Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 21#University of Houston Creative Writing Program

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 a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable thing. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:58, 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 nominator's rationale seems to focus mostly on whether or not atheism is a religion. As many !voters point out, this problem can be easily resolved by renaming the article (but since there is no consensus on what to rename it to, that discussion should happen on the article's talk page). There is consensus that the article needs to be cleaned up, and that the inclusion criteria need to be clarified, but I'm not seeing consensus that this article shouldn't exist at all. No one has provided an adequate rationale demonstrating that this list of people is not notable while other lists of religious converts are notable. —SW— ^confess 18:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Christianity or Islam are. There is no formal means for "converting" to atheism, and it has no prescribed set of beliefs and practice. It is inappropriate to describe people who have ceased believing in a deity as "converts"; which falsely implies that atheism is itself a religion. RolandR (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've no opinion, for the moment, on whether this article should be deleted or not, but I think some of the problems the nominator mentions above could probably be solved simply by renaming it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Nominator took the liberty of nominating after I removed the PROD, and explained to him (or her) that the list /is/ notable and he's fighting this over semantics. Agreed, atheism isn't a religion but it's just as notable as converts to christianity. I would really appreciate it if just once someone actually brought an issue to me, rather than PRODing everything. The point is, the article does belong on Wikipedia, maybe with a different name but the nominator is trying to get it deleted over naming conventions. That's not how wikipedia should work. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have Lists of atheists listing seven list of atheist whatevers articles, a list of more lists of atheist somethings, eight lists of atheists by surnames, a List of fictional atheists and agnostics, and Category:Atheists with 75 dependent more specific atheist categories. The problem with the List of converts to Atheism is that the large majority of people now professing to be atheists were raised as having a religious affiliation and at some time identified with it before becoming an apostate. For example, Richard Dawkins was raised an Anglican and has stated that he embraced Christianity until his mid-teens. So using the inclusion criterion given, he should be on this list of "converts", and in fact the large majority of people identified as atheists should be included, making this completely unmanageable.  --Lambiam 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 08:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of the larger effort to list all notable converts to/from major world religions. Yes, atheism is not a religion, but it is analogous to one, and many other articles that form part of this effort (List of converts to Islam from Atheism, for example) treat it as such. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:LC items 2, 4, 7, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wouldn't be averse to merging it into the lists of atheists as a subsection, perhaps "by former religion" Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If it is just renamed, how about "List of formerly religious atheists"? No opinion yet on keep/delete/merge. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But are these people really "formerly religious", rather than just nominally, or by birth, linked too a religious community? What evidence is there that Philip Adams, or As'ad Abu Khalil, or Maryam Namazie, to take just three of the people on this list, ever was religious? This objection applies to Ncboy's suggestion above of listing people by "former religion" too. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they shouldn't be on this list. There's a List of atheists, and then there's a list of people who have become atheists but were once not atheists. Notable people only, of course, on both lists. Two related, but not identical lists, similar to List of countries by population and List of countries by population density. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following the logic of "Then they shouldn't be on this list".

You subscribe to whatever your parents subscribe to until you are old enough to form your own opinion.

When I "converted" to atheism, I thought I was the only one in the world; I didn't know there was a word. I had a crisis of conscience every time we had a questionnaire at school that required us to have a religion, and so I would have to lie to avoid persecution.

That's how it was in the 1960s.

I have since "converted" to agnosticism and as an agnostic, I resent being grouped with atheists, since the atheists are a bunch of doctrinaire assholes, as bad as any other group of religious fundamentalist kooks.

Varlaam (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered opinion of my philosophical outlook. Has it occurred to you that what is true for you may not be true for others, and that the fact that you subscribed to your parents religious beliefs offers no evidence that others subscribed to their own parents' beliefs? The Wikipedia guideline is clear and simple: we may not state that a person holds, or held, a religious view, in the absence of a reliable source stating that they (not their parents, grandparents, or neighbour's spaniel) did so. RolandR (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as relevant as any other list of people who have done XYZ. Even if atheism is not a religion per se, it just as informative to know who changed from atheism to relgion XYZ as it is to know the converse, who changed from religion XYZ to no religion. Iglooflame (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't agree with the nom's reasoning, but I don't find enough notability in this rather arbitrary list. I'm mostly objecting to the list proliferation... when there's no clear notability established outside of that (a lot of OR/synth). Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment,I think in which religion an atheist is raised can be covered in List of atheists article and every atheist's biography, converts to atheism does not make sense!If you are keen to quantify converts, you can create a relevant subcategory or in List of atheists article,you can have two sections-‘raised atheist’ and ‘converts’, Thank you.Skashifakram (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not surprisingly, even Delete voters do not agree with the nominator's rationale. Conversion to a belief, or to 'believe in one less god than everyone else', is a valid criteria. I assert that the article will be good enough in its inevitably incomplete form. Anarchangel (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean up as some sources such as [1] do not make a claim more substantive than "leaving (a religion)" which is not equivalent to "atheism." Labelling a person as "atheist" should require (for living people) strong sourcing directly for the label, as it is IMO a "contentious claim." Blank unless and until such sourcing is uniformly established for those listed per WP:BLP instead of simple deletion - allowing the poor sourcing to be remedied. Oh -- and "prior religion(s)" also require strong specific sourcing for each person. Collect (talk) 15:14, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced speculation about a possible song that may be released, delete per wp:CRYSTAL Yoenit (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would say that this is closely resemble the case of The 10 Pounds Hammer, except it is NOT the album, but the song in it. The forum speculation (as I use the Google Check) is not consider a source, though. --G(x) (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A maybe song from a maybe album with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't believe I'm reading an article that says "it was maybe recorded last year for an album that will maybe be released next year". Non-notable crystal-ballery at its finest. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 25 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chicken Wings (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No independent sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A7, no assertation of notability as a webcomic, also suspecting COI given that the article creator's name is similar to one of the writers'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to have a notabilty as a webcomic to be on Wikipedia? The comic is published in over a dozen magazines in seven languages around the world and sold thousands of books. The website has thousands of daily visitors. Where do you draw the line for "notability"? I am one of the authors of the comic, but I fail to see the COI. IMO the article is quite objective.--Stefthechef (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources. I could find nothing verifying that the webcomic is published in magazines. Searching "Chicken Wings" + "Webcomic" found only blog posts, forums and Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, if you search for "webcomic" you won't find the magazines, and secondly, the comic strips are in the printed versions only, not on their websites, of course. Except Trade A Plane, who keeps an archive of the recent strips on their site (http://www.trade-a-plane.com/cartoons/chickenwings). I can scan some pages and upload them somehwere, but a) I don't know where I would have to upload them to and b) I'll have to do that tomorrow, because I'll go to bed now.--Stefthechef (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't count. That's primary sources. You need a secondary source — i.e., someone who does not publish the strip but has written about it in a magazine, newspaper, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. I believe I've heard of this webcomic, so it's not like it's a complete unknown, but the clincher here is that it just doesn't have enough reliable sources to show that it's notable. There's one on the article, but I've found that you generally need about 2-3 to show that there's been a lot of coverage. I found a few mention in some blogs and small magazines, but I don't really see where they'd pass as reliable sources and in the end that's what really is needed to show notability and to back up the claims of the strip being published in different languages and magazines. I know that being reprinted can help pass WP:WEB, but we need wider proof of this other than via primary sources. I'm also not sure that being reprinted via small magazines and websites is what they mean by being reprinted. I have no problem with this being userfied until more reliable sources can be found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This comic is one of the most famous published on aviation magazines worldwide: I already added some references of publications, will add more if i find. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why is this even being considered ?! Seriously, Wikipedia guys, there actually are some useless articles which are not marked for deletion, also Wiki should be used for gaining and sharing knowledge, not deleting it.--JeanCaffou (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any valid reason to delete it? I don't think so.--Fede0411 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Fede0411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Would this count as 'independent sources to establish notability? http://www.alabamaaviator.com/news.asp?record_no=22887 and http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1303281451001 The EAA page specifically says 'Chicken Wings' is published in "various publications, including EAA's Sport Aviation magazine" Professional Helicopter Pilots Association: http://www.phpa.org/chickenwings/ Published books available for sale on Aircraft Spruce: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/ps/gifts_comics.html and also as an app in the iTunes store. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Wings-First-Michael-Strasser/dp/0741427184 Bradc314 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Bradc314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources are kind of on the fence, but FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU CAN'T USE A FORUM POST. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• We’re not that big among “normal” Comics and Webcomics and we’re certainly not Dilbert or Garfield. But in our niche (comics about aviation) we’re number one. I’m not saying we’re famous, but I dare say we’re “notable”.

