Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 14#Information Technology in Libraries

< 13 February 15 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Per the comments below. The article does meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roses Are Red (band)

[edit]
Roses Are Red (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am making this nomination on behalf of an IP user who made a speedy-deletion nomination with the following rationale:

This page contains incorrect information and is using the names of popular music industry executives to draw attention to it in searches, this is a verifiability issue and is a breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This page is also for a band who has never charted once on any of the billboard charts, The band also isn't around anymore, and hans't sold enough albums to meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia . Because of these reasons the page fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines required for wikipedia. Over all this page in unsuitable.

The article history shows edit-warring over the last year and more intensely over the last few days. See also arguments on the article talk page. Procedural nomination: I express no view. JohnCD (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the arguments against keeping this page are arbitrary and personal in nature. In regards to incorrect information, no attempt was made by other editors to correct any problems. Correct, verifiable information was simply removed over and over again for personal reasons (without explanation on the edit history page), which explains the edit-warring. Claims of "using the names of popular music industry executives to draw attention to it in searches" is not a very solid argument, as there is no reason to draw attention to the page (i.e. there are no advertisements or products/services for sale, so nothing to gain by any party). In addition, Wikipedia has no "albums sales" requirement, so this claim has no merit. However, in terms of Wikipedia's actual notability requirements, I believe this band to be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia for meeting the following criteria, as outlined here.
  • They have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself," appearing in many online stories including some published by prominent sources such as SPIN as well as multiple magazines during their time as a band, including Outburn, Revolver, AMP (for which they donned the cover), Metal Hammer, and Alternative Press, who covered the band many times and nominated their second major-release as one of the "most anticipated" of 2006.
  • The band "contains two or more independently notable musicians," featuring members of Polar Bear Club, William Tell, Cute Is What We Aim For, and Hit the Lights; the latter two acts having multiple releases that have appeared on the Billboard charts.
  • They have "released two or more albums on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)", this being Trustkill Records, which was active from 1993-2010 and is notable for having several notable artists on their roster (Bullet for My Valentine, Poison the Well, Eighteen Visions, all of which have had multiple releases reach the Billboard charts) as well as wide-reaching international distribution via Universal Music Group.
  • They have "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., inclusion on a notable compilation album", that being the Taste of Christmas compilation and the The Killer in You: A Tribute to Smashing Pumpkins compilation, both of which feature a roster of many notable bands.
  • They have "become one of the most prominent of the local scene of a city", that being Rochester, New York, where there have been very few artists able to achieve greater success than Roses Are Red.
  • They have "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a national concert tour" regarding their two appearances on the Vans Warped Tour (2004, 2005).

-hsxeric (talk), 9:15 15 February, 2013.

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. Secret account 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nash salad

[edit]
Nash salad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence that this is a notable salad. Google search comes up with this article and then pages of irrelevant results. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are notable salads. E.g., Waldorf salad; Greek salad. So one should not pooh pooh the notion of an article. It would be unhygenic to do it in the salad. {:>})> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret account 01:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Dimensions Films

[edit]
Stolen Dimensions Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page came up as a "Random article". It was a mess, so I tidied it up, realisng as I went on that there was nothing genuinely notable and it was a suitable case for nomination for deletion. The article was created in June 2006 by MJB12, which is almost certainly the Matt Brown referred to in the article, and probably, by my reading, his age at the time! The article is about an "an independent film making label" (i.e Matt and his mate) who have an impressive selected filmography of 16 films in the space of four years (and that really is selected since the article claims over 50 films to their credit!). This company's high point seems to be not the Venice Film Festival, not Sundance, but the Cherry Creek High School 2006 Film Festival. So, we basically have two 9 - 12yo kids with a camera who knock stuff out an incredible rate with no indication of notability (unless you count 2nd prize in a school contest?) Emeraude (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing notability standards... but (sorry Rob Sinden) not as an "CSD-A7", as their "indicator of importance" is that they made films (CSD A7 is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability... which yes, this article fails. Some of their films can actually be found shared on various social networks (just watched Be My Valantine over at Myspace), but the films have not received coverage and neither have the young filmmakers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 19 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary dating

