Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 20#Generative Knowledge Interviewing

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 March	21 March >

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 merge all to List of Alias characters. —SW— ^soliloquize 17:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Derevko

This is a group nomination for articles about minor characters in Alias. While they were created in good faith, they do not satisfy the general notability guideline. Moreover, the Manual of Style for writing about fiction advises the inclusion of content from a real world perspective, which does not appear to be possible here in a comprehensive, verifiable way. The lack of coverage regarding the creation, reception, analysis, and significance of these characters from reliable, prominent sources, slips them into what Wikipedia is not—summary-only descriptions. NTox · talk 02:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all with List of Alias characters. Writing about Alias characters as a group is supported by works such as [1], [2], and [3], but I agree with the nominator that none of these characters merit standalone articles. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator) Merging these sounds like a good idea to me. NTox · talk 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the topic is proven notable by the sources above, possibly with a recommendation to merge the contents into the list and/or expand the articles with real-world reception sections. The in-universe concern is problematic, but should be fixed with normal editing from the references provided and thus doesn't require deletion. The current navigation structure with a navbox shows that the style is in a good state, so I don't think a major reformatting is urgent; and the proposed merger couldn't be done if the articles are deleted anyway. Meanwhile, the list can be thought of as one Template:Main article that was splitted into subtopics, one for each character, if the lack of independent notability bothers someone. Diego (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Alias characters. All plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), no non-trivial real-world information to establish noability (WP:N) => no basis for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Alias characters. There is nothing to establish the independent notability of each of these minor characters to justify each one having a separate article. Any relevent information from the individual articles should be rewritten and merged into the general character list. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Alias characters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milo Rambaldi, Merge rest to List of Alias characters. Rambaldi's work drove the story for the entirety of the show, and the article is sufficiently detailed to warrant keeping on its own. Information such as "Known Rambaldi Artifacts" and "Rambaldi Endgame" are relevant and work here but wouldn't really fit on a list of characters. The rest are minor characters who can be merged into a single article. Frorunner9 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phanyaluck Raisuksiri

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

Although he is a senior national champion, it is in Thailand, a country that has never qualified ANY skaters for the Olympics, much less WP:NSKATEs requirement that the country regularly qualify multiple skaters for the Olympics. He did not make the free skate (or even the short programme) at the Junior Worlds, so there is no real claim of notability for this person per guidelines. Courcelles 00:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet point 4 of WP:NSKATE- competed in World Junior Championship. Tigerboy1966 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2005 World Junior Figure Skating Championships doesn't seem to be a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event (e.g. not an ISU Junior Grand Prix). -- Trevj (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that I meant point 2 of WP:NSKATE. Tigerboy1966 22:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSKATE point 2 specifies that the athlete have competed in the free skate of the World Juniors. Raisuksiri skated in the qualifiers, but did not make it to the main free skate. See 2005 World Junior Figure Skating Championships. My interpretation of teh free skate clause is to weed out those who did not make it out of the qualifiers. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSKATE and Whpq. -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawing keep !vote in light of Whpq' clarification. Tigerboy1966 12:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Evesham Township, New Jersey#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joan of Arc School

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

Primary school with (as far as I can find) few or no independent sources. Can be merged into Evesham Township, New Jersey Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just in the process of creating this page myself. Seems to be a normal school with nothing to infer notability on it, certainly nothing that is mention in the article itself. A rudimentary web search brings nothing further. Harrias ^talk 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I was thinking about possibly changing the subject and focusing on the church itself. I am wondering if the church itself claims more notability than the school, although I think they are both notable. This mentions the Church. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], Jerry Penacoli, notable alumni Tinton5 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move or merge - the church is obviously notable, but the school is not. Compare User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches with User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Generally primary schools do not have their own articles. Dough 48 72 00:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evesham Township, New Jersey#Education, which currently does not mention private/parochial schools but probably should. Sorry, I don't find either the church or the school to be notable. Two of the news stories cited by Tinton5 are about vandalism which affected dozens of churches, not just this one, and the remainder of the coverage cited is purely local and routine. The church is only 50 years old, not "historic". There is nothing to make this church, or this school, stand out from thousands of others. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not sufficiently demonstrated. If any native Farsi speakers can demonstrate notability via Farsi sources, I would be willing to restore the article and relist it at AfD with the new information. —SW— ^speak 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hirbod Human

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

Writer/director of questionable notability. Google search on "Hirbod Human" shows only 47 unique results - no significant coverage found from independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied previously that, until recently, he was known as Hirbod Toorminaei (also with Farsi script: هیربد تورمینایی). Zeary (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The play written by him attracted reactions from the Iranian authorities. Also some notability inside the Iranian American community. As for the concerns raised in the nomination, the number of Google hits for his previous name is high enough.Tylko (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There seem to be RS under his old, Farsi name - but they're all in Farsi. Unfortunately, I don't speak Farsi at all, so I can't evaluate whether the Farsi sources are significant coverage. Until then, I have to go with a weak delete, but I'm willing to have my mind changed by someone who CAN evaluate them. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment, lets hope someone knows enough Farsi to check if the sources found by Jorgath have significant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, the sources I found were by searching Google News for the Farsi name (in quotes) provided by Zeary above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't speak Farsi, after some consideration my gut says Jorgath's Farsi sources don't rise to both significance and reliability, but I am entirely open to correction by those who speak Farsi. Certainly no issue with retaining the article if appropriate, reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sorry to have to punch this NC again GrapedApe, you can re-nominate it again if you wish but I suggest waiting a while before going for the hat trick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tryon Coterie

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

Single chapter men’s collegiate social clubs. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N or WP:ORG. No source at all, in fact. Renom after last AFD procedurally closed with no comments GrapedApe (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...just. Mentioned in quite a few news stories from the 50's, 60,s and 70's, which do slightly more than establish the fratenity's existence. Benefit of the doubt. Tigerboy1966 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Tradition Institute

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

POV-article of an institue with remarkably few internet hits (about 200, including blogs and own website). Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get over 400,000 ghits with the link in this AfD. Their website is down at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the differce is coming from, but this number boils down to a mere 393 hits ([9]} Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get over 320,000 ghits on "American Tradition Institute" and over 5,100 hit on gnews. they are cited to in Nature (Science Journal), WattsUpWithThat, the no 1 science blog on the internet, and in LA Times, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, and both climate change proponents and opponents. This should be expanded rather than removed. All links are working at this time User:Justinian V4:30, 8 March 2012 (EST)

The 323.000 hits boil down to a mere 313 real hits, the rest are copies: [10] The 313 hits point, among others, to facebook, youtube and Wikipedia. GNews gives me just 59 hits. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That way of looking at Google results is even less meaningful than looking at the estimate of the total number of hits. When presenting results Google first truncates the list to a thousand hits, and then eliminates the duplicates within that thousand. This means that no search will ever actually present more than a thousand hits, and that the actual number is not correlated in any way with the importance of the search argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to several independent, reliable sources can be furnished giving significant coverage to this group. All I've been able to find so far are passing mentions in connection with litigation the group has been involved with. Most everything above is a classic WP:GOOGLEHITS discussion, and instead what is critical is the quality of the best sources that can be brought to this debate, rather than whether there are hundreds of hits or hundreds of thousands of hits. We all should know that the vast majority of Google hits on pretty much any given topic are worthless as encyclopedia references. Better by far to have three solid references than a million YouTube and Facebook mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are several pages of hits at Google News Archive, virtually none of them are from Reliable Sources. The organization's website boasts an article supposedly from the Washington Post, but it does not turn up independently in my searching, and even if it is legitimate, one source is not enough. Everything I found is from fringe, POV publications that do not qualify as Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compile and go loader

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

Unsourced POV-article with just a few hits on Google Search (on the article title). Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A better title for the article is just "Compile and go", since the loading is just the last phase of a compile-and-go system (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). As a search on the shorter title shows, this is a well-known concept in software technology. I don't see in what sense the article fails to present a neutral point of view, as it lists both advantages and disadvantages of compile-and-go schemes, but in any case being unsourced and POV are not by themselves reasons for deletion. --Lambiam 09:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone added the missing sources. Diego (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep With the added sources it is clear that the article is not somebodies private opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seed Scale

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

Non-notable concept. This "universal process" appears to be based on a single text, and the for-profit graduate school (http://www.future.org) that has been formed to promulgate the concept. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This process seems to have (nearly) won some award and there are a number of other refs: [11] [12] [13] [14][15] That's not to say that the article doesn't require cleanup. The info in the article and on the website is primary, so I hope some useful secondary sources can be included. A number of publications are listed at future.org, some of which may be impartial. -- Trevj (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Nearly" winning the Buckminster Fuller Award isn't really notable. Citation 2 and 3 appear to be references written by people associated with FutureGenerations projects praising the founder of that organization (Carl Taylor). Citation 4 is a review of the book written about SEED-SCALE. This might imply some notability. Citation 5 lists SEED-SCALE in passing ase one of several frameworks for considering local cultures in extension efforts. Taken together, these citations are borderline for denoting notability. The publications listed at future.org are all irrelevant as future.org is the organization that created SEED-SCALE, so they would all have to be considered self-published sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced psychobabble. Searching finds only the one book, and no significant commentary on it. Otherwise searching turns up biological references, not sociological ones (or whatever discipline you could assign this concept to). --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Move' and refactor to Steven Kazan . Move and refactor: Non-notable firm, notable lead attorney, significant unduplicated material on the lead atty in the article. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley PLC

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

Reason Gofigure41 23:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC) This page appears to be extremely advertising or promotional in nature about a private mesothelioma law firm. It also contains material that is not sufficiently notably (i.e. individual lawsuit verdicts). Finally, it contains information regarding bankruptcies that should be on a page in the Category asbestos, not a page for an individual law firm. Might be some other problems as well. Compare this page with Baron and Budd. Maybe it can be cleaned up to be less promotional? Gofigure41 23:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete or move per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. The founding partner is clearly notable, but the firm is not. He was a groundbreaker, but the firm is run-of-the-mill. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move and trim Bearian has it exactly right. The attorney Steven Kazan appears to be notable; the cases are notable; the law firm is not notable. If moved, all the junk about the firm should be trimmed, and it should be limited to a discussion of Kazan-the-person, discussing Kazan-the-law-firm only as it relates to Kazan-the-person. TJRC (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, Nomination withdrawn, all sources confirmed. ( non-admin closure) --GoShow (...............) 20:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast (2009 film)

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

Clearly, one minimal source and lack of productive information.--GoShow (...............) 18:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm... this appears to be a re-vamping/re-imagining of Beauty and the Beast (2003 film), with Warren in the main role. I'm wondering if this can't be merged somehow with that article. It's by the very same director and stars a majority of the same actors, with the plot being almost identical. Individually, neither of these movies might warrant an article, but together I think they might justify one. It's certainly interesting that SyFy would revamp a DVD release that did so universally poorly in reviews.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title needs perhaps to be fixed, to show its quite searchable US television title: Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep While it could be the director re-telling his earlier project (and we may discover this through one or two of the many avaioable sources), we can see by list of actors and filming locations that it is not simply a repackaging of the same film. The 2003 film has a different cast and crew than the 2010 film. The earlier film was produced by Crimson Knight and shot in South Africa. The later was produced by Limelight International and shot in Australia. And even if a remake of the often retold Beauty and the Beast story and by the same director, this one has received enough commentary and review to merit being a separate article. IE: Variety, Monsters & Critics, The Trades, Dread Central, Out Now (German), Moria, Film Ink, and Film Reporter (German), Futon Critic, et al. Even without these additional being used (yet) to expand and further source the article, notability is dependent upon thm being available, and not upon whether or not they are in the article as citations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't sure if they could be merged or not, but it's good to know either way!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom Added categories to finishing touches, splendid job everyone.--GoShow (...............) 18:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Den Pop

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

This is a non-notable product from redlink Discount Den, a Purdue University convenience store. The only source is listed as "Personal experience". jonkerz ♠talk 22:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unnotable product, there really should be a speedy deletion category that things like this can fit into. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Total nonsense. Iglooflame (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Pero Manescu

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

Purely promotional page on an eminently non-notable subject. Let's go through the footnotes to see how trivial any coverage is:

This, this, this, this, this and this make no mention at all of the subject.

This lists a handful of plays he directed, and this lists one of them. Neither source amounts to in-depth coverage.

This is a blog post and this is a biography on another wiki. No comment is needed.

This and this are self-submitted blurbs.

I'm not sure what this, this, this, this and this (!) are supposed to demonstrate, but it's certainly not notability they're establishing.

In sum, the coverage of Manescu is so paltry as to hardly count as trivial. Any pretense that he has received "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is laughable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional page, quite possible self-promotional page. Outside references for the large part falsified or misused (most do not verify the text), the rest is scanty and circular. The message whereby the article's creator implies that the nominator is an antisemite for having raised concerns about this article is ludicrous in reasoning, but very disruptive as an attempt to poison the well. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Usar with the ridiculos name of "BIRUITORUL" (of Romanian language "The Victor" or "The Conqueror"!?) is a small monument of Lack of Culture with a groundless malicious sarcasm, and with his "nice" remarks concerning the verfied external sources of this article, this User practically denigrates the work and the name of Dan Pero Manescu. For this reason we don't think that such an User could provide the competence to judge of the articles of Wikipedia. That's anyway very, very sad, that any kind of people get the opportunity today to scribble any kind of inept things in the most of the articles of Wikipedia, scribbling of an English language learned in the Kindergarten. On this way Wikipedia is no more for us the serious Encyclopedia which has been once open a time. What a pity..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-ART (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the well known German artist Dan Pero Manescu is the same article since over 3 years. The article is clear and shortly written, neutral, with just simple but verified external sources. Very interesting that's following: the Users who are trying to reject this article are Romanian Users, from Romania (see details to the Users' name).We don't think that Romanian Users living only in Romania have the competence to judge objective of articles about people living abroad! We think that any kind of farther comment is unnecessary and strictly speaking this article has to remain on place! PERBAST — Preceding unsigned comment added by PERBAST (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and lacking significant recognition by critics in the art community. I also note that the article was developed through a series of sock-puppets (User:Q-ART has claimed copyright ownership of Dan Pero Manescu's art, edited User:DAN - PERO MANESCU's page, and, in turn, User:DAN - PERO MANESCU has edited User:Dan-pero's page), essentially the article is an autobiography or, at the least, was primarily written by a COI editor. TheMindsEye (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Pero Manescu has organized over 40 Exhibitions between 1991 and 2006 in several countries and concerning the critics in the art community there are a lot of statements in newspapers and very few on-line. Important is the print on the paper, the rest could have a very short life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PERBAST (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Q-ART/User:DAN - PERO MANESCU/User:Dan-pero/User:PERBAST: with your glaring conflict of interest, sockpuppetry and personal attacks, you're effectively demolishing every ounce of integrity that your answers could have ever projected. You manifestly fail to understand what wikipedia is and isn't; if you want your rhetoric to at least seem like good faith and common sense, you should at the very least spare us the inflammatory rants. Dahn (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it a FA. Why? Because I have a sense of humour. --Defetistul (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dahn, I'm very sorry, but just because I'm understanding very well what Wikipedia wants to be, I see that the real personal attacks can be noticed just above on this page, and any neutral people reading the words of the User "Biruitorul" will agree that such a kind of expressions with such a kind of biterness never belong to Wikipedia. I am writing about Dan Pero Manescu because I find his work very special and strong, a little bit unique in the world of the art community, and I think that many of the around 400 viewers, of the last 4 days, share the same point of view with mine. That's my last comment now, because anyway Dan Pero Manescu remains the all-round extraordinary artist he was and shall be.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PERBAST (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the page largely promotional in nature, as demonstrated by the nominator none of the provided references are reliable third party sources. Some of the references are not even about the article's subject, being instead about things that people related to this artist did. One of them is, in fact, about a completely different person, who a relative of this artist once wrote about. Since none of the references here are worth anything, and no one else can find any better, the subject fails WP:ARTIST. Rorshacma (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to delete this article or just let it on place! The "highbrow" masturbation of some of Users is no more tolerably for intelligent people! That's like a circus with a chorus of blinds as orchestra. This is a kind of monkeypedia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-ART (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Q-ART and User:PERBAST have been blocked as obvious sockpuppet accounts and for gross personal attacks and civility violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcameleon (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, AfD by a sock puppet of User:Erock23432. --MuZemike 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinch (video game)