I don’t understand why the very publications that publish our works are not proof of our proliferation. We’re a gimmick for their readers. Do you expect third-party newspapers and magazines to write lauding articles about features in competing magazines?

Also, why is the fact that a source is secondary so important? Say I write a commentary, article or op-ed that gets published in the Washington Post. According to your definition, that is not a trustworthy source about my writing. If a local newspaper editor writes about my piece that he read, it is a secondary source and therefore more trustworthy and should be quoted as a source instead?

And why is a link relevant for a source to be accurate? Is everything that you can't find in a quick Google search invalid as a source? How about other printed publications? They are used frequently as a reference in Wikipedia, and if you want to verify or falsify that reference, you will have to pick up a physical copy and check. Same here, I challenge you to falsify any information that I provide by actually picking up an issue of Trade-A-Plane or Sport Aviation Magazine (or whatever) and looking at it. You can also contact their editors. Here is a list of magazines that you could use to check:

Sport Aviation Magazine (US): http://www.eaa.org/sportaviationmag/ This one gets mailed to all 160.000+ EAA members

Trade A Plane (US): http://www.trade-a-plane.com Circulation: Over 120.000 copies in over 100 countries

Atlantic Flyer(US): http://aflyer.com/ (couldn’t find media data)

Fliegermagazin (Germany): http://www.fliegermagazin.de Circulation: 31.720

Aeromarkt (Germany): http://www.aeromarkt.net Circulation: ca. 30.000

Roger (Germany): http://www.rogermagazin.de Circulation: 3.000

Pilot Magazine (UK): http://www.pilotweb.aero Circulation: ca. 15.000

JP4 (Italy): http://www.ediservice.it/riviste/index.php?rivista=3 (couldn’t find media data)

Volez! (France): http://www.volez.com/page-1-le_magazine.html (couldn’t find media data)

Cockpit (Switzerland): http://cockpit.aero/ Circulation: ca. 5.000

Siivet (Finland): http://www.apali.fi/siivet/ (couldn’t find media data)

Flynytt (Norway): http://www.flynytt.no/ Circulation: 6.800

There are many more features, some irregular and obscure, some so small not worth mentioning, like local newsletters. Here’s just an incomplete list of bigger magazines that featured our strips in the past and have either ceased publication or discontinued cooperation:

Rotorblatt (Germany) http://www.rotorblatt.de

America’s Flyways (US, ceased publication)

Pilot Shop News (US, ceased publication)

Avion (US)

Take-Off (Portugal, ceased publication)

Asian Aviation (Singapore) http://www.asianaviation.com

Aerosvijet (Croatia) http://www.aerosvijet.com

SA Flyer (South Africa) http://www.saflyermag.co.za

Also, we have sold thousands of books. Some examples where you can get them (I haven’t had the time to search for all the places and ommited wholesalers, Amazon, those without a webshop and those where there is no direct link, but I hope you get the picture):

http://www.shopeaa.com/publications_fiction.aspx

http://www.pilotstore.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2110&DEPARTMENT_ID=55

http://thehangar.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=10_268

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/bv/books_comics.html

http://www.flightstore.co.uk/books/use/brand.CWINGS

http://www.afeonline.com/shop/index.php?cPath=38_163

http://skyfox.de/index.php?cat=c147_Humor-Humor.html

http://www.watschinger.at/pilotstore/de/Literatur/Cartoons-Unterhaltung.html

http://www.flyby.pt/index.php?cPath=46_80_94

http://www.friebe.aero/LuftfahrtLiteratur,_Kalender/3,2,26,95,0,0,0,1.html

http://www.boutique.aero/article.aero?id=5972

http://www.siebert.aero/Katalog/Karten-Medien/Allgemeine-Literatur-Dokumentationen-Poster/Humor

http://www.eisenschmidt.de/index.php?cPath=60_67

http://www.aeroware.de/product_info.php?info=p5471_CHICKEN-WINGS-2---FULL-THROTTLE.html

http://www.shop4pilots.com/BUeCHER---KALENDER/Satire---Comics/

http://www.aviationmegastore.com/aviation-humorcomics/cat/?shopid=LM4f6b73c5c620064a7799a99461&parent_id=11

http://pilotshop.nl/contents/en-uk/d56.html#p1161

Last, but not least, for what it’s worth: Our website has an Alexa Rating of around 800,000, Google Page Rank of 4, and over 5.500 daily visitors.--Stefthechef (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You're kidding, right? I have 3 books of their comics in front of me now. Want me to upload photos? How about we find a stack of magazines this comic appears in & upload photos. All this plus references to their site online from sites such as FlightTime Radio and more (just Google link:chickenwingscomics.com). Falcon124 (Take that runway, and that, and that...) (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that kind of thing. We know the comic exists, but what we need are secondary sources. I.E., not the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well hopefully the list Stefan uploaded below is sufficient to demonstrate secondary sources as they're definitely talking about the comic & the guys :) 118.209.29.158 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Summing up the articles about us. A few were already mentioned, and I’ve scanned and uploaded a couple more. There are more our there, but I can’t remember them all and/or don’t have physical copies available.

EAA Timeless Voices with Michael Strasser - November 2011 http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1303281451001

“On Board” interview with Stefan Strasser - Issue 6/2011 http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/aua-onboard.jpg (in German)

fliegerweb.com: Chicken Wings, der Comic für Flieger http://www.fliegerweb.com/airliner/news/artikel.php?show=news-6541

Flighttime Radio - January 1st, 2011, Show 155 http://www.flighttimeradio.com/Pods.xml or here: http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/Flighttime-Radio-Show-155.mp3

Autopilot Magazine - August 2010 Online article: http://autopilotmagazine.com/displayArticle.php?refKey=article1295559754 PDF version: http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/misc/Autopilot-Magazine-Aug-2010.pdf

ViA Airport Journal Graz - Issue 2/2008 http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/via-airportjournal.jpg (in German)