[edit]
Missionary dating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable neologism. The only source cited is a non-reliable website. The author also quotes two Bible passages which he or she thinks are relevant. Needless to say people did not "date" in the time of Saint Paul. Besides that he was talking about marriage in these verses. There is already an article on Marital conversion, which is a related topic. There is really nothing here to merge there, but maybe a redirect would be a good thing. BigJim707 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search on Google Books shows a number of sources. Reliability is so-so, but the concept seems (barely) notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged. I did not check books before nominated. However I still think a redirect to Marital conversion is a good idea. That would be a more neutral and universal title. (Note that sincere believers in almost any religion only date in order to find a marriage partner. So missionary dating is a part of the marital conversion process. A religious person dating for "sinful" reasons would not be missionary dating.) -BigJim707 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A section of Approaches to evangelism might be more appropriate. --JFH (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would also fit there. I still have a problem with the title "missionary dating." It seems like a neologism which might not be around for very long. While the practice, with some variations of course, has probably been going on for thousands of years among Christians and people of other religions too. BigJim707 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be neutral on that; perhaps even a weak support. It is true that there does not seem to be much depth to the concept discussed here, and Marital conversion seems to be more of a reliable treatment of the subject. Approaches to evangelism perhaps less so, although it should link to this concept (redirected or not). My suggestion is to let this AfD run out, as you did not mention the merger in the nom, then start a merger (ping me for it, or better yet - ping the related WikiProjects I added on the talk pages for all articles here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Good idea. BigJim707 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of sources/references about this concept. Query any peer-reviewed sociology journal, conference minutes, or related books and this term will appear. I also do not support an merger. This article should remain on its own. --Thorwald (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A Google Scholar search, contrary to a statement above, shows no currency whatsoever in peer-reviewed literature. There are rather more sources apparent in a Books search, but many of the references are either passing, or in books that do not meet our standards as reliable sources (the Mitchell book is a POD publication, the Boaz book is self-published). But that's not universally true, and it's probably possible to piece together an article on the topic (although it's very hard to find references outside of a conservative Christian POV, so neutrality will be a concern). Alternatively, a merge might to approaches to evangelism might be preferable (and I would prefer that target over marital conversion, which is the goal, not a synonym). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to College Democrats. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yale College Democrats

[edit]
Yale College Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters (Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite   01:59, 20 February 2013 (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. Secret account 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Academy

[edit]
Williamsburg Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Test case. Googling didn't find any significant news coverage to meet WP:ORG or WP:WEB. Note that although this is a high school, it is an online high school, and thus many of the local notability reasons that normally cause us to keep small high schools do not, I feel, apply. RayTalk 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find no indication of notability. Google found the school's own website and a few other pages related to the school (facebook, an LDS home school directory, etc.), but no indication of any third party coverage. The school is fairly new and it's tiny. Before I added additional search terms to focus on this school, my Google searching did turn up several other schools by the same name, though, so the page title may have a future as a disambiguation page. (This school is based in St. George, Utah; the others I saw are in other parts of the United States.) --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2013 (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 prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata cuisine

[edit]
Kolkata cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfinished thing about a local cuisine, but so incomplete that it makes no sense at all. The Banner talk 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, I would like to point out that even though Bengali cuisine has a larger impact, certain city centric developments, for eg. the Bakeries like Nahoums, Flurys; Chinese food at China Town; Armenian, Jew and English cuisine; typical street foods like Kathi roll, cutlets are more or less Kolkata-centric and should not be equated with Bengali cuisine. I have a strong feeling that some content from Bengali cuisine should be moved to Kolkata cuisine, as certain things are more or less Kolkata-centric rather than showing a true picture of Bengali cuisine. This article will act as a space to discuss such things in much more details. I will request you to check this book http://books.google.co.in/books?id=btECzLTe6kMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=foods+of+kolkata&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cEMjUbODCMHqrAeBooC4Bw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a clear distinction between the Bengali cuisine and the Kolkate cuisine. I guess redirecting this article would be the best option for now unless somebody makes the difference clear (and backs it up with reliable sources) The Banner talk 15:01, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret account 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ligonier Uprising