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

Just how this article is written is just almost completely messed up! It seems like the information was copied from non-free copyrighted sources or game guides. Because of this, part of the information on this article should be partly merged in the original film article. New Living Wiki Editor (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1.) If you want a merge, this is not "Articles for merging". 2.) AFD IS NOT CLEANUP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to film page the article is in bad shape, but information on the game should be somewhere on Wikipedia. JDDJS (talk) 16:40, 21 March 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) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not clean-up, merging independantly notable topics into fewer articles does not magically improve the information therein. Someone another 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deletion rationale provided. AFD is not cleanup. No reason to merge. A412 (Talk • C) 23:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nomination is not a deletion nom., it is a merge nom.; that's not for AfD. Salvidrim! 01:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. This is the absolute last AFD that expired last week to be closed. Why? Because there is a lot of off topic/irrelevant discussion here, and a lot of repeated arguments on essentially the same issues and nobody wanted to plow through it all to find the actual relevant parts and evaluate them. Going by strength of argument, with of course arguments with a solid basis in WP policy being given more weight, consensus seems to favor the position that this person is not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article, However a significant minority made decent arguments to keep, and one user has repeatedly asked for it to be userfied, so that's what we're going to do with it for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Masini

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

Allow me to give some of the history of this page before I put my reasons for deletion. I'm outlining the page's history just so that all this information is presented up-front in a clear and concise form, not to try to persuade people to !vote one way or the other.

History:

October 22, 2011 - April Masini article was nominated for deletion
October 31, 2011 - After discussion, page was deleted link
January 17, 2012 - User:Gmhayes4 Posts the article on Requests for Undeletion, the request was denied link
January 20, 2012 - The page is recreated anyway link
March 16, 2012 - The page is brought to the attention of the COI Noticeboard link
March 18, 2012 - The page is nominated for speedy deletion and re-deleted
March 19, 2012 - The page was brought to Deletion review and restored because G4 didn't apply link

So yet again we get the honor of reviewing this page here at AfD.

Reason for AfD nomination:

The source cited at deletion review link is from a weekly, local, business newsletter link. To me, that alone does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Issues for other sources in this article are addressed in the first AfD. Much of the content on Mansini is actually focused on her ex husband, and notability is not inherited.

User:Gmhayes4 is virtually the only author for this article, may or may not have a COI as shown above (although I admit the COI case is a bit weak, still it hasn't been addressed), and this user certainly has a single purpose account (take a look). I admit the article is in much better shape than it's first form, but just because an article is well written doesn't mean that the subject is notable.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. May fall under WP:SPIP since neutral sources are needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written, and self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral ~~depending on Gmhayes' relation to the subject.~~ MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please refactor the nomination so it stays on topic? The article's history and any alleged COI are irrelevant for our purposes here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You think? I figured it would all just spill out over the course of debate anyway, so I just thought it would make it easier to navigate in a concise form in the nom.MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And previous deletions/deletion discussion certainly are relevant, that's why they show up in that little box in the upper right. COI may not always be relevant but in this case I think it is. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Articles at AfD should be judged on the quality of their sources/on their notability. Any COI, real or imagined, is irrelevant - we are looking at the quality of the sources, not the motivation of the author. If a single purpose account with a giant conflict of interest creates an article about a notable subject, that's perfectly okay and we should keep it. (Also, WP:SPIP, one of the policies you cited, has only to do with the quality of the sources and not on the motivations of the author. Whether or not this article falls under WP:SPIP does not depend on Gmhayes' relation to the subject.) I haven't looked over the sources enough to form an opinion on the merits of the actual AfD, I've watchlisted this and will do so later tonight. But I agree with AQOK that you would be better off refactoring the nomination. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I feel like I'm being attacked. I haven't done anything wrong, and am an active member in this community. I understand that no one can own an article in Wikipedia, and I have no interest to gain financially from employing my curiosity about a living person. I had no idea this would turn into an edit war. I'm not sure what to do now that the article is up for deletion a second time. I've reached out to editors in Teahouse; I've even had email conversations with editors outside of Wikipedia so my article was not written alone. I wanted to build an article for Womens History Month, and I found April Masini as a page that need sources. I went after the challenge. Now, I feel bullied. What's going on?GMHayes (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of deleting the article I've created, and attacking me, I'm accepting of help and input. If you visit my talk page, there is another editor that is just as adamant about deleting the April Masini article, so much in fact that the editor has researched her alleged home address, and I do not understand why. All of my references are valid, and the page is non-promotional... it's just an article. GMHayes (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would concur that the subject of the article does not meet notability nor are the sources substantive enough. The article should be deleted - it is simply not of a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Here are my earlier thoughts on the matter shared elsewhere:

The question here is A) notability and B) the article contributors. A promotional piece may be written in a way to simply share information about a less than notable subject. I could construct a very well written, factual, and in fact objective article about a teenage babysitter who happens to play the saxophone, won the role of an oak tree in a school play, came in third in a relay race, and shares her feelings on her Facebook page. The quality of the writing, nor the resume of an individual independently nor in sum inherently meet the notability test. Further, there is one primary author here - even to the point she petitioned to keep the page because of the work she put into it. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place to showcase writing ability: it's about the good of the commons and creating something for public benefit. Creating paid pieces to raise awareness of celebrity wannabees does not meet that test.

Further, I would question one of the most important sources used for no less than eleven (11) references. The source from a Southwest Florida publication (http://www.review.net/section/detail/30831/) is a puff piece article that reads like a reworded press release (which is very common for this and other local publications as a way to fill copy). This makes a large portion of the wikipedia article out to be a re-wording of a re-wording of a press release. Bromeliad39 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an editing war, so I am going to make a proposal: If it is determined that the page needs more work, can I please have it "Userfied" so that whatever information needs to be cited actually can be? The language that is being used to delete this article seems more aggressive than is necessary, and I have tried to resolve this with Bromeliad39 directly but have received no response other than the same message posted above: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gmhayes4 GMHayes (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no editing war here - but you do seem to be taking this very personally which is all the more reason this ought to be left to the community. I did not propose the article for deletion; I leave that up to other contributors and the consensus of the commons. I'm merely stating the case that the subject is not noteworthy, the article is based largely on a published PR piece, and there is essentially one contributing author. The article appears to exist to promote the subject - albeit in a "by the book" sort of way to make the article appear objective. However, the subject simply isn't a notable person. I am of the opinion that if given an objective review the deletion would stick. Bromeliad39 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bromeliad39 and per lack of evidence that anything is significantly different from the last debate. Gmhayes4--you might have a COI and you might not, though it sure looks like it, that kind of thing is very difficult to actually prove, and significantly it isn't the deciding factor here. However, you need to understand that your bizarre obsession with this person, your tendency to take things that happen to the article personally, and your generally poor performance here clearly indicates that you are unable to write about this topic with the neutrality required of all editors of wikipedia. Whether or not the article is deleted again you seriously need to step away from it and perhaps work on some other things that won't make you so upset. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset. I don't "own" the page but when I ask for help directly to make improvements, I don't get any help so I'm not sure what to do. I'm just trying to understand. Thanks. GMHayes (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There may not be any improvements to make. The issues with this article are too fundamental for another comma or some fancy formatting to magically fix. Every article should be notable, verifiable, and strongly referenced by reliable, independent secondary sources, but all of the above is especially important on an article about a living person because of liability and the chance of real-life consequences when such an article is poor (see WP:BLP for more). IF you have a COI in this article, then that's bad because you claim otherwise, and if you don't then in a sense that's even worse because you've brought shame and ridicule onto a living person who certainly doesn't deserve it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! That helps. I didn't intend to bring "shame and ridicule" to April Masini or to cause any offense. I don't have any COI; I just really wanted this article to be apart of Wikipedia. I will definitely take everything noted here and use it for my future articles and edits. And, I will take your advice Starblind! to step back and let the experienced Admin look this over. I thought that the article was sufficient, and that the references were detailed that this living person is notable and verifiable. I guess there's just more to learn, and I'm cool with that! I appreciate all the input! Thank you. GMHayes (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GMHayes is being accussed of having a COI. Of course, they're going to take it personally. In what crazy world, can you making personal accusations against someone without them taking it personally? Nevermind the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with this topic's notability. Hopefully, the closing admin has a clue and won't take these COI accusations into account in making their determination. If they do, I'll personally see to it that we're back at deletion review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI: corporationwiki.com/Florida/Naples/april-masini/42873974.aspx could be where GMHayes4 got her information. Unless she searched public records (which is against the rules) or had another source of information, based upon this page there would be no reason to believe Masini lived anywhere other than Naples, Florida. The page sources: California Secretary of State, last refreshed 2/2/2012, and Florida Department of State, last refreshed 2/2/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Masini is also listed as President and Director of a Neighborhood Association for a community that is located in Naples, Florida. It appears, however, that the neighborhood management office is located in Bonita Springs. Source: Florida Department of State, last refreshed 2/2/2012. corporationwiki.com/Florida/Bonita-Springs/villalago-at-mediterra-neighborhood-association-inc-5747119.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gated community where Masini owns property straddles the boundary of Lee County and Collier County. The Lee County portion is in the incorporated city of Bonita Springs, Florida while the Collier County portion is not incorporated in any municipality and is therefore not in Naples. Real Estate agents sometimes refer to homes in Southwest Florida as "Naples" as a marketing ploy to sell homes. Masini's property in the Villalago "neighborhood" is in fact in Lee County (and Bonita Springs). Bromeliad39 (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment': There are about 143,000 Google hits for “April Masini” in quotation marks. Nevertheless, if anything about this article brings “shame and ridicule” on its subject (I don't see how it does?) then in the absence of clear notability, we should delete it. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the explanation Bromeliad39. Assuming everything you've outlined is exactly as you say it is (and I am not suggesting it's not), how would you expect GMHayes to know this when the Florida Department of State doesn't even appear to know it? From what I have read in your other posts, you have attacked this woman as if she has some vested interest into making it appear April Masini lives in Naples, Florida. I don't understand why? I also noticed that you and MisterRichValentine have denigrated The Gulf Coast Business Review which appears to me to be a very well respected weekly regional business newspaper. Why?

Based upon the Pacific Business News article, Studios Trade Credit for Promos, April Masini had a prominent role in financing Blue Crush and using some newly passed state of Hawaii legislation to bring the film to Hawaii. The deal also seems to have created a very unusual marketing and promotional vehicle for Hawaii. Importantly, nowhere in that article does it mention April Masini's ex-husband. In fact, it says that she worked with Adam Fields and was represented by entertainment attorney, John LaViolette. http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

In my view, the opinions posted here are very personal and very biased and not in keeping with wikipedia's quest for objectivity to say nothing of community spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's oddly coincidental that the Jennyspencer account did not make any edits until this recent deletion discussion. My purpose here is striving for accuracy - which includes addressing incorrect statements and confronting non-notable subjects and COI. I attempt to be objective; I had never even heard of Masini until I saw the inaccurate reference to a Naples residency. Bromeliad39 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Bromeliade39 in as much as I have had an account since August 2010, but not posted until now. My posting history (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and has no bearing on the validity of my statements. I am not trying to pick a fight with you and I am not questioning your motivations for being on Wikipedia. I would ask that you please afford me that same courtesy. I made observations about the way someone was being treated and, like A Quest For Knowledge, felt something needed to be said.Jennyspencer (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author with two self-published books--and this is a field where anything conceivably worthwhile or likely to sell is eagerly snapped up by regular publishers. That they are self-published implies to me insufficient notability as a columnist for even that subject. The article is not hopelessly promotional, in the sense that it could not be improved by rewriting. But there's nothing encyclopedic worth rewriting. I agree with the view that the sources are hopelessly contaminated with PR, & that includes getting a short spot on O'Reilly Factor. The only news report that is not pure PR is the move of Baywatch, and that is not enough for an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, consider removing the books. I agree with DGG that the books are non-notable, but I disagree with DGG that the work as a columnist is inconsequential. Based upon publications found, Masini did not begin work as a columnist until after the release of the self-published books. Her work as a columnist appears to be widely distributed and quoted in a significant number of meaningful periodicals and publications (I used the “news” source at the top of this page for archived references and then searched again for recent news sources) and therefore should not be discounted. (WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE) The appointment by Old Spice to its’ Voice of Experience Panel as the Dating & Relationship Editor is also not insignificant, and supports this opinion.

I would counter that Masini is not a regularly syndicated columnist in any "top notch" publications. (I draw a line between spammy website publications and the New York Times or even Cosmopolitan). Further, it appears that jennyspencer is a paid PR person of Masini. I would suggest that her statements are clearly biased and should be dismissed. Masini's career didn't make the step up from commercials and two-bit off-off-broadway extra spots until after she married her ex-husband, Al Masini, whose name recognition it appears she wishes to retain. Bromeliad39 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I equally agree with DGG that the Baywatch move is worthy of mention. However, the work related to Hawaii television and film legislation is also noteworthy, and the work on Blue Crush and Miss Universe is documented (albeit not well documented on the page in dispute) and worthy of note. (WP:BASIC) http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/02/18/story3.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

I am not able to find a connection to Blue Crush... but I could be wrong here... using WP as a guide, she is not notable enough to the movie to be included on that page. I also do not see her ex-husband Al listed. Further, it appears that neither Masini had anything to do with getting Hawaii Bill 221 passed - which negates the "political activist" claim on her website and repeated in this article. The bill, which has since been gutted, was created to generate long term high tech investment in the state, not explicitly to move TV production. At best, Masini may have been a beneficiary of the law. She is as much involved and can be labelled a political activist in this regard as a homeowner that got a rebate for buying a home two years ago.