Review of one of our books on Avweb.com: http://www.avweb.com/whatsnew/06-02.html --Stefthechef (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It's a well written article with more than adequate sourcing. Plus, it is a well known comic within the aviation community. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Braniff747SP (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm one of the reader of this webcomic. Apart from the Internet, I know it's mainly printed in aviation magazines, just because it deals with aviation stuff (FAA rules, cliches about the pilots,...). I know Chicken Wings because I'm fond of planes. I also read Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic -which talks about gaming- because I'm a gamer. Why should we keep Ctlr+Alt+Del and delete Chicken Wings ? Because there are more gamers than pilots on Earth ? --Flappiefh (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Chicken Wings serves a very clearly defined audience - I can't think of another aviation-themed webcomic. (And it's funny!) Alice Stewart (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a policy-based reason to keep how? Don't get me wrong, I'd really like to see this article kept, but we need verifiable, reliable sources, that are not the comic and related media themselves, to establish that this is notable enough to be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 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 1992 National League Championship Series. —SW— ^confess 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1992 National League Championship Series Game 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Similar to the discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Six of the 2011 World Series, this is an article about a single game in a notable series, where there is no indication that this single game meets WP:SPORTSEVENT, as it is not held as any more notable than any other LCS Game 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 1992 National League Championship Series any sourced content that is appropriate. Leave this article as a redirect to preserve attribution per WP:MERGE. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be following me around and looking for articles of mine to delete. I have to say I don't care. It was things like this that caused me to leave Wikipedia in the first place and this little adventure is only reminding me why. Vidor (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not "following you around". You An editor pointed out this article to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 1992 National League Championship Series. My initial reaction was against the deletion, but upon looking at the Series article I think that a lot of the material in the Game 7 article would better fit into the Series article. The Game 7 article should be cherry-picked for relevant material and reliable sources before deleting and redirecting, however.--RDavi404 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears to me that the nominator's interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is incorrect. Except for the last sentence, that section of WP:ATH is defining events that are considered "inherently notable"—that is, events for which the presumption is that an article should exist. The last sentence says that regular season games "are not inherently notable"—that is, the presumption is that there should not be an article. This game is neither the final series nor a regular season game. Since this game doesn't appear to fit the criteria for either being "inherently notable," or "not inherently notable," it appears that the decision needs to be based on other criteria, such as WP:GNG. The game received substantial coverage from reliable sources, nationally and internationally, so I believe that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these games get coverage; SPORTSEVENT says it needs to be above and beyond routine coverage, which this is not. LCS and WS games get substantial coverage routinely. Otherwise, you're saying that every postseason game should get its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say that every postseason game should get its own article. I said that WP:SPORTSEVENT does not preclude a postseason game from having its own article if it receives sufficient coverage. (The guideline mentions, for example, "front page coverage outside of the local areas involved.") Checking Google News archives, for many papers it's hard to tell what page the story ran on, but here's a story that ran on the front page in Fort Lauderdale ([2]) BRMo (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to 1992 National League Championship Series. Unnecessary fork of the NLCS article. Resolute 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Resolute...William 17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article.There should be no precedent set to create individual articles for individual games.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not enough significant coverage. JDDJS (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do agree that this is not the absolute most significant of games out there, however this kind of thing falls under WP:BOLD for me. WP:SPORTSEVENT appears to be marginally satisfied, so the real issue is that people don't want articles for each game. Why is there an article for each episode of tv shows then? That seems very routine, yet it's never an issue. Here we have a decently significant postseason game 7 and people are saying that we cannot have this. That's counterproductive; if we are able to expand on games like this, then I say go for it. Almost all of the sources check out and someone took the time to compile the information into this article. It's not like this is some pointless game or even close to it. The coverage is there, so I don't find it in the best interest of Wikipedia to be removing stuff like this. RoadView (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main article as an unnecessary content fork. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 10:25, 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 keep. Bmusician 03:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability of this software is not established. All the references are either primary, obscure or don't quilify for in depth coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. Don't you have other problems? I hate how Wikipedia paladins go on everyones nerves with their deletion crusade. Isn't the purpose of this web site to collect information? Why do you want to destroy it? --Demonkoryu (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this site is to collect information on notable topics and to avoid collecting other information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Establishing notability is just a matter of looking for sources. For starters, here is a review by eWeek. Confluence 4.0 has been described as "now leading the pack of enterprise wikis and pushing into the field of top enterprise social software platforms" by SocialSoftwareMatrix.org. And here is a comparison by Computerwoche (in German) of Sharepoint, Confluence and Jive.  --Lambiam 09:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think that indiscriminate collection of collaboration software reviews or comparison of three platforms helps in determining notability. The eWeek reference probably counts, though it is clearly an exempt from press release. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea why you call this "indiscriminate collection". Unlike you, I do think that finding Confluence included as one of just a few platforms in an in-depth comparison by a reliable source does help towards establishing its notability.  --Lambiam 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy is about avoiding collections of raw data such as specification tables and statistics. The contextual critical commentary provided by the reliable sources (ComputerWoche -translated- and socialsoftwarematrix) found by Lambian is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Also Social Media Marketing For Dummies describes it as "emergent enterprise social software" that is "becoming an established player", so it certainly has received significant attention. Diego (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point about the indiscriminate collection was not about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The idea behind WP:GNG is that the software was considered notable enough to get mentioned. In fact that means that we delegate the decision on determining notability of a subject to the reliable sources. Thus the article on site that mentions all collaboration software available (www.socialsoftwarematrix.org) should not be used for determining notability, as the principle of subject choice clearly demonstrates the lack of notability evaluation by this source. P.S.: the phrase "emergent enterprise social software that is becoming an established player" is an implication of WP:MILL, so I wouldn't consider this source to indicate notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, can you point me where in the notability guidelines is included this "principle of subject choice" for which comprehensive coverage of a topic by a reliable source means that the source can't notice subjects in the topic enough to write about them? That criterion is not reasonable; it would imply that we couldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica as confering notability about words, not The New York Times about events, because those sources aim for comprehensive coverage of every word and every noteworthy event.

No, the idea (and the letter) of WP:GNG is that "no original research is needed to extract the content", that we have enough of this content from secundary sources, and that "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." All these conditions are met with the availabe sources. (You will notice that WP:MILL is an essay; I personally think that several of their provisions are contrary to the Notability guideline, so they're not very good advice at AfDs. See WP:SNOWFLAKE for an essay stating the opposite, this time with arguments based on WP:GNG). Diego (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want the bureaucratic approach at policy, per WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below". In order to prove the correctness of this presumption please explain, what is this software notable for? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For appearing at ComputerWoche, Social Media Marketing For Dummies, eWeek, and Socialsoftwarematrix, who noticed the sofware enough to write about it? Given that it's not excluded under What Wikipedia is not, the presumption of notability granted by the WP:GNG means that we should attempt to follow it and keep the article, unless we build a consensus here that we should skip this particular article. (If by "what is this notable for" you mean "why is it important", I'd say that being used by Adobe Systems, Bloomberg LP, Cisco Systems, IBM, Johns Hopkins University, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems, United Nations and Weill Cornell Medical College gives it a head start; but please understand that the Notability guideline doesn't care about what you or me think about the software importance, that's why it delegates to reliable sources as you pointed out). Diego (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of us definitely misreads the WP:N. As I get the phrase "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below" means that if the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT, it is presumed notable unless there is a reason to think otherwise. In this case the reason is that the article about this software can't be substantially different from the article on the software genre, as this software doesn't differ substantially from all the other similar software of the genre. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't have this article because it will look like another one" is easily the most surrealist reason for deletion I've seen at AfD. We're reading the notability guideline in exactly the same way; it's just that the reason you give to delete per WP:NOT is not actually in WP:NOT. (We don't have an article on the "software genre" Enterprise wikis BTW, just one section at Wiki software. This article is substantially different to the other articles for software listed there, as they belong to different companies and have been created using different technologies). Diego (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as they belong to different companies and have been created using different technologies" — that was the point. It is all the difference, which at best warrants mention in parent topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a well-established product under active development. I am quite willing to do the groundwork of looking for sources. QA Eric (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is one of the most common and popular wiki software packages and there is a large number of reliable sources that speak about it. Nomination of an article that so obviously passes WP:V and the general notability guideline is frivolous and bordering on disruptive. Steven Walling • talk 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added three substantial books that verify key facts about Confluence, and one of them has an entire chapter about the software. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, from reliable sources I may conclude that it can "one of the most common and popular wiki software packages" only if the phrase "most common and popular wiki software packages" refers to all wiki software. Still, if it is indeed popular, may be you could at least take care to rewrite Features section not to rely on primary sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From your comments and use of the "primary sources" tag, it seems to me that you don't fully understand how primary sources work. They are perfectly valid and considered reliable for self-description, especially in articles about themselves. There's nothing wrong with a section that relies on primary sources as long as it complies with all requirements at Wikipedia:SELFPUB. There's no need to rewrite that section since it doesn't make any exceptional claim, only a list of the main features as documented and advertised by the company. Diego (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but self-published sources (eg., expert's blog) and primary sources (eg. company's site) are different type of sources, with the latter explained in WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material may require a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but there's nothing interpretative at the Confluence (software)#Features section. Its contents are a direct assertion of the software intended capabilities by the company that created it. I'd say the official web site is both a primary source and self-published and talking about themselves, unless you count the site as a reliable source. In neither case a third party, secondary source is required. Diego (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been quite active at copyediting and clean-up of the article, BTW. Does it mean that you find its current notability state acceptable now? Diego (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose its inclusion due to lack of "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (WP:NCORP), though I have to admit that it passed WP:GNG. Regarding the primary sources: the linked policy requests that primary sources should be "used with care", which is quite opposite to having the section entirely sourced to primary sources. I actually wrote an essay on this a while ago. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 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 keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Bmusician 03:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of mid 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

These 'Global storm activities' articles are well-sourced, however, this article has events in it that aren't even major and also some well-noticed spelling mistakes that haven't even been spotted.

• For example, the May 10 section is almost completely copied from the 2010 South China floods article.
• "The deceased people were: Aligayib Aliyev and his wife, Gulbaji Aliyeva." doesn't even need to be there.
• "In the southern Serbia, two people, Vukosava Stamenkovic and her husband and Radovan Zlatkovic, from the town of Trgoviste drowned in the flooded the Pcinja River." same with this.
• "On May 17, one people died in the Hungarian town of Miskolc" Major spelling mistake.
• The May 18-June 1 section has been copied from the 2010 Central European floods.
• "A large dust storm swept across both Libya and Egypt on May 26" Now that is something that happens like every few months.
• "The Miami based National Hurricane Centre issued an advisory that the storm had strengthened, with maximum sustained winds of 45 miles per hour (75 km/h) or more during the next 48 hours" wow, an advisory!
• "On May 30, light thunder storms hit parts of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire as temperatures begin to rise in Southern England and Greater London." That happens every summer, temperatures rise.
• And look! The May 18-June 1 section makes a second appearance in the article!

