source. It is effectively Original Research. Furthermore, I don't believe that the information in the article would ever be useful to (m)any people. Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 10:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that this article should be deleted, mainly on the basis that several other technological products have a timeline of introduction, such as Timeline of Apple Inc. products, which has even fewer cited sources than Timeline of Google Street View. Second, the information is useful to people who are interested in Google Street View, such as myself; being that I do not have the chance to travel often and am studying urban planning, Street View is a valuable resource for me to compare and explore places around the world, and this page is the only reliable source of update notification that I have found for Google Street View. After all, Google does not have a page that announces when new places are released (at least that I have found), and the Google LatLong blog does not always update when a new country is introduced. I do agree that there should be more sources cited, especially since I suspect that the primary contributors to the article may be Google employees themselves, as the updates are always recorded in the article with great punctuality. I have already asked one such editor for his sources, since he was the one who contributed today's introduction of San Marino and more places in the Czech Republic [[19]]. In conclusion, while I agree that more sources should be cited, I disagree that the article should be deleted on the basis that there are other timeline articles out there and because it does have a purpose and users. If the article cannot stand alone by itself, I propose merging it as a section in the Google Street View article. TheAckademie (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep so oppose merge to Google Street View. This article was created after a discussion to reduce the dimensions of GSV article. I agree that some updates have not sources, but that does not mean the information is not correct. Some facts should be added^{[citation needed]} until there are more links.Eugεn S¡m¡on(14) ® 14:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 10:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Street View receives a vast amount of press (and several lawsuits and other investigations by various governments, which in turn received media coverage). This exists as a spin-off of the main article; Google Street View is an innovative and popular product which has, amongst other things, spurred significant discussion of privacy rights around the world, and therefore deserves detailed coverage in Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because fans of things like Google Street View don't understand the concept of an encyclopedia article and use WP for a venue for the most minute details of their interest. To fight them would be a total waste of time. To win the fight would require some serious changes in how WP works, and that might not be a good thing. Anyway the 99.99% of us who don't care about the timeline of Google Street View can ignore the article with no harm done to anyone. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of this article is sourceable due to the fact that it is so commonplace that whenever Streetview is introduced anywhere in the world, it gets reported at the very minimum in the news of that place, and usually around the world (e.g. "Google Street View introduced in _______"), including in English-language publications. This makes it so virtually all the information in this article can be verified from reliable sources outside of Google, enough to meet the GNG. If any citations are missing, it is more likely not due to a lack of existence, but due to WP:LINKROT and the increased difficulty in finding them as time passes. But plenty of them can still be found today in a Google News search. And original research is not a serious problem with this article. Merging it to the main article is not feasible per WP:TOOLONG. The main article needed to be broken up into many more because it had grown to be above 160K and was unmanageable, difficult to read, difficult to edit, and it took forever to load on older computers and on mobile devices. Sebwite (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is the easiest place where one can find out when new cities and countries are added to Google Street View. Google does not have a website that informs one when somewhere new had been added, therefore I believe it is necessary to keep this article. I have never seen an incorrect detail on this page and it has always been very useful. So it is my opinion that under no circumstance should this page be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.220.177 (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I frequently check this page and find it the most comprehensive source of this information on the internet. It's regularly updated and I don't see anything particularly unencyclopaedic about it. As for sources, surely Google Maps itself is a fair source? The dates may be harder to verify, but I think it would be a great shame to get rid of the article purely for this reason... LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Google Maps is a great source for the available cities themselves; one can easily go over to confirm the addition of a new location, even if dates are harder to find. But I'm just like you – I also check this page very frequently. TheAckademie (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouMovie Awards