Also, I question the connection to Baywatch. Again, if her contribution were notable, wouldn't she or at least her husband be in the WP article? The source in the article, eBella, which is produced locally, is not a reliable source. Bromeliad39 (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I found April Masini is a quoted source in two different Wikipedia articles and she, along with her books, are listed as references on these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_waxing#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankini

Disclosure Notice: In the spirit of good faith I want to disclose that I have met the subject, but have made every effort to be objective and neutral in researching and writing the above opinion. Jennyspencer (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find proof on Masini's self-promoting website at the moment moment, but this user is a paid PR employee of Masini and has been for some time. Please see the cached version of the website here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sdJT3RlnsAEJ:www.askapril.com/press.html+To+schedule+an+interview+with+April+Masini+please+contact+Jenny+at+646-213-0232+or+by+email.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Bromeliad39 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Bromeliad39, while I appreciate your effort to "out" me because you suspect me of operating with a COI on the sly, I very clearly noted a "Disclosure Notice". I did not conceal that I had met the subject when I submitted my comments, I did the opposite. I believe I have acted in a straight forward fashion and according to Wikipedia's Policy. I have included a link to the policy and it’s pertinent excerpts below.

Here is a link to a release put out by eBella Magazine’s editor, Candace Rotolo, and Jenny Freeman who works for Masini. While I have submitted to you and to those who read my comments that I know the subject -- I am not Jenny Freeman. (Wrong Jenny.) http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/02/prweb675713.htm

It is interesting to note that according to the release April Masini was the cover story for that eBella Magazine issue and writes an ongoing column for the magazine. Both of these probably would have helped substantiate the page in dispute had they been mentioned as a source or reference, but they do not appear to have been included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AVOIDCOI#How_to_avoid_COI_edits "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty.”

“Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.”

“Declaring an interest Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. Reasons to declare an interest • You will benefit from the assumption of good faith. Most editors will appreciate your honesty and try to help you. • You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself." Jennyspencer (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Mind you all that I am eager to see the page back up and Wiki-worthy but I wanted to make sure all sides of this were addressed with new information I have found. Thank you!) Not sure if any of the other editors and Admin here noticed but I have been accused of COI by Bromeliad39 for creating and editing the article. Now, I would like to ask why Bromeliad39 researched public records to find the address of April Masini, to prove the point that the subject does not live in Naples, Florida (you can review the conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:April_Masini)? Listing any person's physical address on Wikipedia is not only unnecessary but dangerously irresponsible. It doesn't have anything to do with the information my article provides (other than I got the city wrong and did not search public records like an "obsessed" person would?). Why would anyone do that if they didn't have COI? Is it normal to search through public records when creating an article about someone and list their private residential information online? The reason I listed Masini as a resident of Naples was because my research yielded that result (as proven in the reflist). I would just like to point out that such a vested interest in Masini's whereabouts may suggest a COI on Bromeliad39's part. Thank you. GMHayes (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Bromiliad39, your comments have such a sarcastic tone. It would be really great if we could just agree to disagree on this topic without resorting to putting people down or name calling. In response to your last comment about April Masini’s political involvement, according to this Honolulu Star Bulletin article, http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/02/17/news/story2.html April Masini testified in House and Senate Committee Hearings related to at least one piece of television and film legislation. Aside from Act 221, there appears to have been other pieces of legislation pertaining to the Miss Universe Pageant where, according to this article, April Masini served as Event Coordinator and Co-chair. http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/04/06/news/story1.html as well as for Baywatch. http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2001/06/04/editorial3.html?page=all

In response to your assertion that Masini lacks appearances in any "Top Notch" publications, the link you, yourself, posted above (in and of itself) contains hundreds of interviews done by Masini with "Top Notch" media outlets (USA TODAY, International Business Times, Telemundo, FOX, MSN, WebMD, NY Times, etc.) and as best I can tell there are links to those articles as well.

At this point, I would prefer to just step away and let the Admin make their evaluation. I don't think it serves any good purpose for us to continue this back and forth. You are entitled to your opinion, equally I am entitled to mine. Jennyspencer (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bromeliad39, you cannot find any mention of her ex-husband, Al Masini, as it pertains to Blue Crush and Act 221 for the reason that I stated previously: He had no involvement in Blue Crush or Act 221. April Masini, on the other hand, did. And your assertion otherwise is incorrect. I have referenced two Pacific Business News articles already that document her involvement in response to a prior assertion. If you take the time to read them you will better understand what her role was. You will also see that April Masini incorporated a marketing agreement into her deal with Universal Studios to benefit the State of Hawaii whereby in exchange, according to the article, she supplied between $16-18 million to the Blue Crush production using Act 221. This marketing agreement and effort (by April Masini) is, in fact, touted by the Sate of Hawaii’s Governor’s Office.

Once again, here are the links to the two Pacific Business News references: http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/02/18/story3.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

It is odd to me that you would state on one hand that “April Masini was a beneficiary of law” as a result of the work she did on Blue Crush and then (at the same time) assert that she had no part in either. Not quite sure how one can have it both ways. It is equally odd that you would assert that because there is no mention of Al Masini, that April Masini has no involvement. According to published reports, the couple divorced in 1999 and stopped working together. The page in dispute is related to April Masini, not her ex-husband. Jennyspencer (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community, I ask you all to comment. In my quest for objectivity and fighting non-notable PR pieces, I feel I am being overrun by a tag team of paid and unpaid writers.

In my opinion/observation

1) The subject is still non-notable (she did not become notable for a WP page overnight)

2) We have seen nothing new in this discussion. The two defending editors (benefit of the doubt not the same person) are rehashing the same sources from the article prior to the deletion discussion

3) The sources originally garnered either are largely PR themselves and/or printed in sources which are non-trustworthy

4) There will be an endless barrage to hollowly defend this article by professionals with more time than I have to dedicate

5) The users defending this article arguably have COI. My ONLY interest is accuracy and notability on Wikipedia Bromeliad39 (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, right? The issue here is whether there are enough secondary sources to establish that this topic is notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per that notorious deletionist DGG, until and unless some actual evidence of real notability can be found. She isn't even a D-list celebrity, merely a self-published author with columns in minor venues, and lots of unsubstantiated claims to notability that have never been backed up in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issues here are Notability and secondary sources. If those are the items I need to address specifically, am I able to have the page "Userfied"? I would like to continue working on it since these are the most pressing issues at hand. Thanks! GMHayes (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've add a sentence about the Governor of Hawaii proclaiming June 4th, 1998 "Al and April Masini Day" citing the State of Hawaii, Office of the Governor.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was declared "Masini Day" not "Al and April Masini Day" as mentioned here, here, and here. If you google "Al and April Masini Day" (in quotes), it returns two results: The April Masini Wikipedia page, and a file on Wikipedia that looks like it is a scan of a printout of a webpage (strange that if that was needed somewhere as a reference they wouldn't just link to the webpage itself). Oh and look, what do you know - that file was posted today by Jennyspencer.

The reason that June 4th 1998 was declared "Masini Day" is because Al Masini was credited for bringing the Miss Universe 1998 pageant to Hawaii via his production company source1, source2 NOT April Masini. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the official announcement by the Governor of Hawaii would get the name right. Perhaps people just informally shorten to "Masini Day"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is so untrue MisterRichValentine. April Masini worked as Event Coordinator and Co-chair overseeing all of the pre-Pageant events and hosting accommodations. Al Masini did not bring the show into Hawaii via his production company -- both served as volunteers. The articles you have sited were written about Al's passing and I don't think it's uncommon not to mention the ex-wife, especially when he's been remarried. I realize you are going to be hard to convince, but if you would please try and have an open mind I can show you lots of evidence to support what I am telling you. If you would please be patient enough to read these two magazine articles, both uploaded onto Wikipedia. The first is put out by the Office of the Governor of Hawaii the second is the Official Miss Universe Program. File:Imi Loa Magazine, Remaking Government Renewing Hawaii, April Masini, Baywatch Hawaii.pdf

File:1998 Miss Universe Hawaii Official Program.pdf

insert a caption here

File:1998_Miss_Universe_Hawaii_Official_Program.pdf Jennyspencer (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) The sites you mentioned that say "Masini Day" are April Masini's sites and are reflective of an error that needs to be corrected to say "Al and April Masini Day". I am confident that was a honest mistake by a webmaster or whomever does the work on her sites. The official proclamation, issued by the Hawaii Governor's office, speaks for itself. Jennyspencer (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys think it's a mistake by every webmaster on the internet? Seriously, google "Al and April Masini Day." You get two hits, both from what the two of you have written on Wikipedia. I don't see any official proclamation issued by the Hawaii Governor's Office. I see a scanned image of a typed piece of paper uploaded by a user who, for some reason, is going to great lengths to try to keep the Wikipedia page of a person with little to no indication of notability. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 13:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that at all. I said that maybe it's shorthand, just like "United States" is short for "United States of America". If I do a Google search for "United States", I get 39,000 hits.[17] If I do a search for "United States of America", I get only 3,430 results.[18] According to that logic, the official name of the US must be "United States" because it gets more hits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 'logic' has nothing to do with the ratio of the number of hits of one search term to another. It has to do with the fact that if you google "Al and April Masini Day" the only two hits that you get are written by you and Jennyspencer on Wikipedia. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not heard of paper? I don't believe Google searches that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the discussion was not closed, over the past few days I have added a lot of references to the page and have included excerpts that directly support every statement that is made. A lot of the assertions made on this discussion page are completely inaccurate and not based upon the facts. Should someone be inclined to actually read the references they will see this to be the case. I hope that the newly added references will be considered when making a final determination. Jennyspencer (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Nothing says notability like 11 references from match.com! 98.216.108.133 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that by moving the page prematurely, I've caused a can of worms to spill over. All of the edits and additional references are appreciated but there must be another way to work on the page through collaboration with other editors. As for newspaper clippings and magazine references, I provided citations for my findings and, like you all have mentioned in previous comments, those items are not necessarily searchable via Google. However, they are legitimate sources that show April Masini's notability as an entertainment executive and advice columnist. My proposal remains the same: I would like to page Userfied to keep working on those citations, and to collaborate with editors that have shown an interest in build its solidarity. I still have not been told that this is not an option. Will any admin with input about the possibility of a userfied page please let me know? That would be pretty cool. Thank you! GMHayes (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can work on the article right now while it's in article space. There's no point creating two different copies of the same article with you working on the one in your user space, and everyone else working on the the one out there right now. If you want to improve the article, just go to April Masini and click on edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Partial Merge with Al Masini and Delete' - It seems her works as a 'political activist' were all in conjunction with her husband Al (who IS independently notable). While these actions clearly did occur, I see no notability for April independent from Al, in terms of her role as a political activist. Also, the second half of her career seems to be as a sex advice columnist. While articles BY her have been published in notable publications, I don't see any articles ABOUT her. There's secondary sources that she did political consulting, but is not independently notable; she is potentially independently notable as a sex columnist, but there doesn't seem to be secondary sources to back it up. My conclusion? Does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Frorunner9 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an article about her.[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frorunner! Her work on Blue Crush and related to Act 221 was completely independent from her ex-husband. (They divorced in 1999. Act 221 and the film were in 2002 and they no longer were working together.) By all accounts the Blue Crush deal she structured included a commitment by Universal Studios to cross promote the film and the location it had been shot. This, according to all reports, was something that had never been done before. . "A Hollywood studio and the state visitors bureau have agreed to cross-promote the islands with the upcoming release of a made-in-Hawaii movie -- a pioneering deal with a promotional value worth millions of dollars." ""April[Masini], who has worked to bring TV and movie productions to Hawaii for years, has said all along that she would help promote Hawaii," Blanco said. "She's kept to her word."" http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/03/11/story1.html?page=all

That said, if you want to disregard the Blue Crush deal, you are correct that the rest of her work related to political advocacy on behalf of the TV and film industry was while she was married to her ex-husband. Thanks for your consideration. Jennyspencer (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of that, I am changing my vote to Weak Keep, though major cleanup of the article is required. Frorunner9 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Frorunner. I have added the story that A Quest For Knowledge posted above to the April Masini page along with two other articles written about her. Jennyspencer (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator with no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triggermen

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

Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). No critic reviews on RT. Seems most online sources are to watch the trailer or buy the movie. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reviews found at Time Out and Film4. And in a common-sense way any film featuring Pete Postlethwaite has to be encyclopedi-worthy. PamD 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much noticed in the US, mebbe, but many reviews turn up from in Britain and Ireland. Already a BBC review cited in the article. Also found so far, via Google, are reviews at:
- Variety [20].
- Sunday Mercury (Birmingham) [21]
- The Telegraph (very brief review)[22]
- entertainment.ie [23]
- RTÉ [24]

Though generally disliked by the aforementioned critics, it seems there's enough here to withstand AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found and offered that show that even a "generally disliked" movie can meet WP:NF and WP:GNG. I'll gladly head over and perform some sourcing and expansion to turn that stub into a start or c class, but I would suggest the nominator consider a withdrawal, as we genrally do not delete brand new stub articles on notable topics if they can be improved through regular editing, and AFD is not a process intended to be used to forcing such cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nom I apologize for not doing more research before nominating it. That's the beauty of teamwork here though. It looks like someone is already improving the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the withdrawl. And though I doubt if there would be any major complaint if I closed this myself as a "keep per nom's withdrawal and no votes to delete", perhaps someone who had not already commented might elect to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator. (NAC) Reyk _YO! 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen (2009 novel)

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

Recreation of article removed for copyvio, without request to an admin or on Wikipedia:Deletion review Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question- I'm assuming the new version is not a copyright violation like the old one? If it's not, I don't think there's any reason to have to go through official channels to make a new version. Reyk _YO! 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The rationale for this nomination is not valid. As long as the new version is not a copyvio (and it's not), there's no requirement to ask "permission" to re-create it. This is not the same as the recreation an article which had been deleted for non-notability at an AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This novel is multiple award-winning, and is linked to in several articles, even before I created it. (e.g., [[25]], and [[26]]). I genuinely believe that this article is important for multiple other Wikipedia articles. --Jelliefishz (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book has won several prizes, received independent adequate coverage, and has been translated into five languages. I've replaced all the "references" used by the creator of this version. All of them were to the author's website or Amazon.com, which did nothing to attest to or verify the book's notability. It is now independently sourced to multiple publications. I've also corrected an error (it was shortlisted for the Prime Minister's Literary Awards, but not a winner). Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep The rationale I gave for this AfD is certainly not invalid, at worst harsh. The article has improved so much the last days, that my reservations against it have faded away. The book promo is now an article about a book with credible sources and far more relevant information. So, close this procedure as keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain Police Department (South Dakota)