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lord Ligonier Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The ship itself existed, but there is no indication that the uprising happened. Kunta Kinte is a fictional character, and all of the events in this article are from the series, not reality. See also this interview with Alex Haley (the author of the book)[1], which does not mention anything about this rebellion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not only is the slave uprising fictional, it made its first appearance in the TV miniseries Roots, not the book.[2] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a search but outside of the TV show, this fictional uprising just isn't notable except for in the confines of the television show. I'm not sure if this is something that should be used as a redirect or not, though. There's absolutely nothing out there to show that this actually happened. Other than links back to this Wikipedia article and mentions of it in relation to Roots, there's nothing out there.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rising is presented as fact (also in the article Lord Ligonier (slave ship), which I will clean up), but is fiction from the TV series, not even mentioned in the book Roots (which is itself now regarded largely as fiction). As a fictional event, not notable enough for a redirect, much less an article. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK criteria 1 and 2. (non-admin closure) Storkk (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Māori language

[edit]
Māori language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason SKOPPO (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:PORNBIO and WP:POINT. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Anderson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Capri Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have been here before. She has now won an industry award that leads to no real world reliable coverage and I personally feel that PORNBIO is not a reliable SNG because it contradicts BLP that requires proper sourcing for biographical articles. I therefore do not feel the AVN = a notable second event and that this remains essentially a BLP1E. Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? Why doesn't it lead to "no real world reliable coverage"? This has been discussed a second time very thoroughly not only on the WP:BIO talk page, but on this article's talk page as well (including with the admin that deleted it, who now endorses it). You even acknowledge that she won the award (Best Supporting Actress, not a scene-related award), so this reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Or are you just calling BLP1E because of her connection to Charlie Sheen?) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Outside of what the nominator "personally feels", the subject clearly passes our notability guidelines. She won an AVN Award for best supporting actress, she was nominated to a XBIZ Award for best actress and to several other AVN Awards for best actress, crossover star of the year, best web starlet and best tease performance (plus a bunch of scene awards that, per consensus, do not count towards notability). Even ignoring WP:PORNBIO, that quite recently received widespread consensus on its actual version, how she fails WP:ANYBIO? Wikipedia is not censored, and she is clearly notable in her field. I wonder if the nominator would have rised the same objections if Anderson was an award winning graphic designer, or a clay pigeon shooter. Cavarrone (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so apart from Sheen, where is the real world coverage of her outside the adult press? Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This question, as well as your deletion rationale, just makes it clear you have a personal bias about adult entertainment industry, and personal bias/personal feelings are almost never good arguments in deletion discussions. Adult press coverage is real world coverage, at best you can say it is "niche" coverage; a lot of categories of people, including academics, have no "real world" notability outside of niche publications. Wikipedia is built as a universal encyclopedia, including an adult cinema encyclopedia: in this context Capri Anderson is a notable person, and a stub about this subject, that lists and reports the sources for the well-known and significant awards she received/for which she was nominated, is perfectly appropriate for our encyclopedia (even without mentioning at all Charlie Sheen). Cavarrone (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz, what's the deal here? The fact that you proved the subject's notability yourself in your nomination makes it confusing as to why you nominated it to begin with. And is there a guideline that says coverage within the adult press should be ignored? If so, please direct me to it. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 10:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Spartaz, you should take that as your argument about "real world" was rejected at its roots. We don't judge notability on the basis of the subjective feelings on what someone considers "real world", we judge it on the more objective basis of guidelines and policies. Cavarrone (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on best actress award. I don't dismiss niche sources as not being reliable sources in considering the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given her multiple AVN nominations and an AVN win, spread over multiple years (2011-2013), and the Charlie Sheen scandal she passes the notability criteria. – fdewaele, 15 February 2013, 19:17 (CET).
  • SNOW Keep as (accept it or not, nominator) WP:PORNBIO is properly met and sourced in accepted genre sources required by WP:BLP, and the Charlie Sheen incident is a different and itself sourcable issue. The multiple awards of this person's career, and the content of the article itself, show this is not a WP:BLP1E. Understandably, most porn actresses do not get coverage in mainstream media sources... resulting in difficulties in showing background information. Because of the Sheen incident, we at least DO have something more to share with our readers. If the Sheen incident were a singular event in the life of an otherwise unknown person, then BLP1E would apply... but as she has her notability apart from the scandal, BLP1E is not the case. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard College Democrats