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

Awards voted on by "Italian users of Google and YouTube"? Seriously? Zero independent notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also question: does the Italian WP even have an article on this? Specs112 t c 14:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A case of premature article creation: as far as I can tell the awards are being held for the first time this year, and voting is still going on, with results due on June 30th. It may well receive publicity after that, but we can't be certain. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically, WP:CRYSTAL. Specs112 t c 15:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While applicable policy does allow that something scheduled to happen and reciving coverage "might" be dicussed somewhere... the catch here is WP:RS... and a lack of actually reliable sources speaking toward this topic indicates it currently lacks verifiability AND notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm italian! In Italy this awards has got a lot of success. I also heard on the radio, on UndiciRadio. I think that sources are reliable because they are used on italian wikipedia. There is also a reliable source from an italian website: [20] It is from BASTARDI PER LA GLORIA. There is a page on italian wikipedia for this online magazine: here. Augusto Antonio (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But does that mean that it is worthy of an article on the English Wikipedia? I wouldn't say so. Specs112 t c 12:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His comment is a bit racist ... Augusto Antonio (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being racist. I'm just saying that the presence of an article about it on another language wiki doesn't automatically grant notability on this one. Besides, the article for that magazine on the Italian Wikipedia isn't particularly good. And while I would very weakly support the article for that magazine itself, that article isn't even the issue here. The magazine may be debatably notable, but its as-yet nonexistent awards are definitely not. Specs112 t c 18:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Augusto Antonio. Please keep in mind that what is required to show notability for an article on it.Wikipedia, or even an article existing on it, has litle bearing upon the requirements at en.Wikipedia. What we need HERE are multiple secondary sources speaking about the topic. As these are more often available ater an event takes place, the thoughts are simply that the article is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that we must wait until the end of the first edition and then we write a more detailed page with a dozen different sources. What do you think? Augusto Antonio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would work only if the thing gets decent coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm Italian, passionate about cinema, I have actually subscribed a couple of film magazines, I regularly check cinema-related websites and blogs but never heard about this award. Maybe it is popular in some social networks or forums, but I can't say it is actually notable. Even my searches found anything significative. Maybe notable in the future, not now. Cavarrone (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that this page must be saved because sources are very authoritative. Mr. Taddeo (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Radi al-Utaibi

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

a militant covered only for a single event (his death in bomb blast). An existing List Saudi most wanted list#List of February 3, 2009 is more suitable. Fails WP:BIO , WP:SIGCOV for an individual article. DBig Xray 07:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Several reliable sources discusss the subject, but only in passing. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly fails WP:GNG. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Page withdrawn by author. Speedy G7. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Owaidan Al-Harbi

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

a suspected terrorist, could not find anything other than a bare mention in a list of wanted. An existing List Saudi most wanted list#List of February 3, 2009 is more suitable. Fails WP:BLP1E , WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV for an individual article. DBig Xray 06:55, 19 June 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, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summertimemusic.co.nz

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

I found no significant coverage. Google Books and HighBeam turned up nothing. Google News turned up one trivial mention. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 22 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 15:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 7 June 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, →B music ian 15:08, 12 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 and WP:WEB. Surprised it didn't get CSDed right off the bat when it was made. Specs112 t c 15:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would have been a speedy candidate as I could see no claim to notability in the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Myra

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

On notability grounds but also on just plain lack of verification of imaginative claims. Association with similar neo-ninja and their claims does not inspire belief.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is Sherdog listing his MMA record as 1-2, with no fights for a top tier promotion. The unsupported claims that he created his own non-notable fighting system and has connections to Frank Dux and Count Dante fail to show me any notability--in fact, they raise red flags. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice the fight's have not been updated beyond a scheduled even in 2009 followed by a really suspect reason for withdrawl. Recent modifications are about opening schools (ie. advertisement).Peter Rehse (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced BLP that meets no notability criteria. Sherdog now shows his MMA record as 1-3 so apparently "Dux's more secretive techniques" don't help in an MMA fight and his fears of hurting other fighters with them was unnecessary. Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 25 June 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) 00:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Logix

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

No evidence that this corporation meets the criteria of WP:ORG. Lots of awards, but in the web design industry, there's always an award being handed out somewhere -- this isn't really a sign of notability. No evidence of any significant coverage in independent sources. What news hits can be found are almost exclusively press releases from the company itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the content has been re-written so that it is not an advertisement, and reference links have been included that are not press releases. Including articles for business journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkofron4 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources (as of this version) include:
1. Press Release
2. Press Release
3. Advertorial
4. Article written by company's founder
5. Directory listing indicating that Magic Logix develops with Magento
6. Directory listing indicating that Magic Logix is a Web Design firm in Dallas
7. Forum posting by someone calling themselves MagicLogix
8. Article about founder at the Dallas Business Journal indicating local coverage of a local company.