Now obviously I am not going to publish every bad thing in the article because this page would be thousands of bytes long.

Bruvtakesover (T|C) 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AFD is not cleanup. You can go fix them yourself if you find factual errors or unnecessary content. As nominator states, it is "well-sourced". A412 (Talk • C) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'll spend over a year fixing these problems. Bruvtakesover
    • Indeed you may. If every article in need of cleanup was deleted, there would likely be only several thousand articles remaining. This is what editing is for. A412 (Talk • C) 20:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(T|C) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with A412 the stuff you mentioned could easily be removed since your so good at pointing them out. I think this just needs some devouted users to fix it up JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:58, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ibrahim (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article has been unsourced since 2009, can't find any reliable sources to verify that player existed TonyStarks (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced BLP. BLPPROD doesn't apply, but due to an absence of sources to verify this individual's notability (or existence), there is no option but to delete. Cloudz679 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Player, if exists, fails WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; no evidence of notability. ~Feedintm^Parley 13:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be helpful if people making such confident claims that the subject fails notability guidelines could tell us what evidence they are basing those claims on, for example by detailing where they have looked for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean with regards to WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL? Or both? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 570 (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD contested by author; original rationale was: There is only one proposal for this designation, and the proposal hasn't risen to the level where it could actually come to pass. This fails WP:GNG as a result because there hasn't been multiple, independent sources documenting it. This appears to be a pipe dream discussed vaguely on the local level without any actual indication in WP:RS that this designation is being actively pursued. Exit list is pretty obviously original research. Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the creator's only contributions are this article and related inclusion of I-570 in other places: the I-70 3DI template, the article on the list of 3DIs, and even including it in the exit list. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—as PROD-er. I found only one single news item discussing this proposal, which tells me that this concept fails WP:GNG because there aren't multiple, independent sources covering it. There aren't even multiple non-indepedent sources covering it. There is a self-published website that repeated and elaborated on the proposal from the RS. Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete where's the verifiability? --Rschen7754 21:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. With only one proposal and no signs that this has been seriously considered, there's no indication this will be a road anytime soon, and the proposal itself fails the GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Until propsoals like this are approved and have gained the necessary funding, we should have no article. This usually applies to stations on suburban rail schemes, but is just as applicable to a road. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Future Interstate Highways. The fact this is proposed is verifiable via a reliable source; while as mentioned above there is insufficent notability for an article of its own, there is no reason why a one-paragraph blurb in the future/proposed article cannot be had. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While there is a reliable source mentioning the proposal of the road, it is not a formal proposal and should not have an article. Maybe a brief mention in Interstate 70 in Missouri is possible. Dough4872 14:50, 25 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carnatic instrumentalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced, orphaned, spammy. Trimming to the notable entries would make it too short to qualify as a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I counted fifty-eight blue links for individuals on that list, and even some featured lists (e.g. List of counties in Wyoming) have substantially fewer entries than that. Do you mean that many of the fifty-eight aren't notable, or that they should be trimmed from this for issues unrelated to notability, or do you simply mean something completely different? Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might need editing/referencing, but it's a legitimate subject for a page, and there's no reason why it couldn't be fully referenced. What grounds are there for saying it would be too short if trimmed to notable names? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , list has clear scope. If it gets too unwieldy it might be best split by instrument, but there isn't really a valid reason to delete. pablo 16:38, 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,  Sandstein  20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This was closed by a non-admin as "keep", but I have undone this and relisted the discussion per WP:NACD. Three opinions split 2:1 are insufficient to determine consensus one way or the other.  Sandstein  20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Decent notable subject for a list and this list contains a good spread of blue-linked names across the instrument headings. Most such lists attract spam addtions but that can be dealt with by normal editing. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - contains enough notable people and good spread across all instruments. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Agree with Vasu, contains enough notable musicians. Will try to link this article to few more articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:10, 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. No prejudice against a redirect being created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AR 635-200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not in my opinion, meet the criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia, specifically Notability. There is not, and I believe cannot be significant independent coverage of a regulation. The notable exception would be the DADT policy, which is only notable because of the public interest of issues it dealt with. A user removed the Prod tag, with reason, but I don't believe it is in line with policy. The subject may be of interest, indeed, I found it because I was searching for the subject, but interest does not mean the article should exist. I would accept a merger, but I dont think an article about military regulations would be notable as well. Should it be an article on all service regulations worldwide (as we shouldnt make it US centric) What regulations should be covered? Enlistment regulations would be of interest, medical regulations, security regulations, ect. It would open a huge can of worms. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: May the content be sensibly merged into Military discharge? (Incidentally, Military discharge is 99% US-specific, so may need to be renamed...). -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment" Possibly, but while the act of military discharge is interesting, there is no claim of notability, and the lack of third party sources is in indicator that the subject may not meet the general notability guideline. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; perhaps an external link to AR 635-200 can be left at the Military discharge article if it isn't there already, this article be Deleted, and a redirect be left in its place to Military discharge#United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure bureaucratic regulations. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 25 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} 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

References are all either self published (such as blogs, etc) or press releases, or trivial mentions, none of which establish notability. This actress and model seems not to have enough reliable coverage to meet the notability bar. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence things are significantly different since last time it was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a profile for a working model, but lacks the coverage to establish the subject as a notable working model. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage in the articles does not connote notability. She gets a brief mention in one or two, but that's it. Good luck, Breana - acting as a career is rough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads more as her resume than an encyclopedia article.--LAAFan 22:45, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micro ball grid array (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was created as a copy-paste of an EU project's webpages. After removing the WP:COPYVIO the article was WP:PRODded on grounds "Unreferenced article about a project, lacking reliable sources to demonstrate its notability." Subsequently the same editor uploaded the same copy-paste text as MBGA, Ubga (both speedied) and Micro BGA (now a redirect), before overwriting this article and its tags including the Prod notice with the pasted text again. I'm treating that last change as a disputed Prod and bringing it to AfD, on the same rationale as the earlier Prod: despite the flurry of versions of the same, the article still lacks anything denoting notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied per WP:CSD#A1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The same editor has created yet another version of MBGA tonight; now flagged as a speedy on grounds on copyright violation. AllyD (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find information about micro ball grid arrays, but not coverage about this project in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There could perhaps be a thought of repurposing Micro ball grid array to serve as an overview on the field in general rather than this project, but I reckon the existing Ball grid array article already serves that purpose (although - like so much else - under-referenced). AllyD (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would expect that any material about micro ball grid arrays should be developed at the ball grid array article first. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ball grid array until it is clear that a separate article is merited. --Kvng (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why a merge? There is no indication that this reseaqrch project has had sufficient impact or any sort of notice that would indicate that it needs to be mentioned at Ball grid array. There is no content in this article that is actually about micro ball grid arrays. -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You are right, there's no way to do the merge. Nothing salvageable. Notability not established. --Kvng (talk) 01:24, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Elo Ratings leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced, irrelevant as the elo-rankings weren existint pre 1997 and no info or mention of notability. 1:1 copy of website it seems Koppapa (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A list of what would have been. Nothing encyclopaedic about that. Cloudz679 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unreferenced and unnecessary content fork. GiantSnowman 13:10, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Hungary vs Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no indication of why this event is notable. It clearly fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE since it is simply routine sports reporting. A similar article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy (2nd nomination). Astudent0 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Astudent0 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : as per WP:MMAEVENT individual events are not inherently notable, the coverage is routine in nature. This event lacks any lasting effect. Mtking ^(edits) 07:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should WP:MMAEVENT be applied to a kickboxing event? Your other arguments are okay, just curious since kickboxing has it's own WP:KICK with its own notability guidelines, though it appears to be even less active than WP:MMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not sure WP:MMAEVENT is the right reference, but WP:EVENT is. Also, the kickboxing notability guidelines indicate that an event should be on the scale of the K-1 individual world championships to be truly notable, while this event is very minor. It was to be part of an 8 nation tournament, but they couldn't get enough countries interested, so they cancelled the tournament and held some individual matches. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be nothing more than routine sports coverage, as others have noted. It is perhaps worth mentioning that in reviewing unassessed martial arts articles at the end of 2011, I found what appears to be a large number of WAKO events that appear to just be routine coverage. I have not yet had time to go through and review those thoroughly. Janggeom (talk) 14:23, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth Leisure Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Permastub and declined PROD. Unsourced except for a link to the article's website Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - a news article has been added to the article. A town's main leisure centre will obviously get a lot of listings, as is evidenced by a Google search, but personally I would prefer at least two independent reliable and in-depth news sources before advocating 'keep'. The Centre is already listed in the Monmouth article, which seems the best place for it. Sionk (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's a local community centre without substantial coverage. Some coverage in the local paper is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Monmouth. This is usually the best solution for local facilities. It surprises me that the school where it is located does not have a page yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at all Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:39, 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} 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sam Rizk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