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

This is a 6 person police department in a town of 2300. I could not find at Google Books or Google News archive the number and quality of references needed to satisfy WP:ORG. It is already listed in List of law enforcement agencies in South Dakota, which seems adequate coverage. This only deserves an article if Wikipedia is to be a directory of every size and type of organization found in every city and county, and WP:NOT indicates otherwise. Edison (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Terence7 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei Devadanam

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

No indication Mr. Devadanam meets the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for people; of three references, two are passing mentions while another quotes Mr. Devadanam on a broader topic. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have provided enough references that are unbiased as they are articles from national newspapers and also snaps depicting what have been mentioned - Sailesh Varma 125.62.201.15 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of reliable sources, but many of them are more of the "passing mention" variety. However, at some point enough "passing mentions" become significant (at least to me). I'll have to do more research on him, but I do know the article will need to be retitled since "sensei" is a title, not a name. Article was created by a likely COI, but that has no bearing on the subject's notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I wasn't sure about the name either. The sources seem to indicate "Ch. Devadanam" as the name, but my understanding is that that's an abbreviation of Chaudhary, also an honorific, so I don't know where the article should be if it's kept. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, no, his name is Chintapalli Devadanam. That detail should make research easier. DS (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working with User:Saileshvarma on improving the article. DS (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been trying to get the editors to put reliable sources for many of the claims. Originally all of my comments were removed, but we're using the talk page to discuss improving the article. Right now the only things that are truly sourced are that he teaches judo and shooting air rifles to local children. As Astudent0 pointed out, these are short articles of local interest where he is mentioned, but not in detail. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless further sourcing is added this seems to fail WP:ROUTINE because it falls under the "local man gets award" description specifically mentioned. The only sources indicate that he teaches judo and is involved in the local YMCA shooting program for children. Things like organizing tournaments or coaching a "district sub-junior judo team" fail to distinguish him from millions of other community volunteers. If, for example, claims like he "was ranked #1 for four consecutive years from 1981-1984 in Karate, Judo, Aikido, Jujitsu, and Kung Fu, Katas (Weapons) in National full contact-Knock down martial arts championships" could be sourced, that would be different. As it is, it's just more unsupported claims that are found in so many martial arts articles. Astudent0 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete My internet search didn't find any sources that aren't already in the article. Without additional sources or supported claims, I have to agree with Astudent0's assessment of this article. A supported claim of being #1 in all of those different martial arts would certainly show notability, but extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and this article lists no support for the claim. He seems to care about kids, but that alone doesn't show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article certainly makes claims that would indicate notability, but they need verification, as others have noted. Janggeom (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Male (album)

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable artist. Coverage in reliable sources - Allmusic review already linked in article. It took me a couple of minutes to find that it has also been reviewed in The Wire, Option (see CD Review Digest), CMJ New Music Monthly. There's also coverage in the Trouser Press guide.--Michig (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of multiple reviews, passes WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Cavarrone (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omnilingual archaeology

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

Appears to be an original research essay riff on the H. Beam Piper story "Omnilingual". The article isn't really about the story, though, but is an essay about archeology and popular culture. Lack of references and a strong point view make this unsuitable for an encyclopedia article.

Due to its structure and the lack of references, there doesn't appear to me to be anything that can usefully moved to either the article about the short story or the article on Archaeology. ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents the archaeological and popular culture elements of the short story Omnilingual and the important factors derived in meaning contributed by this viewpoint. This makes it not a point of view, but rather a article as seen within other journal sources. This article should have a right to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.189.92 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfocussed WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the short story is notable. No need to expand the article into an essay. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- rambling and largely incoherent original research essay that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the subject is notable as an academic. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Tiller

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

No good sources; he doesn't seem to reach basic standards of notability. Sources used in the article are completely unsuitable. Notability is not inherited, and, so far as I can find, the only notable thing he did was appear as one of a dozen or so people in What the Bleep Do We Know?!, which doesn't justify a full article on him. Suggest redirecting to the film. 86.** IP (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Vote that we should merge with What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Normally membership of a science institution would imply notability, however I do not think he has had any lasting impact as a scientific researcher. ~~Describing him as a "professor emeritus" is misleading since he does not seem to have any ongoing connection with any credible institution.~~ Nothing in his publishing history has any significant sales or reach. He's just not a notable scientist or a notable author. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - listed as Professor Emeritus at Stanford University School of Engineering (link) and Fellow of the AAAS. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I stand corrected on this issue. If we could show that he has some ongoing connection with the department that might establish notability. I'm not sure if the continued listing is merely a courtesy or reflects actual continued participation in the research life of Stanford U. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary; there is no need to show a current active connection with Stanford. As a Fellow of the AAAS it appears he passes WP:ACADEMIC; and note the extensive results at GScholar.[27] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider him notable based on his Stanford/AAAS credentials alone? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a little searching, the AAAS elects approximately 500 fellows per year. [28] - that's rather a big pool to be notable by default. 86.** IP (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could re-phrase that. Does being an AAAS and co-authoring a hundred or so papers make you WP:N? I think it's a an indication that the subject might be notable. In this case there's an oddity: the stuff he's best known for took place after he had retired from Stanford and had very little to do with his former career as a professor of engineering. He was only selected to appear in the movie because of his unorthodox views in fundamental physics and his published works on esoteric matters. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Guillaume2303 on the GScholar/Web of Science results. The unorthodox side of work has been getting coverage since the early 1970s. For example, look at the results from a Google search of the search string <"William Tiller" Stanford> at GNews[29] and GBooks[30] Paywalls inhibit my ability to point you to particular examples but note that in 1972-1973, for example, he was being written about by the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post (link to a reprinted Post story here), Paul Harvey [31], etc. When Edgar Mitchell quit the space program to study psychic phenomena in 1972, Tiller was named as the leading academic involved with his plans.[32] He's been well-known for this stuff for decades, and the fact that he was simultaneously a notable mainstream professor and a notable fringe figure has long been part of the story. I respectfully suggest that this AfD is misdirected: instead, editors who are concerned about inaccurate coverage of fringe science could make valuable contributions in helping to improve this article so that readers will get a more complete and balanced view. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know about all the fringe stuff, but his citation record (see the link given by Arxiloxos above) is enough for a pass of WP:PROF (top citation count over 400 hits, next ones 358, 176, etc). Article does need some work though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think he published an extrordianry number of papers given the length of his mainstream tenure. There's nothing remarkable about his career at SU, or have I missed something? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're missing something. Given that GScholar is not very good indexing older stuff, I checked the Web of science. Being conservative (there were several "author sets" for "Tiller WA" and I only took the main one), I get a total of 6757 citations, top cited paper more than 1000, next two with >300, h-iindex of 37. This is way more than what we usual accept in AfD discussions of academics. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points raised above, particularly AAAS Fellow, citations, news articles, etc. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 and G11 by Amatulic (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TechSplurge

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

(declined PROD) Vaguely promotional, no real indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Article having some information for the people--- Angel from PAKISTAN ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete, there's nothing reliable to write about this blog. Diego (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generative Knowledge Interviewing

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

This article doesn't mention it, but Generative Knowledge Interviewing is a brand-new trademarked product of UMich, and this article appears to be part of a promotional campaign from the department of the product's inventor, Melissa Peet. Could not find sufficient relevant Google cites for "Generative Knowledge Interviewing" with "-peet". Nothing on Scholar. Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:GNG. Zad68 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, no evidence of notability - this search yields only 92 results, even including Peet. Fails WP:VER, WP:GNG and of course WP:SPAM. andy (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had my own doubts about this concept. The references I could find all appear to point back to a single paper published by Peet et al, and all appear to be an attempt to "spread the word" (i.e. a promotion campaign). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: on that point, a quick googling reveals someone who is a "Generative Knowledge Investigator" at the University of Michigan and may well be the author of this article. Just saying. andy (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam and a clearly not neutral string of glittering generalities: a methodology which aims to empower individuals and organizations to clearly identify and recognize the unconscious abilities and resources (e.g. values, strengths and capacities) they possess, and then use these hidden resources toward their work and life goals. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was considering marking this for G11 speedy deletion myself, but decided that the promotion was a little too subtle to mark as such. Definitely too promotional for Wikipedia, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- Angel from PAKISTAN ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since we're all here anyway, let's each take a moment to nominate entries for this article's most empty nonsense phrase or startling grade-school grammar boner. Here's mine: Once recovered, individuals are then able to use their essential tacit blah blah blah. I'm sorry... you're saying individuals do such-and-such once they've recovered? Recovered from what? Is this a rehab program? EEng (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SaM Solutions

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

Notability not established. Though this software business article has a long list of references and links, non of them demonstrate notability (trivial mentions, obscure sources and PR reprints). The promotional tone of the article and the Awards section constitute WP:ADVERT issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone through the references and they do not establish notability. I have also removed some of the more blatantly promotional sections of the article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another IT outsourcing business advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those refs that are specific to this company, rather than outsourcing generally, are a mixture of PR and info on their business park location: insufficient to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similarly I've read through the references provided, the company is not quite a non-entity but it isn't notable QU ^TalkQu 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please keep this article, I've made it same as another EPAM Systems, and there is no differences, also its a notable Development company in Belarus, that is why im sure that it has similar info in wikipedia as others outsourcing companies. Dont see problems, also it has also links to others posts, and also articles that confirms company identity. Tagyl ^{User talk:Tagyl} 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policies linked above described why this is being considered for deletion. The crux of the issue is summarised by the opening paragraph of the policy. Has SaM Solutions ...been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The references found so far appear to be trivial or not independent of the company (e.g., promotio^{User talk:Tagyl}nal material)QU ^TalkQu 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between this article and EPAM Systems, otherwise the only thing is wikipedia is tring to block a free information here, without any normal law. 2. Please advise ways of notability, your point unclear and suggestion is needed. Please provide.Tagyl ^{User talk:Tagyl} 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.32.164 (talk) [reply]

There is no possible suggestion for demonstrating notability of company which is evidently not notable. The EPAM Systems article you refer to as at least close to qualifying for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I didn't investigate it yet, but it will probably go to AfD next. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a law anymore since this article has same structure and notability to EPAM Systems and Altoros, please keep this article with only ask correction, this is what other users are going to do in a meanwhile. Also want to add that notability is the statement that only you can reflect, if its not notable for you, it could be notable for others. Please be democratic in this questions, otherwise Free WikiEncyclopedia by your hands becoming one of the keys in controlling free information. Be advised that you are pushing on a free expression of ideas. And also if a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers or you Personaly like an Editor it does not mean it is not notable for others users of Wikipedia want to note that Wikipedia - is Free Encyclopedia. Tagyl 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.32.164 (talk) [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} 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBA Group

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

Notability not established. Though this software business article has a long list of references and links, non of them can be called reliable and no reliable sources on topic are available in the wild. The promotional tone of the article and the Awards section constitute WP:ADVERT issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another IT outsourcing business advertising on Wikipedia. "Is an IT outsourcing business" ought to be grounds for speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirofication

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

It seems that someone is trying to get a neologism some publicity. I can find no evidence whatsoever to support any notability for this word. This article was rightly listed for PROD but after it had expired the template was removed by the original author with no explanation I relisted it for deletion but have had the request turned down as it has already been through the process once, even though it had a decidedly suspect removal first time round. Malcolma (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Spirofy as obvious self-promoting spam. Also WP:NOT a dictionary, for things made up one day, a blog or promotional site, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Insert Spirograph joke.] EEng (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Matzko

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

Subject does not meet enwp threashold for notability. Just a typical career professor -- subject is a department chair, but it is not a named or distinguished chair as mandated by WP:ACADEMIC. Plus, more than half the sources in the article are attributed to the subject himself. —Eustress ^talk 12:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Lots of sources, several of them third-party. He seems somewhat notable, and this to be a threshold case. I thought I read somewhere on here that chaired professors are generally notable, but I can't recall the guideline/policy (or maybe essay) that stated it. I reserve the right to change my opinion. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 04:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. 3/9 refs are to personal websites, and another 3 are to the professor's university. Regarding chairship, I pointed out in the nom that according to WP:ACADEMIC, chairs must be named chairs, which his is not... and even if it were, it wouldn't be enough to meet the notability threshold since he's at a non-major university. (Again, see the policy.) —Eustress ^talk 13:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep only. His post as chairman of a division is a senior post, which would in UK (where not every academic is a professor) be held by a professor, perhaps with the title Dean of Social Science. The list of publications also suggests that he is just about notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. In the U.S., a department chair is inferior to a dean; and policy says chairship does not connote notability. Regarding the publications, none of them are notable or have been cited widely. —Eustress ^talk 17:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familar with American academic titles. However a "division" sounded to me like rather more than a department. I see from this page] that the division is one of six in the School of Arts and Sciences, which is headed by a Dean. Nevertheless, I will stand by "weak keep". I would not go higher. We need comments from other editors, not a repetition of the view of the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three articles listed in the Web of Science, none of them cited even once. WoS is of course not very good in this area, but GScholar does not turn up much more (just click the link above). Note that these articles are perhaps even authored by a different person with the same name, as they don't seem to be in the same field. Broadening the search to "Matzko J" does not improve matters. None of the other sources seem to provide enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Being department chair at a large university normally means that if you search, you'll probably find something to show notability (although being department chair in itself is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF). However, Matzko is not at a major university, so it is perhaps less surprising that we can't find much. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. His alleged arguably unsavoury comments in connection with [33][34] also come in up searches, but have apparently not been reported in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some time evaluating sources confirms Guillaume2303's view that his academic publishing is quite far from meeting WP:PROF. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (keep). non-admin closure Grandmartin11 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Hall

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

Already speedied once and been recreated by a suspected sock of the blocked user who created the first article. This one is very similar including the same (removed) spammy links. None of the citations back up some of the claims made in the article. It may be "informative" but that "information" needs to be sourced. There is nothing to show that this venue is any more notable than many others, except the claims of COI editors. This is simply a promotional article which had already been dealt with once by deletion and blocking. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. A few sources have been found (although still far from adequate) and most of the puffery has been removed. The article now focuses on the building and not the current business. The building itself is notable but much more work needs to be done to source its history in detail for this to be a worthwhile article. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Reasonable arguments are made for and against the notability of this book per WP:NBOOK. Some time is needed to clean up the article, remove the (large amounts of) promotional and non-encylopedic content, and remove irrelevant sources. No prejudice against relisting this article at AfD after giving the authors a reasonable amount of time to work on these issues. —SW— ^speak 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba at a Cross Roads