None of these sources indicates notability for this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the evidence - indeed not notable. Sources are either WP:Primary and self Promotional violating WP:COI and CP:SOAP or they are not non WP:RS 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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) 00:02, 12 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any evidence of notability, mostly looks like self promotion. CodeTheorist (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd Raggad Samir Al-Ruwaili

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

a militant recruiter covered only for his surrender. An existing List Saudi most wanted list#List of February 3, 2009 is more suitable. Fails WP:BLP1E , WP:SIGCOV for an individual article. DBig Xray 06:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it to that list the nom linked to per nom. Decent content, definitely fails getting his own article though. Specs112 t c 15:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, recruiters are generally not individually notable. That being said, it can be individually argued that the subject has sufficient in-depth coverage to pass WP:CRIMINAL. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the content seems fine, I don't think that merging will do any good. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:59, 26 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumari (Sinop)

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

No such place exists in Sinop Province according to reliable sources. (I couldn't reach to the author because he/she has been blocked) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 03:17, 12 June 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 June 12. Snotbot t • c » 03:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geonames[21] gives 2 places by that name in Turkey, Kumari (Kutahya) and an alternative name for Akdeğirmen, Sinanpaşa. Neither of these are anywhere near the location shown on the map. Unless other sources indicate this exists, it may be an alternative local name for a place, or a mistake, or a hoax, but we've no way of knowing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 13 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no such place in Sinop Province. The official list of populated places is here [22] Besides as one can see in any on line map, the coordinates given in the article are of dense forestry and nothing else. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definate hoax, putting co-ordinates given into google maps gives a village called BakirlizaviyeSeasider91 (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not meet wiki:GNG. Seems to be hoax. Even there are no reliable sources provided/available or sited. So delete. --Bharathiya (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V as unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 June 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Halfblood Chronicles

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

This article is completly unsourced - not allowing WP:V. I suggest that unless it is significantly improved from a level plot summary to a critical assement of the series - that it deleted or merged into Mercedes Lackey. Issues included WP:NPOV WP:OR and WP:N. OrenBochman 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It's clear these books exist. Rather than just lazily using tools to autocreate an AfD, perhaps the nom should be a bit more collegiate and HELP. I have no doubt that references could be found if the attempt were made. Incidentally this is one of a series of noms made by this user over the last few days. The speedies have already been reverted (see WP:AN/I). - jc37 01:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could start with WP:AGF. Also try including some policy related information in your response.

Why not reciprocate - you also can HELP - I can't fix all the articles at AfD. and it is the responsibility of creators or editors which published to mainspace too early. This article does not meet our standards for inclusion as is and hence should be removed or merge elsewhere.

P.S. how are the deletion CSD on a PornBio impact a decision on this article? I have also used twinkle to make this [23].

P.S.S I appears that you have come to this discussion to vote rather than discuss. ::

P.S.S.S accusing others laziness is a double standard when you do not bother to do the work yourself. BO | Talk 13:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest the nominator withdraw the request. References have been added to the article. I also suggest the nominator read WP:BEFORE, because in the space of ten minutes another editor managed to find 6 sources for the article. AniMate 19:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per Afd Protocols and above suggestion. Reason: editors have since established that this article may satisfy WP:N and indicate a good will to bring it into compliance with policy. Other problems should be discussed on the talk page or though tagging, C.F. WP:RESPTAG. An aside - the suggestion of a Merge was the result of the WP:BEFORE investigation.
Note to closer etc Be advised that three of six sources introduced are unreliable. The Kirkus reviews provides its reviews as a paid service. The requester can suppress them if they are considered too unfavourable. Now that that WP:COI is part of the article. This and other non-WP:NPOV issues damage what is already a fan site article.