notability in question, article has been speedy deleted before, can't find third party sources to back up claims made in article Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 15:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - this seems to be an advert. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, salt if necessary, non-notable advert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find verification of the article's claims at Google Scholar or at Pub Med. He does have publications (BTW he appears in author listings as Rizk SS) but they do not appear to be heavily cited or groundbreaking. Google News finds press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure advertising, non-notable; article makes many non-verifiable claims. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:50, 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 merge to 2011 World Series#Game 6. There is clearly a lot of emotion about this topic coming from several editors, but in the end this AfD needs to be decided based on policy and on the strength of the arguments given on both sides. On a simple headcount, the group of editors who believe that the article should be deleted/merged/redirected is somewhat larger than those who believe it should be kept as is. Somewhat larger, but not overwhelmingly larger. So, looking at the arguments: those supporting a merge/redirect make the case that the coverage for this game is routine when compared to the coverage of other individual world series games. They also make the case that few (or none) of other WS games have their own articles, and that the content of the article is mostly a play-by-play recap of the game, which is not encyclopedic. Neither of these arguments are convincingly refuted. The keep !voters rationale hinges mainly on the emotional aspect of the game, i.e. that it was an exciting game. But none of the keep voters advance an argument for why this particular game should have an article while most (or all) of other WS games do not. In other words, what unique event transpired in this game which sets it so far apart from other individual games? This question was never answered during the AfD. The article has some good content though, and the relevant content should be moved to the article on the series. —SW— ^yak 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Six of the 2011 World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm sorry to do this, because it's a good faith effort that took some work, but this doesn't meet our guidelines. This game is not notable independent of the 2011 World Series, where there already is a brief synopsis of this game. Further, this fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final game, it was part of the final series, and there is no evidence that it is considered to be notable outside of routine coverage for a World Series game. As exciting as it was, it doesn't get its own article. Even Baseball Reference Bullpen doesn't give the game its own individual article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect I don't know of any single baseball game to have it's own article. Furthermore the page is majority just a recap of each inning of the game. Seems just like an television episode article to me that is entirely plot summary, and those are usually redirected. JDDJS (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS has its own article, and as much as I thought it would be deleted at some point, that one hasn't even been nominated. Furthermore, this article has a lot of sources to back it up. While the event is still rather recent, this game will probably be remembered for years to come. For all these reasons (and there are probably others), this article should stay. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Muboshgu was the same user who reverted my edits (twice!) when I tried to expand the summary of Game 6 in the main 2011 World Series article to give readers more information. If I were an admin, I'd have him blocked for disruption. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article. I was unaware of that 1992 NLCS Game 7 article, but I'll nominate it now for the same reasons I nominated this one. As for my editing, Wikipedia is not for game recaps, which is what you were adding. Those edits, and this page, are not in keeping with Wikipedia's stated mission. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I to understand that before Muboshgu felt the need to delete this article, he/she felt the need to delete material related to this game on the main 2011 World Series page? So I can presume that if this article gets deleted, and I go to appropriately expand the Game 6 subsection on the 2011 World Series page, that Muboshgu will follow me and delete that too? Vidor (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How could the article on 1992 NLCS Game 7 have survived almost 2 years without so much as being nominated? That is something I am very puzzled about myself. It just doesn't make any sense. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it never came to anyone's attention doesn't mean it should stay. Article age is another argument to avoid in deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are categories for individual baseball games and individual World Series games. Presumably those categories are allowed to be populated, and in fact they have. Ido not even know how to respond to the allegation that "there is no evidence that it is considered to be notable". I provided five sources calling this the best Workd Series game of all time. Vidor (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't compare this game to the individual games listed in that category, which are baseball lore (Ruth Called Shot, Mays catch, Gibson Home Run) not typical World Series games. Honestly half the articles in that category aren't games at all (thus doesn't belong there), and there's a few other games that articles should be created and listed (Buckner for example), and while the game was exiting, there's no evidence this game will be historically mentioned years from now as baseball lore. This is a merge and redirect case here. Secret ^account 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can compare those games and I did. Game 6 has become lore. There are four occasions in all of World Series history where a player drove in the tying run with his team one out from elimination, and two of those four times came in this game. Vidor (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel that the game easily deserves an article. This isn't just my case of WP:ILIKEIT. Many sources (ESPN among them) seem to agree that this game is an instant classic. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge content into 2011 World Series as appropriate. The 2011 World Series is notable, but per WP:SPORTSEVENT, Game 6 is insufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. (I do agree that it was a great game, but that's not enough.) Terence7 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just personal opinion. There are reliable sources on high-profile sports websites that say things like that. For example, here. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion at the time of the event does not establish long-term notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Muboshgu is right about that. Terence7 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "delete" !vote if the suggestion is to merge the content. If the content is merged, the original needs to be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if it's merged, that means the content is removed from the Game 6 article. That's all I meant. Terence7 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 2011 World Series any sourced content that is appropriate. Leave this article as a redirect to preserve attribution per WP:MERGE. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable Terence7 is plainly incorrect above, per WP:SPORTSEVENT this article meets that guideline. I repeat, I produced five sources that called this the greatest World Series game of all time. I can find more. It won't be hard. I find it absurd beyond expression that one fielding play from a game apparently is safe in its own article, but this game is not. Or that Armando Galarraga, who didn't even pitch a perfect game, gets his own article for NOT throwing a perfect game, but this article isn't notable. An article about a first-round playoff game by a team that didn't even win the World Series that year is listed as a good article (!!!) but this article has to go. A regular season game that did not even decide a playoff spot is secure in its own article, but this game has to go. I suggest that if this article does not clear the judgements of Wikipedia then the categories "World Series games" and "Major League Baseball games" should be deleted, as should all articles within. Editorial opinion at the time of the event does not establish long-term notability. Who are you to say that? Is the suggestion here that there needs to be a time delay? If so, can I get a ruling on how long that time delay has to be so I can come back and post this article again in 10 or 20 years? Maybe I can set the alarm on my bed for 2031. Vidor (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four individuals in the history of baseball have hit a walkoff homer when their team was facing elimination: Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Carlton Fisk in 1975, Kirby Puckett in 1991 and David Freese in 2011. And we are told this article isn't notable. Mind-boggling. Vidor (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I quite agree with you, Vidor. Keep the article and end this debate. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) struck repeat !vote; while you are allowed to comment as many times as you want you may only !vote once in a discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this argument interesting, since none of the four games you mention have an article, except this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I see a need for an article of the Mazeroski game, as that's typically considered among the greatest games, and one the biggest shockers in World Series history by top historians (like Harvey Frommer and Jerome Holtzman) and people who been involved in baseball for many years, and it's considered to be the biggest home run of all time by ESPN. But the other two that you mentioned, while memorable, they fit perfectly fine on the proper World Series game. Just because a few sportswriters said it's the best World Series game they ever seen doesn't mean it's to the level of being an "iconic" game. Secret ^account 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I respectfully refute the notion that Game 6 of the 2011 World Series is, "not notable independent of the 2011 World Series". Under the guideline of "Individual games or series" on WP:SPORTSEVENT, bullet point four states, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). I offer these independent reliable sources as evidence of it's notability: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Link one was written by national sports writer Gene Wojciechowski, who has worked for ESPN since 1992. On link #2, Paul White, a writer for national USA Today, outlines the individual moments of Game 6 that make it a contender for "greatest Series game ever". The third link from the Washington Post includes quotes from the game's participants themselves, solidifying the extraordinary nature of Game 6, including a quote from player Daniel Descalso saying, "That’s gotta be one for the record books". The fourth link shows that even the BBC took note of the game.