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

Promotional page of a book lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources listed but the article lacks good ones to show notability. Ones by the author are not independent. The Wikileaks piece does not cover this book. The press release that is referenced from three different sites that tries making the book look important by puffing up someone else is not independent. No better sources were found by me. Nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (books) satisfied. The repeated press release and the use of multiple pieces by the author as references suggests bombardment is happening to make the book look notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources do you consider to be reliable? As per WP:GOODREFS I have given independent third party references to support the article. References are regarding a published book. I have taken the references from mainstream press publications and authorized web sites. Not all articles can contain references from New York Times and Washington Post. I haven't use any blogs, fan sites and stuff like that to support the article. The book is quite notable that is why I have created an article for it because it highlights some major world problems. I am well aware of the referencing criteria and this article in no way can be considered as an advertisement. This book is notable and to support the statements I have used the references again. How can that be considered as bombardment?
You can check the references again for your satisfaction.
--Inlandmamba (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point (after I removed wikipedia from the list of references) there is 12 reference links. 7 are written by sanz, most being book extracts. Clearly not independent. 3 more are press releases, not independent. That's 10 of the twelve. Where are the independent third party references you have claimed to have used? The only independent source that is related to the book is just a listing and does not provide coverage of the book. The piece about wikileaks is not regarding a published book.
Re: Not using any blogs: What are these then? [35] [36] [37]
Re: Bombardment. The page has used the same press release on two different sites [38] [39] to verify the quote by Khrushchev, then used it from another site later [40], making it look like there is more than one source. The page used a book extract from one site [41] then have used the same Spanish language extract from two different sites [42] [43], making it look like there is more than one source. The page has used the same book extract from two different sites [44] [45] (one a non english page when an english one was available), making it look like there is more than one source. Clearly bombardment, especial when you take into account 5 different links are all taken from the book in question.
I have checked the references again and once again I see not all support the statements you have made in this page. eg. The google books listing does not support the claim that the book "is a highly detailed account of Cuban history, U.S.– Cuba relations and a polemic against the United States embargo on commerce with Cuba." It's just a listing. As per WP:GOODREFS "A citation to a reference must be accurate, i.e. it must verify the statement in the text".
duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more references to the article from independent author as user:duffbeerforme suggested to prove the notability of the book. If more references are required, I can add them too, but didn't want to make Wikipedia a collection of links.
--Inlandmamba (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted. The Khrushchev endorsement is of historical importance to scholars and speaks volumes about the merits of the book's viewpoint. There is a dearth of English language material espousing the end of the embargo in the name of the American national interest. Balance in the public debate is sorely needed and this book helps acheive that goal. May I suggest reading the book before dismissing it as un-noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DazzBand (talk • contribs) — DazzBand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

The referencing is now worse. A bunch of links unrelated to this book but sharing a few key words have been dumped into the page. Two examples: This book was published in 2009. To verify that this book "is a highly detailed account of Cuban history, U.S.– Cuba relations and a polemic against the United States embargo on commerce with Cuba" a 2007 paper has been used. To verify that this 2009 book "does not argue against the embargo on humanitarian grounds just as it rejects arguments for the embargo because of human rights violations in Cuba" a 1960 editorial is used. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete - This work meets multiple of Wiki's notability criteria (#1 and #4) for Books. The subject is obviously academic, and the article is not commercial. Whether or not we, as editors, agree with any subjective viewpoints implied or expressed in the book, the notability of the book is supported by content in multiple, independent, English language online venues. The editor proposing deletion discounts all 7 references attributed to Sanz (the book's author) himself, yet the relevance of these references is not proven by their authorship, it is proven by the implicit endorsement of the venues that published them. Similarly, the multiple references to press release coverage are implicit endorsement by the editors that chose to publish them and the venues in which they were published. Additional materials supporting the relevance of this book are not easily found via a basic search in English language as it is also published in Spanish with a Spanish title. While looking for references, I also saw academic papers that cite this work, supporting the idea of academic relevance. Lasty, as an academic work that is only a few years old, its importance as a reference is not yet known, and we should be biased toward inclusion rather than risk eliminating an important academic work from Wiki because it has not yet been widely cited. IMS91319 (talk)

No evidence has been provided that it meets Wiki's notability criteria (#1 and #4) for Books. You say "the notability of the book is supported by content in multiple, independent, English language online venues", where are these venues? The relevance of Sanz's references are proven by their authorship, he is not independent as he wrote the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article - We see this with books and other topics where Wiki's notability guidelines follow an 80% rule (they work well 80% of the time). Wiki's credibility/notability criteria for books use indicators that are related to the publishing and cataloging (sp?) of books that are sold. This appears to be a book that is not being printed and sold commercially, so, while there is an ISBN number, we're not going to find it at Barnes & Noble, in the Lib of Congress or at many of the other "notable" venues Wiki likes us to use to prove worth. That said, the book seems to have plenty of coverage in the media, and it is discussed as being a work of importance for an underserved topic. Should be kept. jdc_wms (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Where is this coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The significance and the value of the book is summarized by Sergei Khrushchev's endorsement. Neshmick (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a citation to improve the article, which has material affect on proof of notability, so I'm referencing it here. Showing its inclusion in the collection of the U.S Library of Congress http://lccn.loc.gov/2009926446. jdc_wms (talk) comment added 02:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to have started out as a simple promotion and has turned into a catastrophe. It seems like the editors plugged "Cuba at a/the crossroads" into Google and inserted every hit that came up as a reference, despite most of them being completely irrelevant. Most, in fact, seem to be where Sanz took his title from, rather than the other way around. The endorsement by Khrushchev is the only slightly notable thing about it, and one jacket blurb doesn't make for notability. Even that comes from a press release - i.e. a promotional source - and two references are inserted, one of which is simply a link to the other. This article could be deleted for the bad faith of the editors alone. In any case, WP is not here to document every self-published book. Listing it on Sanz's article is enough. KarlM (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the references need sorted out. So we should sort/edit/delete the individual references instead of trashing a page that may have merit and discouraging input to Wiki. WP:DNB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdc wms (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started reference cleanup. Removed extraneous links and restructured references that did not support specific citation. More to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdc wms (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those arguing to keep the article have failed to present arguments based on Wikipedia policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Obama Will Win in 2008 & 2012

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

Promotional page of a book lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources listed but the article lacks good ones to show notability. Ones by the author are not independent. Some are just listings. Steeles book does not cover this book. The Freedomist and Black News are both the same press release. Only one that might be considered good is the Village Voice but it is just an opinion piece in a blog that doesn't really provide non-trivial coverage of the book. No better sources were found by me. Nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (books) satisfied. The repeated press release and the multiple listings suggests bombardment is happening to make the book look notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable self-published book. (BookSurge is a "print on demand" self-publishing wing of Amazon that was later renamed/merged into CreateSpace.) There's no reliable sources that show notability and the sources remaining on the article do not show notability in the slightest. (I removed the worst of the links.) None of the claims in the article are backed up by reliable or non-primary sources and smells of WP:PUFFERY. If there was any call for a speedy delete category for books, this would be a prime example of why we need a speedy, as there's clearly no notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete flaky sources, and apart from the self-pub book, virtually uncited/uncitable. Advertising, too soon, self publicity, whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons above. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. The prestige of the book publisher is irrelevant to the merits of the book itself, which has an important endorsement from a Columbia University political science professor. The book was published on the Internet, is included in the on-line scholarly paper collection at a major university and physical copies were printed in 2007 by Booksurge only as a compliment to the electronic edition, which is still available on-line for free. The article is not premature because in 2007 it did use science to predict the election outcomes of 2008 and 2012. DazzBand (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DazzBand (talk • contribs) — DazzBand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete. The book is not for sale and the article is not an advertising piece. Deletion of the article is advocated by people with no academic credentials or knowledge about the book topic and they have never seen the book. Self publishing: The book was a volunteer effort written for and distributed on the Internet. It is non-commerical in nature and not intended for the general public. It is still available for free on the Internet and has been downloaded by thousands of readers world wide on Scribd. Physical copies were "self-published" only for distribution to the Library of Congress and VIPs at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008. Please let academics decide whether the article is factual and the book noteworthy. Stop deleting article references. Deletion of the article is censorship. DazzBand (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The book is an academic work indexed in Google Scholar through GetCITED. Not all books get reviewed by The New York Times, especially intellectual ones like this one. I've seen many similar cases on Wikipedia, thus considering that there are no notability related issues for this book. And indeed, the article is not premature, the book was published in 2007, before 2008 elections. Ardsarea (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The book is an e-book and therefore is not supported by much of the notability apparatus set forth to prove Wiki noteworthiness. Not being in print, it doesn't sit in "important" collections and it will not be in libraries or catalogs except online. Wiki's noteworthiness guidelines are behind the times on this as the publishing world evolves, and questions about whether a work meets them should be secondary to questions of the content of the work itself. As an academic work with implications for sociology, economics, and politics, it is noteworthy and should be kept. jdc_wms (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being an acedemic work does not make a book notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. WP is not here to document every self-published book. Regarding some of the claims made in favor of keeping, Sanz is a financial analyst and essayist/journalist, not an academic. Mention of the listing on the UPenn site seems to imply that it has academic credibility; however, that site is simply a library of free online ebooks, and just contains a link to the book on Scribd. KarlM (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable self-published book. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BLP concerns, largely per WP:CRIME, WP:BLPCRIME. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of California public officials charged with crimes