I planned to work with these good faith editors to quickly correct this problem as well. However I have since decided to retire do the defametory nature of a recent attacks on the WP noticeboard - I cannot in good conscience continue to work on wikipedia as long these remain in the public record on a high-profile notice board and in contravention to WP:Policies. Also on more practical level persistent WP:Griefing and at unrelated actions. E.g. name calling by participants in this proceedings - by an admin in abuse of his authority is at cross-purpose with any further work on my part. BO | Talk 10:59, 23 June 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 Electro house. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complextro

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism, the only source provided appears to be a Twitter status update. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. No reliable sources. No evidence of third-party coverage, or anything but a single tweet. DarkAudit

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Complextro <--- Look at this. (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.loopmasters.com/product/details/1004 <--- Look at this and use for a source

http://www.soundstosample.com/info/Sounds_To_Sample/Complextro_Bass__Patches/1763

http://forums.sonicacademy.com/FindPost63260.aspx

I'll let one of you wikidiks fix it up. But seriously, this is a legit thing and just because you only listen to alt-rock indie hipster trash doesn't mean that something with half a million google search results isn't real.

The term is not mainstream yet so the lack of sources will soon change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.27.252 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable if even non-existent terminology with no reliable sources covering the topic. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not committing myself at this point, but a quick Google search suggests that the term may actually have passed into the language as the name for a genre, as the article claims (without evidence). --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the Google results above, the term is found at Google News in two languages, including this which describes the genre in some detail. Some of these sources need to be incorporated into the article, but it is clearly not a neologism. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 2 June 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) 00:57, 3 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete without prejudice to recreation when more sources have written about the genre. Usage of a term in a few places is not enough to justify there being a Wikipedia article about it. Complextro certainly appears to be a genuine genre, albeit a relatively modern one, but with little or no documentation out ther in reliable sources to describe it, it would be hard to write an article that lives up to our standards. Looking for reliable sources, I see little more than a number of articles describing artists who perform it, but without providing much insight into what it is, along with some press-release-inspired articles about a company who has released a collection of samples for use in its production. If it were not for this source (which has been published since this AFD began) I would be wholeheartedly in favour of deletion. This one, however, does confirm at least some of the information in the article (i.e. that Porter Robinson coined the phrase), and could therefore be the start of a useful article. I don't think it's enough, however. The mentions of complextro in all of these articles are, unfortunately, trivial: they just catalogue that a particular artist performs it, or mention that the artist coined the term, or in the case of the one highlighted by MelanieN above devote a few sentences to describing it. And WP:GNG requires non-trivial sources, which, frankly, aren't out there. JulesH (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noticed this the other day, which once finally moved to mainspace, could contain this topic as a subsection. As with most new genre buzzwords which might well die out in half a year, it's not notable enough for own article and the current content hardly tells you anything, so I don't think it would matter much if this article were deleted. - filelake shoe 15:09, 11 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to give evidence of notability. It fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If there is a reliably sourced sub-section the article should redirect there.--SabreBD (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've made a subsection for it on the electro house page instead. - Diskonnection (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to that section, it's worth preserving the page history and the redirect incase it ever does become more notable I think. - filelake shoe  23:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koidanov (Hasidic dynasty)