[edit]
Harvard College Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters (Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, it follows precedent of other chapters having pages citing notable contributions to political parties. The article articulates the success of the Democrats, and acknowledges their important influence on Massachusetts politics. While other schools may have similar chapters, the Harvard College Democrats are unique in that they have had some of the most lasting impact, as detailed in the article.--140.247.0.110
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite   02:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas College Democrats

[edit]
Texas College Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite   02:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to College Republicans. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas College Republicans

[edit]
Texas College Republicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret account 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping centers in Aklan

[edit]
List of shopping centers in Aklan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikilinked to only one article. Offers non-notable information. Unsourced. WP:NOTDIR. Same rationale for this one and this one. List of shopping malls in the Philippines already sufficient. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Giverin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Luke Giverin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article has been PRODed before. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image song

[edit]
Image song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original concern of the PROD was "While this is a topic that does exist, the article is full of original research and the only references in use are to show the charting information for the K-On! songs." I'm taking this to AfD since I believe that this PROD could possibly be controversial since there are sources in the article, and also because I want a wider hearing for this article. I have no particular opinion on this article; as such, I abstain and state that my opinion is neutral. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kahaani#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kahaani 2

[edit]
Kahaani 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Isn't it too early to talk about K2, as filming has not yet started? --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret account 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raz Sarkisjan

[edit]
Raz Sarkisjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kickboxer who's appears to never been ranked in the top 10 or fought for a major championship. He has one big upset win, but lost his last fight and has never cracked the top 10. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how losing at a non-notable kickboxing event confers notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some people losing gives notability. This is nothing. See Araksi Çetinyan and its first deletion discussion. She "won" a contest which was annulled. Her title has been "retrieved". Neither the competition she participated (we have no clue who else did so) nor herself (we don't know if she is still alive but we made a BLP for her) has any notability at all but still she has a WP article. It is not about what you do but how many colleagues you've got. --E4024 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force ==> Notability ==> People : As an additional criteria, it is presumed that a kickboxer is notable if he/she fulfills one of the following: has competed in promotions K-1 and It's Showtime. This rule must be updated because of Glory however he fought in It's Showtime as the rule says. If I didn't understand the rule than my fault and delete profile. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 22:54, 04 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The victory over Noiri would have been more impressive if they'd fought at lightweight (which is 60 or 63 kg, depending on the promotion). Instead, they fought as middleweights (generally a 66 kg limit), which is Sarkisjan's weight class. That's why the victory didn't help Sarkisjan move up in anybody's rankings.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The claim that simply appearing at an "It's Showtime" event makes a fighter notable has not been supported at other AFDs. For example, Moise Rimbon was deleted despite appearing at a K-1 event (and being an MMA fighter). Sarkisjan's victory over Noiri was a big upset, but appears to have been a one time event--he hasn't followed it up with victories in the 66 kg division.204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find signficant independent coverage of him. The coverage of his upset over Noiri was routine sports reporting. He doesn't seem to have fought for any major titles or ever been ranked in the top 10. Papaursa (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but I'm not seeing claims to notability, except for his one upset win (fighting someone from a lower weight division) and that doesn't appear to meet any project notability criteria. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm finding very little independent coverage of him, so I don't think you can argue that he passes WP:GNG. He also doesn't seem to pass any martial arts specific guideline. CaSJer (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to boil down to whether failing to meet the notability criteria at WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:KICK is trumped by being a middleweight who beat the top ranked lightweight. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unirac