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

Purely procedural nomination. Article blanked by User:AndyTheGrump on BLP grounds. Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. And apologies for the somewhat drastic approach I took to this article - but the topic itself is such an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc, that it seemed the only appropriate course. Listing non-notable individuals who have been convicted of crimes is probably a BLP1E violation (taking into account the insignificance of some of the crimes alleged), but this article lists individuals acquitted of such charges too. In an ideal world, one could go through the article, remove all the acquittals, and all the convictions of non-notable individuals, and reduce the list to a core of significant corrupt Californian public officials - but even then, without a source that said that there was anything notable about the intersection between 'California' and 'crime by public officials', it would look like the breach of WP:SYNTHESIS that it is. It is entirely possible that California leads the world in official corruption (though I doubt it), but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum to engage in research to prove it. Without a source that explicitly states that public corruption in California is any more significant than anywhere else, the list can only be seen as political soapboxing, point-scoring, or a random accumulation of primary research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, it should be acknowledged that this list is well-organized and appears to be well-sourced, and that it represents an impressive organizational effort and a list that could be useful to anyone interested in the subject matter. Any conclusions about "soapboxing" are in the eye of the beholder: if this list is longer than other states' would be, it would most likely be only because California is by far the biggest state. Second, as a matter of American law, GeorgeLouis is right: these are public figures, and in principle there is no legal obstacle to reporting this kind of information. However, Wikipedia's BLP policies weigh more heavily to the side of privacy. One could try to resume a debate whether this should be so in all cases, but I do think the consensus has been clear in prior discussions that under WP policy only convictions would be permitted in a list like this. This very detailed list may have a home somewhere else on the web, at a platform with a less stringent policy on this issue, but probably not here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'well sourced', can I draw your attention to (for example, just because I checked) 'Paul H. Richards II' - the article cites no source whatsoever, and instead links to our own article on Lynwood, California#Government and infrastructure - which in turn cites a "Campaign Legal Center Blog" as its sole source. Maybe this is entirely correct. Maybe Richards was a crook - but we don't have the appropriate level of sourcing to be asserting this, even in the Lynwood article: and we don't cite Wikipedia articles as a source, ever. I've not had the opportunity to look into the sourcing of this article in any great depth, but the closer I look, the less convincing it seems... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, although in that particular case the link actually leads to an FBI press release[46] and Richards' conviction is easily confirmed, e.g. by this Los Angeles Times article[47] (which, by the way, entailed "a sentence that federal prosecutors described as one of the longest in any U.S. public corruption case"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I've not (for obvious reasons) had the opportunity to look at each individual named on the list in detail - but that is rather the point. If one has to resort to searching for evidence oneself, rather than looking at sources actually cited in the list, the whole thing gets increasingly shaky. And on a purely practical perspective, citing one Wikipedia article from another (which is what is happening here) is asking for trouble - articles get altered, citations get replaced with others, and one can end up with an article that no longer supports the material it is being cited for. We shouldn't be doing this - and we don't as a matter of policy. Articles should be self-supporting regarding sources, particularly where contentious material is concerned. All this is rather peripheral to the real issue though - which is whether Wikipedia should include such 'lists' in the first place: and all the evidence I've seen is that the consensus is 'absolutely not'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Rich says above, "Convictions and only convictions should be the hallmark of a list of this sort" - its been blanked - no need to wait. - Youreallycan 10:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is well-sourced and the topic seems quite notable. As an example of similar tertiary coverage elsewhere, see Political corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed. The page shown by that link documents the case of Richard Thomas Hanna in an encyclopedic way. This person is included in the list in question and, as that person is dead, BLP does not apply. This demonstrates that deletion is not appropriate and that ordinary editing to improve the quality of the article is what's needed. Relevant policies include WP:CENSOR and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply And relevant guideline contrary to this is WP:CRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A side issue re: sources. Atop the references section is the explanation References not on this page are in the articles cited. Access to some newspaper links may require the use of a library card. That's a terrific understatement--the balance of references link to the LA or SF library systems, and can not be accessed without a card. One is accustomed to accepting in good faith an article with several sources which can not be easily accessed, or require payment for access. There are 238 cites here, the vast majority of which may not be accessed by most readers. WP:SOURCEACCESS offers a broad policy on this, which is that we accept sources which can not be easily accessed, but I'm not sure that the guideline anticipated an article with some 200 such cites. Perhaps someone has encountered a similar situation here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The links are merely for courtesy. The citations all include the underlying newspaper information; if we didn't accept old newspapers, many articles would be significantly more difficult to write. The library links are at least gratis to those within the service area; I agree links to the newspapers' own archives or the underlying document database services might be preferable. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIME. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note: I fully support having a list of California public officials convicted of crimes, and I assume there is one. I simply think we shouldn't have lists of, or articles about, people who have been charged unless they have also been convicted. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eight Californian officials are included here, List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes and any of the 237 that were listed here that were found guilty of anything that are not included there can be merged over. - Youreallycan 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Totally cool with that kind of merger. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the previous comments. This article, as it stands, is a violation of the BLP policy and in my opinion also is discouraged by WP:CRIME. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make matters clear: merge those entries pertaining to people who have articles and are otherwise notable--per convention for lists. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For further evidence of how this list is contrary to Wikipedia standards, see WP:LISTPEOPLE "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met... The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met..." How exactly does a ""Supervisor... indicted for rendering and collecting fraudulent claims against the county for road work on Union Avenue" - and then acquitted fall within such criteria? Do we have an article on the Road works in Union Avenue? The unorthodox way the article uses wikilinks between the names on the list and sections within it (which I've not seen used elsewhere) gives the misleading impression that we do have articles about these individuals. But no, almost al of these individuals neither meet Wikipedia notability requirements, and nor are they 'famous' for anything. Even those convicted of such crimes are not automatically suitable for inclusion on such lists unless (a) they independently meet Wikipedia notability standards, or (b) the crime in which they are involved in does. This is policy. If anyone thinks the policy is wrong, then propose that it be changed - but not here, we don't rewrite policy in AfD discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per AndyTheGrump. Yes, breaches numerous policies and guidelines and no reason to retain. Happy to support any convicted (and not quashed) entries to be listed within List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes but this article's editing history should not be retained to make that possible - in fact would probably support deleting then salting this one with a fully protected redirect to the list of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only turn into a directory of BLP violations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The perfect Wikipedia article hasn't been written. It is well and accurately referenced. There should be such a list for every state in the union. I disagree with the inclusion requirements, but that's just tweaking. Richrakh (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you're giving a reason based on policy here--this is a variation on WP:ILIKEIT. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:BLP, any charges of crimes or convictions can be added in a neutral, due weight, manor to the subject's article. Perhaps this can be preserved as a category.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That rather presupposes that the person involved has an article in the first place. Most don't. And nor should they... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, with modifications and clarifications to the sources as needed. : There is nothing inherently wrong with a list of people charged with crimes and some of them later being cleared, or at least not convicted. (Wikipedia is full of articles about people who have ended up in just that sad situation.) The fact of their being charged—accused formally by a grand jury or a prosecutor—will always be findable by the inveterate Web surfer, but the rest of their stories demands to be told as well. Those who want to bowdlerize history should be ashamed of themselves, and I am just happy they are not working for the New York Times or Le Monde. There is a moral in this list to be stressed to every politician—that crime does not pay and that his or her sins, if such they be, will out. Likewise to every prosecuting attorney, the moral is to prepare your case well and to be prepared to lose as well as to win. For grand jurors: Don't be so sure that you are right, and always be wary of the political motives of your local district attorney. I am sure that is why this list has had more than a hundred hits almost every day it has run, thousands now—not because it is salacious, but because it is instructive. I can see individual attorneys, editors and students all over the state (maybe the nation or the world) consulting this list with eyes open and mouth agape, as it to ponder that, "I didn't know there were so many shady characters—or damaged souls—in local politics." If this article is deleted, or its focus changed, it will be a sad, sad time: Wikipedia shut down its site a few weeks ago and urged us to "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge." Right here, right now, today, some are demanding—not a world, perhaps, but at least a state of 37 million people—without free knowledge of those public officials who have either served them well and perhaps have been wrongly accused (and perhaps not)—or have raped them and have been made to pay the consequences. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response, GeorgeLouis. Unfortunately, if there is a moral aspect to Wikipedia, it is something about knowledge, certainly, but not of the "name 'em and shame 'em" kind. We are not here to teach lessons to politicians (or mass murderers, or tax attorneys, or whatever), and that this info can be found on the internet is beside the point. You are not talking about knowledge in an encyclopedic sense: you are talking about a selection of raw data gathered for a specific purpose. And in this particular case, our BLP policy does say there is something inherently wrong with listing people who are only charged with a crime--really, that should be clear to you after reading over this discussion. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but the solution is to find out if these people are "living" or not, nicht war? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Notability. Not all the people on this list are Notable. If they were, they would have their own articles. Plenty of non-Notable people are included within articles about Notable people or within Lists of one sort or another. But to leave non-Notable people off any given list would make the list incomplete. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your objectives clear, and your disregard for Wikipedia policy likewise. Yes, elected officials should be held accountable - but this isn't Wikipedia's job, for very good reasons - not least that opening up Wikipedia to such political partisanship is likely to make Wikipedia less reliable, and less respected as a source. If you want to make a political point, then do so - but not here. And if this point involves exposing political corruption, you have my full support - but this isn't an appropriate place to do it. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per already mentioned concerns re: BLP violations, listing of numerous non-notables, and finally, per WP:SOAPBOX, given the author's intent to create an article for editorial purposes. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being charged with the crime is not the same as guilty and convicted. I would think anyone who is charged then proved innocent would suddenly want to appear on this list on Wikipedia as per WP:BLP. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Every statement is now sourced - I went through the article and found sources for every statement but one, and I added a "fact" tag there. For some reason, the article has been blanked, even though there is a clear statement on the page that it can be edited. Oh, and I removed two people (from San Francisco and West Hollywood) who did not fit the criteria—their alleged crimes having taken place before they held office. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that after everything that has been written above, you don't understand why the article was blanked? Still, it's nice to have an admission that the article was violating policy for yet another reason. ~~And no, you don't add "fact" tags to BLP violations - you delete them. This is policy. It isn't optional...~~ AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. I don't care how well sourced the article is: it has no useful purpose. Its only purpose seems, in fact, to be to expose people to public shame. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medium for people to "expose" other people they wish to denigrate. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with James. Note that I declined the speedy because the comments are sourced, and they don't imply guilt but rather being "charged". However agree that the article should go. 7 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the delete arguments, being charged with a crime does not make someone notable. If people on this list are notable then the information should be weighed to determine if it is important enough to be put into their article but this list does not belong. GB fan 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete non encyclopedic topic (no real "article" would need to be couch with "Those not convicted or those who were acquitted or whose convictions were overturned are legally presumed to be innocent.") and major BLP violations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopedic subject. Whether the list is a BLP violation or not depends on its contents, but creating rogues galleries of this sort creates an unacceptably high risk of BLP violation, as there will always be a temptation to add non-notable people, people whose records are later expunged, and so on. That leads to incorrect information or blowing things out of proportion, which definitely would be a BLP violation. In a biographical article, we would ordinarily mention a crime if it is relevant to their notability, substantial, and (or?) has a significant effect on their life, career, or legacy. That kind of contextual judgment is much harder to enforce for lists, which is a prime reason this kind of list is unmanageable. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last version of the full article was not a BLP violation, nor did it violate any policies. Every individual mentioned had an inline source (I added three to the one person with a cn tag); there is nothing that suggests that that the article violates WP:RS or WP:V (almost every entry is cited to a major California daily newspaper--the LA Times, SF Call, SF Chronicle or the San Jose Mercury News--I used three books to cover the final cn problem); and the article does not fail WP:NPOV. There is nothing in the article content or talk that suggests that the article's creator and primary contributor has some kind of bias against politicians in general, or against politicians charged with a crime and subsequently released. It is difficult to provide information about people convicted of crimes without making them sound "bad," but the language used was relatively neutral. References to various guidelines are not convincing. WP:CRIME just recommends that editors "give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Individual articles about such people were created by others--listing them here is not a violation of this guideline or of any policy. The criteria even screen out some individuals whose crimes are infractions that have nothing to do with their time in public office. Also note that criminal actions by and corruption of public officials is "notable" beyond what one might suspect based on the number of people involved or the amount of money--look at the biographies of Earl Warren and his memoir, which I cited in Burton Becker. GeorgeLouis did not find newspaper coverage of this person and his crimes, but it clearly existed at the time of the events and it shows up in every biography of Warren that covers his early carrer as a District Attorney in Alameda County. Corrupt sheriffs, county supervisors, mayors, councilmembers, and road commissioners are encyclopedic and suitable for inclusion in such a list, although not necessarily an individual article, especially if no other information about them is provided. There are hundreds of them in California who are clearly encyclopedic, mostly WP "notable," and sufficiently referenced in this list--how would you merge them to a national list? Finally, around half of the 200+ people on the list are dead and no legitimate BLP claim has been made about any of the others still listed. Here's a current link to Richards and the Lynwood story [48]. Editors should work on improving the article, clarifying or refining the selection criteria, and weeding out BLP issues with specific entries, if there are any. People might also remember to be civil and to assume good faith when responding to the creator and to any other Keep posts.--Hjal (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This post by Hjal is the latest in a string of posts from people insisting that the article is well sourced. This is something of a straw man argument. Although criticisms have been made of the sourcing, nobody has given that as the primary reason for wanting the article deleted. No matter how well sourced it is, an article that serves no purpose except to disparage or harass its subject falls foul of both Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 and Wikipedia:Attack page, and should be deleted, in addition to the other reasons given for deletion. (This article would arguably qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G10, but it would be unhelpful to speedily delete it while it is the subject of so much active discussion here.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad enough that we have individual bios where we report on people accused of crimes, charged with crimes, investigated for crimes, but now we have a LIST just in case someone wants to see all of the BLP violations in one place.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all the above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Everyone is guoting BLP. These are the policies.

Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)

This article conforms to all three. KEEP. Birdshot9 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read them? for example from WP:V "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And have you read the comments by AndytheGrump who originally nominated the articles for deletion? To wit "If one has to resort to searching for evidence oneself, rather than looking at sources actually cited in the list, the whole thing gets increasingly shaky." (with others)

AndytheGrump's whole and original rational was that the article was poorly sourced. It is not. Later discussion has centered on, as Wikidemon states, "not an encyclopedic subject" whatever that means. The article should stay. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdshot9 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish: read what I wrote at the top of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at some of the other lovely lists Birdshot is interested in, and their comments here won't surprise you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's blatantly untrue. User:AndyTheGrump's whole and original rationale was that the topic was "an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc." That's not sourcing issues AT ALL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with Andy, Stuart, and Bbb23. Accusations are not generally encyclopedic, and when an accusation (cf conviction) qualifies under WP:BLP1E or WP:BLPCRIME, a stand alone article would be more appropriate than a list because lists are not necessarily confined to notable individuals. With BLP vios, this article is not encyclopedic; without them, it's not even a list. Individuals actually convicted could most easily have a place at List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. JFHJr (㊟) 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I find that this article does Not violate WP:BLP. Slx03 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that you are not explaining why the article doesn't violate WP:BLP, given the large number of comments to the effect that it does: perhaps you need to study BLP policy more closely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recommend all similar lists of "accusations" be placed on AfD. Collect (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree, with a caveat: if a list article can be readily confined to notable accusations only (per title, by consensus on or change in applicable list guidelines, or any other fashion), the list should be kept. And while we can't change guidelines at AfD, we can think about how to apply them. Retitling to "List of notable xxxicans accused of war crimes," for example, might remedy the scope of some AfD-prone lists if a sufficient number of notable individuals exist, and a category alone would be insufficient. It's a high bar, but I think it would comport with WP:BLPCRIME as far as encyclopedic content. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Powell, Ph.D.

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

Article seems to be a biography of Dr. Powell. References indicate articles he has authored or has been interviewed for; in this context, though, I'm not seeing the notability. Many of the links in Refs can be removed as primary sources. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Article cites a diverse set of sources on Dr. Powell's contributions to both the health services research literature and the commercial application of that literature through Payer+Provider. The sources which are not Dr. Powell's work itself are from 3rd parties either highlighting his contributions or testifying to his expertise. Dr. Powell's role in the founding of Payer+Provider is notable, as the firm is both unique in its mission and societally-useful. Reference style issues have been fixed and additional details have been added.WP:ACADEMIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.193.90 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once the promotion and primary sources are discounted, there are a few one-liner quotes on general interest articles left. Nothing has been presented or appears available that would make it appear that this person is notable. If consensus determines this is a keep, it should be moved to Adam Powell (economist) or something similar per WP:CREDENTIAL. VQuakr (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all sources cited are things written by the subject, promotional material for an organisation founded by the subject or promotional material for the institution where the subject got his doctorate. Of the remaining sources [49] and [50] contain brief quotes of the subject in articles which are not about him and [51] briefly notes that a paper he co-authored was given an award by the organisation which published it, which don't constitute significant coverage. The IP above claims he passes WP:ACADEMIC, but no evidence of this is provided and it seems very unlikely that he has had the required impact, given that he is not working in academia at present, he got his doctorate only last year, and none of the academic papers listed in his CV has more than 3 citations on Google Scholar. I can't see any evidence that the subject passes any notability guideline and the article reads like a promotional piece. Hut 8.5 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several people named "Powell AC" in the Web of Science, but even taken all together, they don't really meet our general standards (734 total citations, h-index of 13). Obviously does not meet WP:PROF and as stated by Hut 8.5, subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut, and because the apparent best claims to notability, refs 6-8, are authored by the subject. This is not third party sourcing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of findable citations at Google News, and for lack of significance and/or independence of the sources provided in the article. Fails WP:ACADEMIC as there is no indication that he has had a significant impact in his field. His educational background is impressive, so maybe he will gain notability at some future time, but he doesn't have it now. His consulting firm, Payer+Provider, does not appear to have any notability at all that I could find, although it is hard to search for. BTW there is no confirmation at the Payer+Provider website that he actually is "president and partner" of the firm, much less "founder"; it simply lists him as one of their "experts". I could find no information at all about the firm's management structure or history. It's entirely possible that like many "consulting firms" this is simply one individual, or a few individuals, operating under a corporate sounding name. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the same regret expressed in many of the comments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boruch Szlezinger