If that isn't enough evidence to end this outrageous deletion request, the following are reasons I can offer as to why this article should not be deleted:

1. It meets bullet point four of "Individual games or series" on WP:SPORTSEVENT, as I've noted above.
2. The article is part of WP: St. Louis Cardinals's stated mission to "record, preserve, and organize the history of the St. Louis Cardinals and that of all articles related to the team on Wikipedia." A dedicated article for Game 6 will prevent too much information about this particular game from overwhelming the flow of the 2011 World Series article. Wikiproject St. Louis Cardinals supports this article, and strongly condemns any attempts to remove information about the team's history from English Wikipedia that are referenced and made in good faith. Wikipedia St. Louis Cardinals views this deletion request as an infringement on the project's ability, and right, to compile the team's history on English Wikipedia. If a deletion were approved, it would constitute a violation of our Project's right to free speech, such as was done to our Cardinals Care, a deletion that occurred with little discussion and without notification to relevant parties. While I'd rather spend time being productive & working on Bob Gibson's article, I will happily resubmit & recreate this article on a continuing basis should the deletion request be approved in order to ensure WP: St. Louis Cardinals's right to compile and record information continue.
3. As Muboshgu said themselves, the article and subsequent edits were created in good faith. Therefore, I strongly feel there's no justifiable reason to impede the progress of this article. After all, Jimbo Wales has always encouraged editors to "be bold"; it's nit-picking like this that I contend has stifled innovation on the wiki since about 2008; I contend editors formerly had much more freedom to contribute to the wiki how & where they wanted, which contributed Wikipedia's notability and success. The deletion of this article would essentially refute the freedom of editors to create & edit as they see fit, and contradict the very nature of what a wiki is. Moreover, I ask how could the existence of this good faith, referenced article be of any concern to other editors? It's no skin off your back if this article is allowed to exist with accurate, referenced info! Monowi (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. The coverage you provide does not indicate that it is beyond the routine coverage a World Series game would receive. You are quoting pieces written in the immediate aftermath of the game, which don't have the proper context. Daniel Descalso's opinion of the game, also, is completely irrelevant.
  2. The mission statement of WP:St. Louis Cardinals does not override Wikipedia policy.
  3. I don't see how my recognizing good faith overrules policy, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Monowi, regarding your point #2 above, please see WP:FREESPEECH. I didn't write that, so don't shoot the messenger, but it addresses your comments regarding freedoms and rights on Wikipedia. Also, if you "resubmit & recreate this article on a continuing basis" if it is deleted as a result of this discussion, it may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4, and repeatedly reposting the article is grounds for blocking as disruptive. Again, I didn't make this rule up so don't shoot the messenger. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO, it'll probably soon be time for Muboshgu to concede that any attempt to delete this article will be futile. Monowi's arguments DID sound rather convincing, if you ask me. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this AfD "futile" since it seems that the consensus that's building is that this shouldn't be a stand alone article? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The consensus is not building towards deletion. In fact, there seem to be plenty of good "keep" arguments. It seems pretty clear that you just don't want a stand-alone article. I can see right through your arguments, Muboshgu. You just seem to be rehashing the same point over and over. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Davidfreesefan23 your battleground mentality and borderline civility in this AFD don't help your cause. This isn't a WP:SNOW keep your talking about. Secret ^account 05:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears to me that the nominator's interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is incorrect. Except for the last sentence, that section of WP:ATH is defining events that are considered "inherently notable"—that is, events for which the presumption is that an article should exist. The last sentence says that regular season games "are not inherently notable"—that is, the presumption is that there should not be an article. This game is neither the final series nor a regular season game. Since this game doesn't appear to fit the criteria for either being "inherently notable," or "not inherently notable," it appears that the decision needs to be based on other criteria, such as WP:GNG. The game received substantial coverage from reliable sources, nationally and internationally, so I believe that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the coverage this game received was routine for a World Series game, meaning it all should be contained on the WS article in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the coverage qualifies as "outside routine coverage" - there were substantive articles in almost all national newspapers. The guideline also mentions "front page coverage" - I'm finding it difficult to determine from Google news which page the articles appeared on, but I suspect some of them appeared on the front page of newspapers outside of St. Louis and Dallas. BRMo (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2011 World Series, merging all relevant content. The events that unfolded in game six are best understood within the context of the overall series; the game is notable as a part of the entire championship series. The resulting article would be a reasonable size that would not warrant creating a spin-off article. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to 2011 World Series. As much as I support the sports almanac aspects of Wikipedia, this is an unnecessary fork of the World Series article, of which "the history of the St. Louis Cardinals" can easily be maintained without the excessive detail presented here. Resolute 13:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I, like many people who watched that game to the end, came away with the feeling that I had most likely just witnessed one of the greatest games in World Series history. I still feel this way. Yet the same information is easily covered within the main article. I have seen no reason or argument that would require this single game to have an article all its own.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily satisfies notability and reliable source requirements. This game received substantial coverage in relation to the other games in the series and therefor warrants the option for a separate article. This is the kind of effort I applaud and feel it provides even more depth to WP. The criticisms really seem like they are looking for any reason to delete an article that details the event of a single game. There are plenty of regular season games with amazing comebacks and other historic events; those are probably where the line should be drawn. But not here, for this very noteworthy World Series game. I would, however, recommend improving the article with a box score, image or two if available, and if appropriately sourced, more historical context such as the odds of the Cardinals coming back and expert/player opinions/reactions on where this game ranks overall and where it ranks as a game 6 to even better establish how significant it is. RoadView (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to 2011 World Series as an unnecessary content fork. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 10:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank everybody that's come here and worked to save this article. I don't know what it says about Wikipedia that ridiculous twaddle like Bale Out gets listed as a featured article while a historic baseball game has to fight to survive. I guess Wikipedia isn't very friendly to baseball fans. The criticisms really seem like they are looking for any reason to delete an article that details the event of a single game. Absolutely. Depressing. I remain gobsmacked that anyone could have watched Game 6 and not believe it was a notable game, especially when other articles about individual games are obviously less noteworthy, like the one about Willie Mays' catch or Kirk Gibson's home run. I would, however, recommend improving the article with a box score, image or two if available, and if appropriately sourced, more historical context such as the odds of the Cardinals coming back When I was writing that article, blissfully ignorant of the fact that it would get put on the chopping block minutes after I posted it, I downloaded an AP photo of Nelson Cruz lunging at Freese's triple. I didn't actually upload it to Wikipedia because I hesitated to post a fair use photo that would probably get deleted--little dreaming that the entire article would get nominated for deletion. Anyway, if the article lives, I very much doubt that there's a free image out there that's useful. If the Cruz photo will pass muster I could upload it. As for the suggestion about comeback probability, that is pretty easy; the Baseball Reference page includes a win probability table. Box score--if I can figure out how to code it I could include a score by innings. Vidor (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Texas had a win probability of 96% after Theriot struck out to start the top of the ninth. 92% after Craig struck out for the second out. 93% after Hamilton's home run, 87% after Theriot grounded out for the second out in the bottom of the 10th. I'm sure someone will tell us that none of that is notable. Vidor (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, and I just noticed that despite writing quite a bit on this page I never actually voted. Vidor (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't decide notability based on probability, that's a terrible reasoning because many games has similar types of probability everyday or worse and that reasoning is clear original research. It's like saying that x game ended with a game winning two run home run after batter A did this than batter B did this and pitcher C had a balk which led to the home run. It's a random occurrence. Also "I never actually voted" AFD is not a vote. Secret ^account 00:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide Who's "we"? many games has similar types of probability everyday or worse Factually incorrect. And even if it were correct, which it isn't (I invite you to take a look at how many games involve saves being blown in the ninth inning, then look at how many games involve saves being blown in the ninth and tenth innings), this was not some ordinary day game in June, this was Game 6 of the World Series, with a championship on the line for Texas. I truly cannot believe that it's necessary to defend the notability of this game. AFD is not a vote You might want to tell that to KuyaBriBri above, who wrote the following when he altered a post by DavidFreese23: struck repeat !vote; while you are allowed to comment as many times as you want you may only !vote once in a discussion. Vidor (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a bit of an aside, back in 2005, Baseball Prospectus published a list of improbable post-season comebacks based on win probability (the list was manually compiled from more recent playoff games, so it is non-exhaustive). However, no one is suggesting that the game is not notable, as all World Series games meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability; the issue under discussion is the best way to relate the events of the game to readers, given that it is part of an overall championship series that provides the context for the game's meaning. isaacl (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the Wikipedia community. I agree totally with Issacl. The question we should be asking is if the page in question is the best way to convey the events of the game, and I would say it's not. The home run by Freese is important, but the rest of the game wasn't as notable. The whole thing can be covered in less prose at 2011_World_Series#Game_6. That section could be expanded some from where it is now. This is the way we handle most games; only in the most extraordinary of cases would we spin out this game. One offseason doesn't provide us enough context to decide it is that important. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the Wikipedia community. I don't think so. I think "we" is you and a couple of other people. The home run by Freese is important, but the rest of the game wasn't as notable. Well, this is just silly. The Rangers blew five different leads in this game. They blew saves three different times. There were one, two, three huge hits by the Cardinals in the 9th, 10th, and 11th innings. Attempting to reduce this game to David Freese's home run indicates an agenda to artificially limit the amount of bytes Wikipedia uses to recount this game, and casting about for any excuse to do so. The whole thing can be covered in less prose at 2011_World_Series#Game_6. That section could be expanded some from where it is now. You have already cut out a large section of text from the Game 6 subsection on November 29, 2011. You cut nine paragraphs from the text, nearly five thousand bytes. So it would seem that your agenda here is to enforce a cap on how much we are allowed to talk about the events of Game 6, and that if you succeed in deleting this article, you will most likely return to the 2011 World Series article and hack more from that subsection as well. only in the most extraordinary of cases would we spin out this game Game 6 quite clearly meets the definition of an extraordinary circumstance. One offseason doesn't provide us enough context Silly. I asked upthread how many years we should be required to wait before posting this article. I received no answer. I have also asked how it is that the categories "Major League Baseball games" and "World Series games" are populated with articles that are clearly less notable than Game 6, but those articles are allowed to stand while this one apparently must be deleted. I received no answer on that one either. I bet this AfD would not have been posted if the New York Yankees had been involved in this game. Vidor (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, I read that Muboshgu is a fan of the New York Yankees. He clearly doesn't want this article to exist. He nominated it for his own personal reasons. The "reasons" he provided were just flimsy excuses. This is a bad-faith nomination. It should be withdrawn and the nominator indef blocked. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but requires editing. Article is overly long, and reads like a play-by-play. The last three home runs are all notable, the eight innings before, not so much, and should be greatly condensed. Frorunner9 (talk) 17:53, 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After research in Persian and English, the subject fails WP:ENT and WP:DIRECTOR. The article is unsourced. Farhikht (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:23, 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 keep. —SW— ^verbalize 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A2Z Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Masses of refs, but most are own-goals or directory listings. Other demonstrate that share of the company are bought and sold. Nothing demonstrates notability as required by WP:CORP. Much is is highly promotion and fails is WP:ARTSPAM  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This article is a perfect example of how to make something look notable to drive-by reference counters, but in reality there is not a single reliable, third-party reference in the entire lot. Non-notable company. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elaborate? Secret of success (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Thanks Livitup for your Deletion FAQs [7] it has reaffirmed my conviction that the article deserves a reconsideration and doesn't deserve to be deleted. That said, A2Z Group is a Gurgaon headquartered company that employs more than 30000 employees in the renewable energy production business.