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

I speedied this for lack of notability and OR, but another editor (not the original creator) recreated with wikilinks and claimed that the early date made it notable. It still has no references or indication of notability - my wife's family tree goes back further than this, perhaps her family should have an article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the page's recreator, I felt that the topic was notable enough to avoid a speedy deletion. It is unreferenced, but articles are generally not deleted for that reason. Personally, I have no idea whether this topic is notable or not -- I would invite comments from the Hasidic community regarding that. I'm neutral as to whether the article is kept or deleted; I just felt it deserved more discussion than a speedy deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, WikiDan61 is correct. Secondly, because this is part of a series, there are at present 109 (one hundred and nine) articles of such Hasidic dynasties in Category:Hasidic dynasties, that also holds 14sub-categories of larger Hasidic dynasties. Thirdly, these articles are valuable and WP is often the only place that outside editors from those worlds have come along and from time to time added information that no-one else could. The Judaism editors have never tampered with these articles because they understand just how tough it is to gather information in this field. Fourthly, the articles often contain lots of information that has been been added by WP:EXPERT editors over the years, and collectively the articles have only been improving over time as each is improved slowly but surely. To rip this one out would do an injustice to all of them. Fifthly, it's more than a good Judaism/rabbis stub and should be left in light of it being part of a greater whole belonging to the Category:Hasidic dynasties. Finally, there are very few Hasidic editors active at any one time, if any at all, so it makes it harder to call on them at such moments. IZAK (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IZAK's arguments, while impassioned, do not address the basic problem, and the reason that Wikipedia has notability guidelines in the first place: without reliable sources, none of the information in this article (or in many of the articles in the Category:Hasidic dynasties is verifiable. A rogue writer could come along and write just about anything they wanted about these dynasties (for good or ill) and we'd have no way to know whether the rogue writing was vandalism or not because we have no sources on which to pin the facts. I would like to see this article kept (perhaps only because I spent so much time cleaning it up), but not without valid sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi WikiDan61: Your efforts are greatly appreciated! This comes back to that old argument about how to build an encyclopedia like WP. Of course RS are paramount, but so is input and core information that editors expert in the field know is valid. If anyone knows of parts that need to be removed then let them propose it. But not every sentence needs to have citation, and not every article must read like it was born "perfect" -- a far better solution would be, especially as it involves something as arcane as this, to take it up at WP:TALKJUDAISM and get input from Judaic editors who deal with this kind of stuff over time. Furthermore, there are good sources with Googling, see KOIDANOV (Jewish Virtual Library -- citing S.E. Stamm, Zekher Zaddik (1905); W.Z. Rabinowitsch, Ha-Ḥasidut ha-Lita'it (1961), 120–7; M. Buber, Tales of the Hasidim, 2 (19663), 153–8. W.Z. Rabinowitsch, Lithuanian Hasidism (1970), 161–9.), from the Encyclopaedia Judaica.), Koidanov Hasidic Dynasty) (YIVO -- researched by Allan Nadler based on Abraham Isaac Bromberg, Mi-Gedole ha-ḥasidut, vol. 20, Admore Nesehiz/Neschiz/Nesrhiz, Lakhovits, Kaydanov, Novominsk, pp. 116–125 (Jerusalem, 1963); Wolf Zeev Rabinowitsch, Lithuanian Hasidism from Its Beginnings to the Present Day (London, 1970),) -- there are more reliable references of all sorts if one has the time to search for them. So you needn't worry about these Hasidic dynasty articles, they are reliable. IZAK (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have added more information, as well as quotes and references and the following templates to improve the article/stub: {{Hasidic dynasties}}, {{Jews and Judaism in Europe}}, {{Hasidic-Judaism-stub}}, {{Rabbi-stub}}. IZAK (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per IZAK's updates: this topic has been covered in reliable sources of Jewish history. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article as it currently exists with the added sources meets the notability standard and there is abundant additional material to add to this and other such articles from reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the inclusion in the YIVO encyclopedia is proof of notability. This is a selective publication of the highest quality from the world's leading academic organization on the general subject--a secular organization which cannot be suspected of any conceivable sect-based bias towards inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per IZAK's : this topic has been covered in many reliable sources of Jewish history --Yoavd (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I added another reference and expanded the article significantly. The current Koidanover Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Meir Ehrlich, is well-known; when I have more time, I'll expand it some more. Yoninah (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or snow Keep, sufficient reliable sourcing has been found, kudos to the editors for getting this article sourced. Zad68 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProElite: Arlovski vs. Lopez

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. All references are primary. Even the main article ProElite suggests this is not a major franchise, so individual fights will almost certainly not pass WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite: Big Guns.

Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite 1 (event) (under its old name) but that AfD was invalid - at least four of the Keep votes are socks of the now-banned same user User:BigzMMA. Black Kite (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable fight card for a second tier MMA organization with only routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cited WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT at the previous AfD and nothing has changed. Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11'd The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to get vietnam visa

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

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE and implicitly promotes vietnamvisa.co (don't go there, it may be a virus). May potentially be advertising an illegal service. The user is clearly affiliated with the site. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 04:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I tagged this as unambiguous promotion speedy, especially considering that the user name is the same as the site it's promoting. If it doesn't get speedied, then my vote is definitely for delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 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. Notability well established, not a snowball's chance of this being deleted. Nominator is reminded of the requirements of WP:BEFORE, and that nominating an article for deletion within seven minutes of creation [24] is biting the newbies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Peyton

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

Non-notable fort. Could not find any third party reliable sources to indicate any notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why was this article nominated for deletion within 20 minutes of its creation? [25]--Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How can an historical fort be non-notable? It took me five seconds to find a ton third party reliable sources about this fort.[26][27][28][29]. Nonsensical nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep In addition to Oakshade's sources, there's a ton of coverage via Gbooks[30] and at least one particularly good source from Highbeam [31]; clearly meets WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:17, 19 June 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 per WP:KERRRZAPPP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military strike

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

Dictionary definition. Geschichte (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 June 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) 00:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a vague term with no specific definition. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't need to be here. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - unless a miltary history buff objects or attempts to rescue this, all I see is a classic WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try now. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 15 June 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) 01:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Yes I know that with the nom there are 4 "deletes" and no "keeps" but I'm relisting for commentary on uncle G's Kerrrzappp! --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now expanded beyond a simple dicdef, and clearly has further potential both in terms of military tactics and strategy and its context as an exercise in international relations. One interesting issue is that although current US usage confines it to offensive operations short of war, I wonder whether that is necessarily the case. Raid is a term used both within and without a formal war, and I am not sure that strike can necessarily be confined either. --AJHingston (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename to Strike (military), as per Raid (military), and Refocus to being only about strikes, not both strikes and raids.--Coin945 (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what sources are you proposing that support such a refocus? All the sources that I found and used, treated the two together. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word strike is used a lot in a military context and here's another source which discusses this at length: Strike Warfare. Warden (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a notable topic here, evidenced by the excellent improvement here. I can think of a couple possible ways to rename the article, but I'm happy to leave that discussion to the normal editing process. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:BLP, with no prejudice against recreation Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeng Guo Yuan

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

This isn't G10 as the attacks are sourced, but this is still an attack page, and very obviously smear ("Besides that, Zeng has tried to contest in other Singapore elections, though he never qualified due to his ugly criminal records."). The subject himself is also non-notable and contesting for a seat does not make him notable (anyone can do so). His bare few mentions in the news do not merit this article as. If this article is to continue, it should not be written in a blatant attack tone. I don't even know this guy nor have I heard of him very much. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 06:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:51, 5 June 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) 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cos guy should be notable enough, considering that he has been featured on national TV, local Singapore newspapers, lots of pages on the Web, etc. Not everyone can contest in an election, at least in SG context; I don't know about foreign policies. Anyways, he contested in the Singapore general election, 1991, at Bukit Timah and garnered close to 30% of the accepted votes. GNG should be met, as there are enough sources and citations to support the need to keep this article. I believe most Singaporeans should know him. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:44, 12 June 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) 01:24, 19 June 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. Due to the lack of sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2004–2009

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

Non-notable compilation, no sources JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is notable. Just highly unsourced. Farine (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is notable if there are no sources to support that claim. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:48, 20 June 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) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This compilation album does exist UNFD store. But yes if we are going to keep it, it does indeed need more sources. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ [✉] 22:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources that establishes notability. If the creator or other contributors want the article kept they need to do some work - but this is not a new article. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:43, 24 June 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) 00:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hemsworth