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

I really regret having to ask that this be deleted, but I think it's required by our policies (I first deleted it as no indication of notability, but am restoring it for discussion in consequence of a heartfelt request at WP:REFUND [52] As I said there, I did not think this was anything distinctive in an encyclopedic sense, either as BLP or NOT MEMOrIAL. As it makes me really uncomfortable to judge such a situation, I consulted someone more knowledgable, who advised "It is indeed important that each survivor of the Shoah/Khurbm/Holocaust leave a record of his or her experiences, as Mr. Szlezinger has so properly done in permitting himself to be interviewed and recorded, and in leaving records at Yad Vashem. He may wish to investigate similar opportunities in France and the US, and for the sake of his family and for the sake of historical accuracy and honesty--particularly in light of the persistence of deniers of the truth. But Wikipedia does not appear to be the proper place for such important material. The experiences of Wiesel are included in the context of their other literary works, works that have been widely published and reviewed, so that there is no question of their notability. The experiences of an ordinary victim (and I realize that no survivor is ever "ordinary"--all are extraordinary, as my own parents were) would only be suitable for an encyclopedia if they have been presented in an artistic and literary form that has been widely distributed and reviewed." DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The Holocaust is an immense tragedy, but not every survivor is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Mr. Szlezinger has a reputation and a history that sets it apart from others. Mr. Szlezinger is one of the last Holocaust survivors, former prisoner of Nazi concentration camps, the last survivor of the death marches, he saved the first time his mother and sister to the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust and then he lost his entire family before to find his brother in France. He gave an interview to Max Kohn for the Australian national broadcaster, SBS Broadcasting Groupt hen the interview was the subject of a detailed study in a large university. He works constantly to the memory of the Holocaust and its transmission. He was awarded "Large Invalid War" in Europe, "Policy Deported" by the French government. The deputy mayor and former minister, André Santini and the Defense Minister proposed to the National Order of the Legion of Honor. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — ZzcommeZz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Would you be able to locate a reliable secondary source to verify the claim of being the last survivor? If so, then that may be notable by Wikipedia standards.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes Sir ! http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/yiddish/highlight/page/id/127951/t/Interview-with-Baruch-Szlezinger --ZzcommeZz (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried listening but couldn't find any such claim. What time in the recording do they make that claim? And do you have multiple reliable sources to indicate it? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO, this would be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, claim to verify. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if true it could be verified, because the various news sources & organizations concerned with this topic would surely report it. Some day there will inevitably be such a last survivor, and at either during their life or at their death there will be appropriately reliable sources. We can't do the relevant OR. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barring the discovery of significant reliable source coverage of the notability claim, I am now a delete. Should such significant reliable source coverage be discovered I, of course, am willing to change to a keep. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ConcernedVancouvert I do not know what source you want, you are really difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzcommeZz (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be helpful for you to read over reliable sources to get an idea of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable secondary sources. Generally if you can find newspaper reports in multiple reliable news sources verifying the claim, or in books published by major publishers, that is a good start. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But I've already given you a source of great national radio channel SBS! Really .. an entire brothel for one small thing. It is a pity. I had more respect for Wikipedia.--ZzcommeZz (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ZzcommeZz, Wikipedia relies on verifying claims to make the best effort to ensure that things written on Wikipedia stand up to verification tests. A single interview where someone says something about themselves does not constitute a reliable source for a claim such as being the last survivor. Such a claim, if true, would likely be in multiple media outlets, books, academic journal articles, etc. More broadly I am unable to locate significant coverage of Mr. Szlezinger in reliable secondary sources, and I have tried hard to help you support your claims about him. Unfortunately the material just doesn't seem to be out there. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sir, if Max Kohn asked Mr. Szlezinger for a national radio channel it is precisely because it is the last survivor of the death marches still alive and he himself said in the interview. Max Kohn can not afford to say anything, there is a journalistic ethics to respect all the more when working in a radio station like this. Max Kohn, in addition to being a psychoanalyst is known and recognized as a lecturer at the University of Paris VII - Diderot (where he studied said testimony) then this source is considered a secondary source and allows verification of my written and then give this product line. --ZzcommeZz (talk contribs) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (I have been asked to comment, but am no one's puppet). I consider that being the last surviving witness of the death march makes him notable. The article is very poorly written, with far too many present and future tenses, where past ones would be better. This is probably the result of it being a translation on being writtne by a non-native English speaker, but that can be cured by editing. Much was made in UK of the last four suriving First World War soldiers. I think this cognate with that. The Death March was a notable event in the holocaust. Proving that a person was the last is always difficult; the query against that fact does not detract from my view: even if he is not the last he must be one of the last few. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 2 keep vs 1,5 delete. Now that we have been tiebreaker by a user, the vote is close and the article remains on Wikipedia conformity with the regulation.--ZzcommeZz (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and a lack of reliable sources. I tried to find some, but a quick Google search on "Boruch Szlezinger" -wiki shows only 10 unique results, with none really from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not Google that determines the reputation of a person even more in this category. Your vote is not appropriate Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzcommeZz (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Google determines notability - I said that I did a search LOOKING for reliable independent sources that indicated notability for this person, and I did not find them. Whether you think my comment is appropriate or not doesn't matter - it's not up to you to determine this, as you do not get to determine the outcome of this discussion (as you tried in this edit). MikeWazowski (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you can read? Because the sources, which are listed at the bottom of the article as in all Wikipedia articles. On the blindfold, I deleted but I justified ... it yet you pretended not to see. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't be insulting - and don't call my additions of normal tags to the article vandalism, either. I do not believe the sources presented in the article are enough for notability, as most of them are based on primary sources and/or comments from Szlezinger himself. Again - this has nothing to do with what YOU believe. I do not believe there has been enough presented to establish notability for this person. I'm sorry you disagree with this, but you don't need to resort to uncivil comments and false allegations concerning my edits. Those will not stand. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you are not calm down immediately if I should be obliged to call an administrator to block you. You reverse the roles here, stop the vandalism that you are operating. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported you for your continued attempts to remove maintenance tags and AfD notices from the article. Feel free to report what you want, but you are the actual vandal today, not me. Have a nice day. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am using an administrator because you do not stop vandalizing. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already alerted them. I would also advise you to NOT vandalize the notice board again. It will not help your case. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. Szlezinger is not the last survivor of the death marches -- Elie Wiesel is still alive. Hence, the claim that Szlezinger is the last surviving witness cannot be correct. His story needs to be documented, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Agree with MikeW above, sources are not sufficiently robust to fix notability. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (Video game)

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

This game, according to the article, is yet under development. This looks like a clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. Sounds like fun, and I hope it does well, but..well, it's not yet time for it to be here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete article created by publisher/producer of game, no notability, no reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and above; will be blocking creator soon. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Road (Anchorage, Alaska)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable street. Dough 48 72 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't consider arterials notable for smaller cities. --Rs chen 7754 01:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, asserts no importance. Doesn't appear to have any claim to fame other than being an arterial street. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an important arterial road in Anchorage, but, like most local roads, not notable unto itself. I did check the Anchorage Daily News, the results don't show much in the way of coverage of the road itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm still unclear whether this is a real case of lack of notability, or "Wikipedia has too many articles. Go away." Lots of roads of far lesser significance appear to be notable solely on account of having a numbered shield on a map. Traffic counts for Tudor Road between the Lake Otis Parkway intersection and the Alaska Native Medical Center rank within the top twelve for the entire state of Alaska over the past decade. The Tudor/Lake Otis intersection itself was subject to substantial media coverage throughout the 1990s and 2000s for its former position as a major traffic bottleneck in Anchorage. While the opening of Elmore Road (connection of South Bragaw Street to Abbott Loop Road, named for National Guard major general William S. Elmore, whose name had already adorned the southern end of this section line near his former homestead) and other roads alleviated a lot of that problem, there is a certain notability attached to that intersection which shouldn't be overlooked merely because it's not a current media topic.

Understanding that it's discouraged to address individual editors here, I'm somewhat suspicious when I see a slew of new articles with sketchy sourcing, most or all leading to DYK nominations and the like, so that someone can fill their userpage with icons. It reminds me of the politician who keeps pushing that one piece of legislation thinking that it's going to get him reelected 5 or 10 times. BTW, here's a DYK-level factoid for you: a Fort Richardson MP was killed in the line of duty on Tudor Road in 1975. I believe he was a passenger with a fellow MP, returning to post, following behind a truck carrying a load of pipe. One of the pipes dislodged from the load, went through the windshield and implaled him.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, what is it with unsecured loads around Anchorage killing military personnel? Anyhoo, I knew Tudor was/is a notorious pain in the ass road, but as I spend as little time as possible in Los Anchorage I wasn't really aware it got that much attention. I'm generally not a big believer in every road having its own article, but if more sources showed up I suppose I could be convinced there is some notability for this one. (btw I've been looking over Portage Glacier Highway if you're interested) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point it out, there seems to be a lot of deaths that occur on this road. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] (Same thing seems to apply to moose [58])

Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Car accidents do not necessarily make a road notable. In addition, Tudor Road being one of the busiest roads in Alaska is not significant cosidering the low volume of traffic on many of Alaska's roads. It's notability seems to be only of local significance. Dough 48 72 14:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I went through the traffic data for reasons other than adding information to Wikipedia articles. It sounds like you're saying that it's a waste of time to mention such a thing, and I should go about deleting any existing mention found in articles, because none of the roads in Alaska receive 300,000 cars per day like an urban Interstate. 2) There are plenty of "roads of local significance" in other states which are suddenly "notable" because they're listed on a map as State Route 764 or whatever. It's already been pointed out numerous times elsewhere that Alaska doesn't employ this scheme, and our major roads are known primarily by name rather than number. My earliest years, before my family moved to Alaska, were spent living alongside Ohio State Route 687. Trust me when I tell you that this is no less a "road of local significance" than Tudor Road. Perhaps even more so, in actuality.

This sort of thing is why I've put effort into maintaining WP:ALASKA rather than rolling it into WP:US like other state projects. There's a popular bumper sticker here: "We don't give a damn how they do it Outside." Many Alaskans recognize that we employ a unique perspective. Given the nature of people working together, mostly sight unseen, who enjoy varying levels of familiarity, this unique perspective can and will be hijacked and homogenized. For instance, the Stampede Trail has historically been a road. I found myself having to defend this point, apparently because Into the Wild (whether the book or the film) has ingrained into people's minds that it's a hiking trail and nothing but a hiking trail. This ignores both its history and it's modern-day position as a potential corridor to extend Alaska's road network westward. Don't get me started on the Palin partisans (I didn't say "Palinista" this time, are you happy?) and the numerous instances of undue weight they created in Alaska-related articles by virtue of mentioning her. There's lots of that damage (mostly from perhaps-not-so-neutral coverage of her vice-presidential campaign from 2008) which still hasn't been undone.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an encyclopedia written for a global (not just American) audience, not just an Alaskan audience. Arterials in most cities are not considered notable across the U.S. (and worldwide, as far as I'm aware). It's only in the most major cities that we have articles for arterials, and even then, only select arterials. None of the cities in Alaska are among the most major cities in the U.S. or in the world. We don't "curve" the notability standard down for Alaska; see WP:GNG. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took his point to be more about how roads are named up here and how that relates to notability. We don't refer to our roads by numbers, even on the ones that do have them they are rarely posted and Alaskans always refer to them by name and not number. So, in some other state this same road would be argued to be notable because it is "State Route 27" or whatever, but in AK we don't do that and don't care that everybody else does. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is it actually notable? So far, the article gives no claims to notability beyond those of the typical arterial road. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tudor/Lake Otis intersection and associated problems is a very important element of the modern history of Anchorage. Tudor coupled with Muldoon Road is a vital bypass route of Alaska Route 1 through Anchorage and has certainly been recognized as such, though the route is not signed nor has it been considered to be signed.

Go back and you can see that I'm not in support of keeping the article. However, it's one thing to say that "we don't 'curve' the notability standard down for Alaska," and yet the example I provided shows that when reality and common sense enter the picture, there is a curve. I provided a valid wikilink to an article on a road in Ohio, which would indicate that this road is considered notable. The article speaks greatly to the notability and history of the route designation itself, but little about the notability and history of the road prior to the route designation. Time to introduce reality and common sense. This road may have possibly been a rather important road back in the days of the Ohio and Erie Canal. However, the canal quit operating a long time ago. For most of the past 150+ years, this road has been nothing more than "a road of local significance." The prevailing attitude here, backed more by the content of the article than the opinion of any one editor, is that it's not a "road of local significance," but rather "notable." When you scrape away the layers of turd polish, you realize that this notability is being established almost entirely on the basis of the State of Ohio sticking a sign with a number on the road. If the article was called Fulton Road (Canton, Ohio) instead of Ohio State Route 687, I'm sure you'd be clamoring to have it deleted just like with this article.

It seems pretty clear to me that while "we don't 'curve' the notability standard down for Alaska" may have some validity, that it's more of a case of different standards being applied to Alaska solely because Alaska is not using the same standards as other places.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Road is simply an arterial city street like any other in any large city around the country. In Alaska, the roads that are notable enough are the main highways that link separate cities, whether they are numbered or not, along with any freeways. Dough 48 72 04:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I be allowed to suggest the creation of the article List of Major Arterial Roads in Anchorage, Alaska?
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had more to say, but this discussion was starting to go nowhere fast. It was necessary to walk away and attend to real-life financial obligations. Before this suggestion was offered, I had already noticed User:Awardgive/List of Highways in Anchorage, Alaska. Methinks it's putting the cart before the horse; parent article Anchorage, Alaska could use someone who has the time to provide a coherent rewrite of the section on surface transportation.RadioKAOS (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have a few things to say on the subject of driving around in Anchorag and the relative intelligence of the planning of the road system there, but they aren't really fit for an encyclopedia article... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yericho Christiantoko

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP on the grounds that the article has sources, presumably mistaking it for a BLPPROD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Opinions both before and after the relist are split and I can find no consensus in the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto

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

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Euto's death is tragic but her murder isn't notable....William 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deleti+on discussions. ...William 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) ...William 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Other than the AMW coverage, which is not a huge notability indicator IMO, the coverage is all local. This crime seems to fail every single test of WP:EVENT. Sad, but not particularly notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIME applies to people not to events; this is an event. WP:N/CA is the relevant policy; sadly it's not a very useful policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could some people citing Wikipedia:Notability (events) explain which part of that policy they're basing their decision upon. The policy is (perhaps of necessity) vague and has many sections and guidelines. This murder would seem to pass "Diversity of sources" (we have chat shows, newspapers, America's Most Wanted); "Duration of coverage" and "Depth of coverage" may be present; "Lasting effects" and "Geographical scope" are not so obviously satisfied. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:EVENT. WP:GNG does not apply here as murders usually get spikes of coverage. No long term effect of murder. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe the national coverage it received after the event makes it notable, particularly as it was some years later, but it's a borderline case. That it remains unsolved a decade later is also worth considering. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Seafood Research Roadmap

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

Delete. Not-notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources, zero indication of wp:notability. No content except for a partial self-description. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fishing industry in New Zealand or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or if some of the content is worthwhile merge that with Fishing industry in New Zealand~~. Not notable in itsself. NealeFamily (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The ISBN is invalid and the national library catalog has never heard of it. There appear to be no non-wikipedia based google hits. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only ISBN in the article is the same as at http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4DD60325-CADD-4E5C-92BF-A6E17C202A54/0/fisheries2030report.pdf - which seems to be a valid page. This is unlikely to be a hoax, however the only mentions of the "New Zealand Seafood Research Roadmap" I can find are in this Wikipedia page, so probably original research or use of Wikipedia as web host, and neither are suitable uses of Wikipedia, particularly within article space. Peter E. James (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn with no outstanding 'delete' !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong Muslim High School