It has many renowned and successful Indian businessmen like Rakesh Jhunjhunwala ^[1], Brij Singh ^[2], etc. on it's director board

Apart from that A2Z Group has invested all its resources in renewable resource generation (Waste to energy) and hence has helped reclaim a lot of waste land and keep many major cities clean. ^{[3] [4] [5]} Let me know if I can provide any other information. Willonthemove (talk) 06:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will find more details about my research on one of A2Z Group's business unit at A2Z Group's talk page. Thanks all! Willonthemove (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize the major cause of confusion! Most editors are searching for references for A2Z Group. A2Z Group as the name suggests is a group of business units and therefore you will find a lot of references for each of its business units namely:-

• A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Infraservices Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Infrastructure Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Powercom Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Powertech Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Water Solutions Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z E-Waste Management Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z International Ltd.  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Admire  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• A2Z Travel Solutions  :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Willonthemove (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Keep - I don't have the patience to go through each and every unique criterion for a company as per WP:CORP, but if at all anything, I think the article seems to satisfy WP:GNG, which is likely to make it encyclopedic and expandable. If many of them are indeed trivial (I believe that one or two list out the company's details), there are still quite a few alternative sources which seem to provide info about it, and instead of rushing on deletion, discussion would be better. Secret of success (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand based on the prior discussion. Thee is fairly certain to be content.This is better than trying to do an article on each constituent company--even if that could be done, it is more helpful to start with this general one. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on similar grounds to DGG. Quite frankly, most of the individual companies probably aren't notable enough to warrant individual articles, but we have this lovely independently-sourced group of them that meets WP:GNG on its own, and the companies are notable enough to be included in a group article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:02, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question and comment. I am gathering from this discussion that this article was subject to a prior deletion discussion and was kept, but I am not finding that nomination, and it does not seem to have been noted on this article's talk page. The current page contains swatches of non-neutral intentional vagueness (e.g. an integrated solution provider for asset management services) that need to be reworked into English or removed if this is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you suggest improvements and I will attempt to modify text accordingly? by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 09:14, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable Eiad77 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites exactly three "sources" (looks like more, but each of them is repeated at least twice): one is a dead link (and an unretrievable one, at that, as it's a plain URL with no reference data), one is an unreliable source and one is his own resumé. While he appears to hold a prominent enough position that he might be sufficiently notable if proper sources were present, they aren't — and Google wasn't much help, either, providing plenty of stuff written by him but nothing about him. Delete as unsourced WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and as Bearcat has noted, the article is effectively unsourced. PKT(alk) 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weir is mentioned briefly to in a small number of scholarly articles (e.g., [8] and books, as well as a number of reliable news sources. I've added a few to the article. Notability might still arguable both any of GNG or SCHOLAR or POLITICIAN alone, but there's certainly more than enough sourcing out there for verification of the basics. --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:00, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep per WP:BARE - clearly fails POLITICIAN, but passes GNG by dint of the sources. Economist for a national party is probably a notable position. 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject appears to pass both WP:GNG and the information in the article is verifiable. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG, well-sourced, and an economist for a major political party. Canadianism (talk) 19:41, 25 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

the last AfD was 6 years ago. Clearly WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. She is not notable in her own right. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I find it interesting this is listed in politics. Helena Carr is not a politician. It just goes to prove that people think her notability is inherited from being married to a major politician. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not "politics" but "politics-related", which is appropriate to the person in question; she is related to politics by marriage. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Helena Carr is/was a successful businesswoman in her own right. [9] [10] [11] [12] She does not depend on her husband for her notability. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

every one of those article mentions she is Bob Carr's wife during his time as Premier. Take Bob Carr away I doubt the press would be as interested. did the press take an interest in her before he was Premier, no.LibStar (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Helena Carr has deliberately maintained a low public profile, but the extent of the coverage she's received over time means she meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP article clearly identifies her as being notable in her own right.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.181 (talk • contribs)