[edit]
Unirac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable and it is spam. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret account 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Guidice

[edit]
James Guidice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The actor co-starred in a short-lived television program, Bob Patterson (TV series). Although he was featured in a NYT profile (the article's sole cited source) and mentioned in at least three reviews of Patterson (in the New York Daily News 31 July 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel 2 October 2001, and Houston Chronicle 2 October 2001), he does not appear to satisfy WP:Notability (people). Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As someone who restored the one deep reference I was able to find (the NYT profile cited above), I was unable to find anything else that provided in-depth coverage, via various Google searches as well as NYT archives and Highbeam. As such, I have yet to see evidence that sources exist which would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - In addition to the New York Times article, I found this Dallas Morning News article from 2001 for Bob Patterson and this NY Daily News article from 2007 which mentions he is now a boxer and even mentions his one major role Bob Patterson. Additional searches for his boxing career provided nothing useful aside from repeats for the NY Daily News article. IMDb also shows he hasn't been active recently in acting. I have no prejudice for a future article if he becomes a notable boxer or actor. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Secret account 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Weihrauch

[edit]
Patrick Weihrauch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD contested without reason by page creator. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riedmüller has played in the 3. Liga, Can played in the DFL-Supercup and DFB-Pokal. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brady

[edit]
Sarah Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't seem this woman is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article is very short and many things in it are unsourced. If this page is not deleted, it should probably be merged/redirected to Brady Campaign which is a notable page. GladiusHellfire (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:WRITER, her book received a fair bit of press coverage (I added various reviews etc). I also added quotes indicating her importance as a gun control activist (separate from her husband). She has received enough press coverage to meet WP:GNG in my opinion, much related to her book, as well as her campaigning and claims she may have violated gun-control laws about background checks for a rifle she bought. Being short and unsourced are not themselves reasons for deletion, but it's a bit longer now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think shes notable as an author, sorry. Anyone can write a book, doesn't necessarily make them notable. OJ Simpson wrote a book, but his notability comes from him being a criminal and in sports, not his book. IronKnuckle (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She meets WP:AUTHOR: her book has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Please read Wikipedia policies before commenting, and then try and explain how she doesn't meet them. WP:PERNOM is not a valid argument for deletion discussions either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She's not a politician. That's not the point. She meets general notability for people. She's received extensive media coverage and has made significant impact in her field, control control advocacy.Flyte35 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they are not notable subjects, then it doesn't matter what political position they take. This article deserves a vote on the AfD. I dont think it's a "Snow Keep" candidate. If it's found notable for some reason it will be kept right? GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as a gun control advocate and as the wife of one of the few subjects ever wounded in a presidential assassination attempt. 'Article is very short' is also not a proper nomination reason as BLP's in general are under different standards than general articles. Going through nominator's edits suggests user is pushing against articles involving gun control and anything anti-UFC, so I agree with HW's observations above. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. The motivation of nominator is not important. All users edit based on their interests and beliefs. A user opposed to gun control has an understandable interest in trying to cut down entries related to gun control. Some of them are no doubt worthy of deletion. But this is ridiculous. Sarah Brady passes WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Q.E.D. Flyte35 (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Had massive notability in the 80s as a gun control advocate.TCO (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2013 (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. Secret account 01:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology in Libraries

[edit]
Information Technology in Libraries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, and redundant with a few different articles: History of writing, History of computing hardware, and Library science. The original version seems to be a school paper, but the original author removed most of the content after the article was proposed for deletion through WP:PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GMPS X Factor (U.K Series 1)

[edit]
GMPS X Factor (U.K Series 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article (actually a collection of tables) about a television (?) series that doesn't even seem to exist. It may be a hoax, but if not, the article fails WP:NOTDIR and seems completely non-notable based on the absence of verifiable sources. - MrX 00:45, 14 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saitama City Cup