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

~~The page has no notability, and nothing in it is verifiable. It seems to be 100% a tl;dr self-shrine.~~[nomination retracted]Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES any verifiable high school has been kept in AFDs of recent years. Are you claiming this institution, said to date back to 1909, does not exist, and the article is a hoax? If not a "Keep" decision is appropriate. Edison (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and the nom's curious "too long, didn't read" and non-"verifiable" rationale. Good work by by Edison. --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable and longstanding AfD precedent. Now, with that out of the way, perhaps we can figure out if this is exact correct name of the school. I think this actually may be "Chittagong Government Muslim High School" see [59] (2009 Daily Star article citing 100 year anniversary which matches this article's info re school founding), List of schools in Bangladesh (which has ""Chittagong Government Muslim High School" albeit with a claimed 1907 founding date), and this Govt. muslim high school,chittagong (which was moved to current article location without a redirect).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Large, historic school clearly of regional importance - the way forward is to clean up and source not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally de facto notable, the article does have some verifiability, and I have removed most if not all of the promotional text. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is one of the most well known high schools in Chittagong. The school is also referred to in Bangladeshi media in a lot of different ways (Muslim High School, Chittagong Muslim High School, Government Muslim High School, Chittagong Govt. Muslim High school. etc.). I would also mention there that while I wasn't a student of this school, I can confirm by firsthand experience that this is one of the most notable and historic educational institutions in Chittagong as well as Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course. Secondary schools are generally considered to be notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stieglitz vs. Mikkel Kessler

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

Unfortunately, this fight has fallen through with Stieglitz now preparing for a bout with George Groves [60] MaxPayne888 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 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 March 13. Snotbot t • c » 02:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question—As notability is not temporary, does the cancellation of the bout and the resulting fallout call for a re-writing of the article, or addition of a new section, rather than outright deletion? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sporting events scheduled for the future don't merit a WP article until they actually take place (WP:ROUTINE, WP:ANTICIPATION). The article has minimal content, other than a "background" section which replicates material from articles on boxers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is the precise reason for CRYSTAL. This is an article about an event which hasn't happened yet and now, won't happen at all. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Morgantown, West Virginia#Education. If content is desired to be merged it can be done (with attribution) from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Middle School (West Virginia)

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

Doesn't appear meet Wikipedia standards of notability —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 05:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seems non-notable. The small amount of information could be merged into the Morgantown, West Virginia#Education section if desired, altough other middle schools in the city have no detail provided.--Arg342 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Merge. Does not meet notability, but has some valuable information the could be inserted at Morgantown, West Virginia#Education. "Pepper" @ 20:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to town/school district per precedent, else delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The idea of merging can and should be discussed on the relevant talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Marthus Škaroupka

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

Doesn't seem to have notability independently from the band Cradle of Filth. Cloudz 679 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 05:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 13:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So merge into Cradle of Filth. The "band members" section in that article is currently just a list, each member should have their own subsection with a sourced description. In one minute I found three online pages which could be used as sources for some information (two in Czech): [61] [62] [63]. - filelake shoe 15:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last of your sources (iDnes) is a good one, Filelakeshoe. I found another one (Novinky.cz). His workshops in Slovakia have been noted by local media metalexpress, citylife.sk. Sabian has a detailed biography in English, but it is rather a promotion of their drumsets. Martin Škaroupka performed also with Root and Dogma Art (quite well known Czech hard rock/metal bands), and I think it is enough to meet our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriu Munteanu (philologist)

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

I don't see any indication he might pass WP:PROF. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete me neither, not from this context at least. Dahn (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded the article a little. He is definitely not notable as an academic (although he was the initiator of the Swedish and Danish language courses at the University of Bucharest, in 1968 and 1970, respectively), but he is notable as a lexicographer and as a translator. For his work, he was rewarded with the Swedish Order of the Polar Star 1st Class, the Danish Order of the Dannebrog, Swedish Academy's translation prize, and the Romanian Writers' Union translation prize (acc. to his obituary in the magazine of the Romanian Society of Germanists).--Mycomp (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The multiple awards confirm his prominence. [But why is this listed as "history-related"?] Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say keep, but would be hppier if we gor some commonets from lingists.

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous New Machine

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

Band does not appear to be notable. Closest to wp:music they get is with airplay, but it is not national rotation, and with its members. Erik Rogers has his own article but his notability appears dependent on Dangerous New Machine. Another member is newly part of a notable band be he has no other notability. Band falls short of having two independently notable members. Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources for verification Shii (tock) 14:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteZero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Content is vague self-promotion and spin. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kelley Stevenson

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

An autobiographical page that fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP for lack of any significant coverage. A review of the citations, as well as an online search, found only minor name mentions and self-submitted pages. This Wikipedia article was previously speedy deleted per WP:A7, but contested by the creator, User:Corezion. At their request, I am opening it for consensus opinion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article clearly does not approach the general notability guideline at WP:GNG or the similar guideline for biographies at WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait? - Removed subjective content viz WP:BASIC & requested assistance from experts in field of Computer Security through Wikiproject to exceed WP:GNG minimum standards Corezion (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions generally run 7 days, but this is not a borderline case in which an expert's input is likely to make a difference. A non-notable subject cannot be "made" notable. VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a few extra weeks of discussion, not one source which would go towards demonstrating notability under GNG has been shown, and I've been unable to locate any to add to the article myself.. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act

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

It should be redirected. That page has little information and purpose. Redirect it to Dodd-Frank. Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has not proposed that the page be deleted. He has only proposed that it be redirected. Per reason number 1 of WP:SK, this debate may be closed as a speedy keep. If the nominator wants to turn the page into a redirect, he can just do this on his own motion without nominating it for deletion. James500 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per analysis by James500 (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act per nom. & James500.--JayJasper (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EuroBasket 2011 statistics

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

Excessive violation of the WP:NOTSTATS policy. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the WP:NOTSTATS policy. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per NOTSTATSBOOK. There's no article here and no reason to believe one can be created out of a listing of unsourced statistics. BusterD (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angel Rock

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

Non notable music genre. Just invented. Sorta WP:NEO. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My prod (trumped by this AfD) stated "WP:MADEUP genre with no sources to verify that it is actually used by more than one person/artist. WP:NEO". matt (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't see your PROD. My apologies :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, there was only 1 minute in it.... matt (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There's nothing to show that this supposed genre exists in any widespread fashion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Kent. —SW— ^chatter 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Kent Students' Union

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

Not a notable organization; few student unions are. A couple of mentions in the press related to demos etc. don't add up to notability according to the WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge into the article about the University. I am not sure what precedents have been set on other AfDs on student unions but this one is a long established organisation and I am sure that more reference material can be found. We need to keep coverage of the union although I can't be sure if it should be in its own article or not. The article could do with work. It focusses too much on the current trading activities of the union and not enough on its history. There is also some peacock wording that has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually used to be a member of this organisation, but frankly unless they're particularly historic I don't think students' unions are notable. Any useful info should be merged into the university article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case for deletion seems to be at heart, a political one. A value judgement on the overall significance of students' unions has been made by drmies that I simply do not share. I would agree that some of the insignifica should be stripped from this article (how many coaches were paid for to send students to a particular demonstration etc). This page should be edited to reflect the history, key individuals and achievements of the organisation. Some reflection of the current activities should be made, but without acting as advertising.

ntfc2 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2012

Selective merge to University of Kent, per WP:ATD. Mentioned at [64][65][66]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NWA East Heavyweight Championship

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

Non-notable wrestling league, possibly a virtual league. No reliable third-party sourcing. Article is almost exclusively formed of winner data. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A basic search reveals that the promotion is not a virtual league and the article is in a similar format to List of WWE Champions, so it merely has an incorrect title. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Anyways, the NWA is probably the fourth most successful US wrestling promotion after WWE,Inc.;TNA ; and ROH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan123235 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Entire page is a copyvio of this source. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Booty Burglars

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for music related subjects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no claim to notability or importance whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intellikey Labs

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

I couldn't find any sources that would indicate that this company meets the notability guidelines set out at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could have been a speedy as there's rally no assertion of notability in the article. Otherwise, a simple "not found in reliable sources" case. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP LibStar (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picozzi and The Horn

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable radio program. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. It might be worth redirecting to the main radio station article, WHCN. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. Clearly a morning zoo from the 90's only remembered by baby-boomer Hartforders and nobody else, the time has well past for this show. Nate • (chatter) 18:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. The comment above is untrue and the tone is condescending. The writer may not be familiar with the show. It was not a morning zoo. It was well known throughout CT and Central MA. It discussed political and current events issues. It interviewed senators, governors and even a President. It brought important issues to a younger audience that was usually uninterested in such topics.

Here is a link to a Hartford Courant Article about how Picozzi and the Horn organzied an historic rally at the CT state Capital. http://articles.courant.com/1991-10-19/news/0000210668_1_connecticut-taxpayers-committee-income-tax-income-tax-anger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyhorn (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above source just lists a one sentence mention. The subject doesn't appear to warrant a separate article because it fails the notability guidelines because there doesn't appear to be any lasting coverage in reliable third party sources. It appears to be a plausible search term though, which is why I suggested that the article be redirected to the radio station article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability in reliable sources, very straight-forward here. They get another name-drop in the Hartford paper when they were fired, and that's that. Note that the above "keep" entry is (barring impersonation) by the subject himself. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin

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

Does not seem notable, no references at all. WOLfan112 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check in google books?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several snippet views in the Google Book search that Dr. Blofeld helpfully provided, and they certainly verify that it existed, but do the snippets satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Did it win an award, get multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, or in some other way demonstrate notability? Maybe it would be sufficient to mention it in an article about its creator, Tarachand Barjatya, who appears to have made dozens of films and who does actually get significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements since nomination showing the topic as having received notice and having been written up in books... making it into the enduring record. With the greatest of respects to User:Edison, while it certainly would have been nice if decades-old hardcopy news sources were online, we have no realistic expectation that Indian news coverage from years before the creation of the internet would all be scanned and archived... and that it was thought highly enough of to be written up in books is a decent indicator of notability. Per WP:NTEMP, and while it might always be a short start class and not FA, this one is a keeper. Kudos to Dr. Blofeld. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any book which gave more information about the film than just a passing mention? I see that only the "Film world" one did so. All others only indicated a passing mention of the film. Secret of success (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasons and the improvements done. Agree with Schmidt. And also with the huge number of films made by Indian film industry, seemingly passing references of these films in the web-world should be considered sufficient for notability. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. Passing mentions cannot be a reason for notability, no matter what. If sources are not available, no article. The argument that "it is an old and iconic film" is invalid, because all articles in Wikipedia fall under the more or less same notability criteria. Secret of success (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An online search for English language sources for a 25 year old Hindi language film is not the best way to determine notability. The fact that it is mentioned at all in the English sources all these years later strongly implies that contemporary Hindi sources exist (e.g newspaper reviews), although they are very unlikely to be found online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the current state of the article, it seems to have a decent coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? How is it that the state of the article and the coverage of the subject are related? Secret of success (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There sources we do have at least indicate it meets guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be more specific about the sources? Secret of success (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The "secret of success" is not to dwell lugubriously over certain things and just to get on with it. This doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted, so its pretty pointless continuing to argue the point. Thaddeus has said all that needs to be said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that generic comments be pushed aside for a suggestion involving decrepit chances of deletion. Conclusions without reason tend to be quite nugatory and useless. If it is found to not be on par with the criteria, there's no point in jumping to hope that the mob will fall for it. Secret of success (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus, evidence is required for every subjective claim, and notability is certainly one of them. "Assuming" that it exists is quite imprudent and doesn't strengthen an argument in any way. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, evidence is not required to make a comment to say that sources can be presumed to exist and are unlikely to be found online and/or be in English. Since I don't speak Hindi and don't live in India, it is not possible for me to go to the local library and look for said sources. However, that doesn't mean I can't make a comment about where proof of notability is likely to exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Thaddeus and i wanted to point at was probably not clear. This film is 33 year old. The references present as of now in the article are, frankly speaking, too many. One of that actually tells you how the film did not do well. The only reliable website for boxoffice collection of hindi films Boxofficeindia.com does not keep records of all films. In fact it keeps records of only say 20 top films per year. It does not even list down the films released that year. We know that the releases are far more than that. There are no numerous books written on indian films. A few notable ones cover the whole industry by length. Given their coverage you can not expect them to cover all films. (Also not being covered by these famous books does not make it non-notable.) A film does not have to be block-buster to be on wikipedia. But looking at the general trend of books, the film needs to be a box-office starer to be written about. Given these circumstances, the references provided are far more than sufficient. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, different circumstances do not validate different standards of notability. Every article on Wikipedia, regardless of its subject, follows the more or less same notability criteria. Trivial coverage does not instigate notability, whatsoever. The argument that "the film is 33 years old, hence a passing mention is sufficient" is undoubtedly invalid, because of this reason. Secret of success (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, different circumstances can indeed guide our decision here. While its always mandated that information be verifiable, the guideline for notability acknowledges that lack of acccess to complete texts of 33-year-old not-online sources is not always a valid reason to delete... and if it is found that the arguments draw a reasonable or common sense conclusion that years-old notability is still valid, then the closer will abide by that consensus. You might then ask yourself if anything contained in the article is not verifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, notability can be talked about only if its criteria are satisfied. WP:NTEMP clearly says "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The general notability guideline quotes "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria." I see no "common sense conclusion for notability" here that would merit breaking the guideline without reason. Unless it can be proved that offline sources exist, pure assumptions do not tend to work. Secret of success (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can one prove that offline sources exist? Can you please give some examples? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Animeshkulkarni: I think it may be that because we cannot see the offline 33-year-old, pre-internet sources alluded to by multiple book and news snippets and multiple references that he feels they must not have existed, and a reasonable presumption of pre-internet, pre-Wikipedia, past notability can then be dismissed.

Since the internet and Wikipedia did not exist 33 years ago, we could not have had Wikipedia editors 33 years ago finding and offering the coverage alluded to in the books and news snippets. And while he quotes "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage," I suppose it has to to do with a different interpretation of WP:NTEMP and its understanding that sources, specially pre-internet, pre-Wikipedia, non-English sources, would not neccessarily be online nor have an eternal electronic life if they were.

Even the little that is avaiable online shows us that this film has made it into the enduring record, and we others here may then use the common sense encuraged by guideline to accept that even as a stub, it is/was notable enough for inclusion herin. Had there been absolutely noone anywhere speaking toward this film, then his presumption of non-notability might have merit. But as we have enough to conclude it was covered 33 years ago, we can conclude notability even in the lack of ongoing coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, no one is debating the existence of the project. The concern is the content of the article if it is held and maintained. What do you think should it be? That "Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin was mentioned in the book XXX" or ""Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin was mentioned in the book YYY"? There has to be some stuff attributed to sources, and none of the sources seem to speak anything about the film. Secret of success (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article has multiple sources and references and is well notable to have an article as being a Bollywood film. User:WOLfan112 has nominated numerous well established articles for deletion in which most have been kept and the deletion process stopped. Disruptive article nomination for deletion. Furthermore this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:WOLfan112 explains things in more details. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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