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, would not be notable if she weren't Bob Carr's wife. Notability is not inherited. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Sufficient material here to bring the article over the line. Melburnian (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and would she get that coverage if she was not related to Bob Carr? 02:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not concern me. I've made an assessment on the source material as presented. Melburnian (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is highly relevant as per WP:NOTINHERITED. relatives of famous people normally get media coverage, but that in itself does not grant notability. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not negate notability either. Melburnian (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact is that she has significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald, as shown by WWGB's links) and meets WP:GNG. As Melburnian points out, WP:NOTINHERITED does not negate notability, it just means "she is the wife of a famous politician" would be a poor argument (one which I don't think anyone is making). "Would she get that coverage if she was not related to Bob Carr?" Well, that's not really for us to decide. But consider this: would Michelle Obama have any coverage in the press if she weren't Barack's wife? No, but that doesn't mean she's not notable. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. she sits on major committees etc. All First Ladies have articles, not all spouses of Australian premiers. Helena Carr has an unremarkable business career, that only gets media attention because she is the wife of Bob Carr. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew as soon as I mentioned her that I would get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thrown at me. I find that to be one of the most overused essays at AfD. The intention of it is to avoid 'apples and oranges' comparisons, e.g. "We have an article on Pikachu and this article is far more important, so it can't be deleted". There is nothing wrong with using other articles as an example when they are similar subjects (e.g. wives of notable politicians). Anyway, my point about Obama was mainly tangential. My main argument remains that Carr meets GNG and NOTINHERITED does not negate notability. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my point is the media takes interest in her because she is Bob Carr's wife. the coverage WWWGB provides all coincides with the time when Carr was Premier. I've looked at her business career, it's unremarkable compared to what we would expect business people to have in WP. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are notable only because they are someone's spouse, so I don't see that as a good enough reason to delete. My interpretation of NOTINHERITED is not "you can't be notable for being related to someone famous", but rather "just being related to someone famous does not make you automatically notable", i.e. it's not enough to just say "she's Bob Carr's wife", significant coverage must be demonstrated (which I believe is the case here). Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street King (Energy Shot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No cites from reliable sources means notability is not established. Zad68 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to 50 Cent#Other ventures. Having done a cursory search on Google and Google News, I'm finding reliable sources, but they all mention it in connection with 50 Cent as part of the food drive. Seems like a noble cause to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 8 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, 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, Bmusician 07:03, 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. Arguments to the effect that 200-year-old churches are automatically notable are ungrounded in our policy and practice.  Sandstein  17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Forane Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable church. No sources found that support notability for this particular church. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to longer article for the same church at St. George's Church, Edappally. Notable by virtue of age and size. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it's the same church? They seem to be in different locations. StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I was fooled by the external link for the wrong church. Kudos to Chiswick Chap for sorting that out. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - churches like places are generally notable by reason of their existence, and any church in India dating back to 1813 is certainly worthy of note. I've tidied up the article a little and added some refs. Obviously it would be nice to add a bit more of its history but that shouldn't be a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say that (local) churches are generally notable is a bold statement that certainly doesn't have community consensus on Wikipedia. References are important, especially with this claim about 1813. StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this picture doesn't look like a building from 1813. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's surely been messed about a lot since then. But I agree with you about the 1813; fortunately, the Archepathy link is a RS on that matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does state that the old building is now used as a grave yard and the new building was build besides the old one. the image seems to be of new one. We dont have the statistics of number of Christians in the Kaipuzha town. However it seems majority of them are Christians. In that case if this is the only church in the town or biggest of them all, it becomes notable enough to stay. I will try and dig in info on this or ask others for help also. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Sources have been added but are all primary. IMHO the Archeparthy is sufficient backing for the 1813 claim. Unfortunately the "official website" is incomplete and appears to have been abandoned in April 2011. Trying an English news search, I only found a mention in an obituary; nevertheless, other sources could probably be found by people with access to media in local languages. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not at all clear that the Archeparthy link is claiming the church was built in 1813. The (1813) in brackets probably just means that the parish was founded in that year. It can not be taken as support for the age of the building. -- 202.124.72.200 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic has found and added a source showing the new church was built alongside the 1813 one, kudos to him, so that appears to answer the legitimate concern. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Unfortunately the sources are not the best quality, and another tourism site calling the 1813 building a "famous shrine" is on WP:BLACKLIST so I cannot even cite it. I think there is just enough evidence for verification and notability to keep the article, although the refimprove tag should remain. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Fayenatic, but that doesn't actually say that the "existing church" was the 1813 one (in some cases in India, the original church was wooden, replaced early on by a stone church). -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I can't find any reliable sources, in spite of trying all the search terms I could think of. You would think that a church converted into a cemetery would get more coverage. Perhaps local editors can find something? -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 01:20, 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) 00:08, 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, Bmusician 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no inherent notability for a religious building or a local congregation. The sources identified so far do not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the old church (possibly) dates back to 1813 does not grant it notability. If this were listed as a designated historic building, then it would be different. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if the building was from 1813 (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), that still wouldn't imply notability. StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Why arent people reading the full article? It says the building was built in 1813. Another building was built later on in 1983. The new building is the one that is shown on their website. It obviously wont look old, as it isnt. I dont see lack of picture as a reason for deletion. 713 families of a small village being members of the church is a fairly good number. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you explain how simply being built in 1813 meets any notability guideline? -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hamawat Al Fatenat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD, Prod removed. Prod rationale: Nothing seems to link the sole reference to the article topic, unless the title is a translation. There is insufficient material to constitute an article here, and the film appears not to be notable. No notability is asserted in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the page creator is, probably by accident, removing the AfD template from the page, a page which now has content, something that was absent at PROD and at the time I nominated the article for discussion here, but whose notability I still doubt. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A rough Google translation of the Arabic source does seem to relate the the plot summary outlined in the outline. This seems to be a notable Arabic film, though it might be difficult to find English sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:26, 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 14. Snotbot  t • c »  00:38, 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, Bmusician 07:02, 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. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be established through reliable sources. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One blurb on a commercial website does not make for significant coverage in reliable sources. As such sources are lacking, notability is not established and the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After a lengthy search over Romanian-language sites, all I see is that NS's name is being pushed around by a couple of commercial sites (themselves utterly marginal) and a news aggregator. It falls on the article to present better sources for its statements, or even for a modicum of notability - but it does not cite even one. Until someone shows up with at least one or two third-party RS(es), this entry is going bye-bye. Dahn (talk) 18:04, 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,  Gongshow ^Talk 07:08, 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, Bmusician 07:01, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. Delete Notability not established; article also heavily edited into a fanzine by a user with the same name as the subject - puff since removed Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Delete No notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Delete Has a lot of publications, but discussions of his work by other people are needed to establish notability. No hits on Google News; no independent coverage in first 60 Google hits (just social networks, blogs, forums, writings by him) or on Google Books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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) 02:45, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire (LeAnn Rimes album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:CRYSTAL violation, as expressed in WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. There's no confirmed tracklist, nor is there a confirmed release data. Not enough material to create a useful stub, and not enough certainty for it to be a good idea, either. —Kww(talk) 02:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball delete. She's on Curb, so they'll just screw her over and release it like 15 years from now. Just like they did with her last two albums. Twitter is not enough of a source. Whoever made this article is obviously impatient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hammer and Hammer. Too early to make an article without any pertinent information. "It should probably exist soon" isn't much of an encyclopedia entry. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep Oh seriously! There is no reason for this to be deleted. First off I'm not impatient. Ten you should know that better then anyone that I'm a damn good contribute to Wikipedia. Kww you need to back off me and third how is this any different then back when Speak Now: World Tour Live first began. That's why they get future project status on the talk page. No one put Speak Now: World Tour Live up for deletion after it was started & why? Because it was Taylor Swift who's very popular at the moment and WE as editors should make no acceptions or differences just cause of the subject. We are suppose to note this information. But no it's always pick and chose with Wikipedia it's no wonder this site's gonna eventually get shut down. Shoot my significant other's mother was telling me that at school they are not allowed to use Wikipedia and this is why! People just post whatever and do whatever they want regardless of anything and it's no wonder this online encyclopedia is not considered a good source. So do what you want but deleting this only proves what my significant other's mother is saying. But it should be kept. Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This user has now been blocked and has retired from Wikipedia JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He's just been blocked, not banned.—Kww(talk) 02:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a shocker, another editor run off the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ben run off the project. :-p Swifty*^talk_contribs 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am music publicist for Darrell Brown who is the producer and songwriting partner for LeAnn. I can assure you everything that is currently on the page is accurate. I have the complete track listing available to me but have not been given permission to post it. I will continue to update this wiki entry every week over the next two months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiasdad (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not impersonate people on Wikipedia JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean JayJay^{Talk to me} 14:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete distant future album with lack of info verifiable by reliable sources so far. Things like this are the whole reason WP:CRYSTAL exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TPH and Starblind. No track list, album artwork or release date = too soon for an article. Everything on this page is speculation. Eric444 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If its deleted, what's the most likely date it can be recreated? One month? Two? I'll just copy for my blog and monetize it in the meantime.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, with leave to recreate when release date and track listing are confirmed independently. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Better Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No references or indication of notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since album was nominated for an ARIA award and is on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added refs and nomination in the ARIA Music Awards of 1998. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep this is a notable album - which charted on the Australian album charts and resulted in an ARIA nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep who's stupid idea was it to delete this album!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.105 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]