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

Nominate deletion. Maybe I'm being biased, but I don't believe this guy should have a page. His brothers are successful actors, but he's had a BLP sources since September of 2010, and his page is a stub. No one has really added sources for almost two years. MrIndustry (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone who watches these shows may correct me, but I believe he meets criterion 1 of WP:ENT because he has significant roles in many big Australian shows, such as All Saints, Blue Heelers, Bikie Wars and Neighbours. Also, just had a quick look through gnews and a case could probably be made for him meeting WP:GNG as well. Jenks24 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass WP:NACTOR. Minor notalibily does not mean no notability. Cavarrone (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep because of multiple roles. However, I think the gnews coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. But he does meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Soe

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

Has WP:Verifiability issues. There's also WP:Notability issues. For creative she fails 1,2,3,5 and 4 is very hard to gauge. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article format needs major correcting and some of its content does appear to be verifiable,[32][33][34] and she may actually squeek up on WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, as she appears to have a minor notability in asian film documetray studies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Creative needs to have feature length films.~~ The only one I can see her somehow making is 4 but I don't think short film festivals really count. The best way to look at it is if her short films themselves deserve an article and they don't. None of her works are here List_of_independent_short_films --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No... WP:CREATIVE does not require feature films, nor does it require that her films have articles. What it requires is that a production, no matter their size or type, wcan be determinable as notable (even without a WP article) and that she has significant part in that producton. It might be that we now have the possibility of several new articles, but notability is not dependent upon the articles actually being written by anyone. I note from experience here, that your chosen short list is woefully far from comprehensive, as we have many many many articles on short independent films which have never been added to that list... Take This Lollipop is one example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I misread 3 of creative so you are right about the feature film thing. Also, my main points isn't that here short films don't have article but you won't find any (or very little) reliable third party sources about them besides blogs. Not enough to make an article. I can't find reliable sources about the plot, reviews, etc. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:42, 15 June 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) 00:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability beyond a collection of extremely obscure awards and her work itself has not been noted. Positions as asst prof and blogger are not notable per se. SPA-created and full of WP:OR suggests possibility this is a fanpage or autobio. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete -- tough choice because there is some evidence of notability, but not enough and position as asst. prof. argues against. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numeric metaphor

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

Original speculation; neologistic usage, see google. Many things are named with number in their name, but I don't see any research of significance of this phenomenon. At least not under the title of this expression, "numeric metaphor". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original speculation, no sources. Many things have number in their name but that doesn't make them special. JIP | Talk 05:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cool concept, but not noted by secondary sources. Also do not seem to really be metaphors. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: incoherent; only about half of the listed items are metaphors. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence provided of notability via WP:GNG, no policy-based rationale for keeping advanced. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kemberling

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

Non-notable priest -- check of available references via findsources produces very little, mainly some news hits that are not primarily about him (he's merely quoted on the topics that form the real interest of those sources). Fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did my own search and found very, very little -- about the same as Nomoskedasticity, in that he's quoted opining about other topics. His books seem to have attracted remarkably little attention; most things that mention his name are blogs or other non-reliable sources, and I found nothing from an arm's-length third-party expert source that seemed relevant. There is no real claim of notability here and none seems to be present. Ubelowme (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has two mentions in the New York Times, not just because of the actions of others, but due to his own actions. It seems very possible we will hear more from him in the future. He is active in American politics. He is the sort of person whose name you might run across. You might then come to Wikipedia to find out about his background. He is a (minor) player in public affairs and so talking about him seems legit to me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. The article seems to rely too much on primary sources. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this article to be very useful as a contribution to the field. JamesFountain (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→ WP:ITSUSEFUL. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating to see someone pop up at an AfD after not editing anything at all for more than three years. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 13 June 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) 00:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of reasonable notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject appears to lack any in-depth coverage from secondary sources. If this changes in the future, it will not be difficult to recreate this page. -Verdatum (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulab khan

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

Information within is not sourced, and could be disparaging against the subject of the article without a basis. Calling someone a "scion of one of the most powerful feudal landlords in Pakistan" with that statement completely unsourced violates biographies of living persons policies. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ghulab Khan was deleted. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulab A. Khan, judged as a hoax. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article without addressing the concerns.. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 19 June 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.