[edit]
Saitama City Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find no significant coverage for this article. All of the (report) sources within the article itself appear to be dead links. Nominating article for deletion per WP:NN. Stubbleboy 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think NLH5 was joking. Anyway, Keep per sources cited by JK, although I think Saitama City itself covering the event doesn't necessarily add anything to the notability -- I'm pretty sure most Japanese municipalities' websites advertise bake-sales and the like. :P elvenscout742 (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2013 (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. None of the keep commenters, mostly single-purpose accounts gave no policy based reasoning for deletion, consensus is clear here. Secret account 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Graziosi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dean Graziosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I hate to say it like this, but this article is basically bullshit. ref 1 does not back up his claim to be a entrepreneur or business speaker. This read as an advert. Making the New York Times best selling books on <insert here your speciality> does not make him a best selling author. This article is promotional and not written to be encyclopaedic. Martin451 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment this seems to qualify as speedy given the previous deletion discussion.Martin451 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete- Per analysis provided by DGG. The article has a very promotional tone, and needs copy editing to address that, but the subject seems to be at lest minimally notable. Specifically, it meets item 4 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created,... a significant or well-known work,... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - MrX 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No need to promote junk. The article is created by a dubious editor for a well known ponzi scheme operator who is a self-proclaimed "real estate expert", when in reality is a search engine optimization expert who creates numerous self-boasting sites designed to capture words 'fraud' and 'scam' when searched in tandem with his name to mask the possibility of discovering factual information concerning the real nature of his underhanded boiler room operations which run along with the likes of Professional Marketing International, Scott McGillivray, and Anthony Morison (whose page was also created by the same editor). Once again, no need to promote this junk. 99.135.173.43 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page of the article, you need good reliable references to claim someone is a scammer. I had a look but could not find any, only gossip. Martin451 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said on the talk page - I'll post some specific links, yet, there's much more than mere gossip, unless of course authentic testimonials from 1000's of ripped off victims are gossip to you. However, in the mean time, please try doing google searches with his name and words 'scam' or 'fraud' and you'll see for yourself that he indeed creates clones of his own sites designed to sway whoever searches for the quality in his "product" from the neutral sites to the ones run by him. How often do you find a respectable business entity that creates such "umbrella-capture" sites for itself in order to protect/hide its own knowingly fraudulent/scamming practices from the public's arising awareness? If this shear fact is not apparent to you, I don't think you'll be convinced by much else. 99.141.253.215 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am under a strong impression that even if I take the time to include the promised links, the continuous flow of nonsense posted by the fraudster's "symphatizers" will be viewed as a valid opinion as well during the arbitration, thanks to the complacency of the "onlookers". 99.141.241.61 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the reaction to the links I posted below, you are probably right. Lionscitygl (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comment - What you consider junk somebody else considers as good, that is your oppinion.. References support his work and his notability, somebody likes him, somebody doesn't.. --BiH (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems promotional, a WP:Advert, which is why it was deleted in 2009. I also looked at your talk page history, and you do seem to have an interest in writing promotional articles. I will be asking user:DGG to have a look.Martin451 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepi do not know why the hate. the article is good

and i formative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.132.67.73 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The two books on the NYT best seller list are on the "Hardcover Business Best Sellers" ,not the general non-fiction best sellers, and have their records marked "Some bookstores report receiving bulk orders on these titles." Bulk orders normally mean that the books are being used in promotions of one sort or another. It's not totally damning, as than half the books on the Business Best Seller test have that indication. But is none the less quite sufficient indication that this is not necessarily the automatic pass that we would normally give to a NYT best-seller. If it were, he would be undoubtedly notable. In 2009, I !voted to keep, but I did not sufficiently analyze the best seller data, and at that time not just I but the general feeling here was not anywhere near as strict about promotional articles. This is 4 years later and articles like this, are the major threat to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is clearly created for promotional purposes. 99.118.128.77 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comment - Article has good sources. Personal opinion is not a reason for deletion.
  • Delete Mr. Graziosi runs his operation by cranking out his bogus publications for a sole purpose of lead-generating data which is consecutively funneled to PMI, Tax Club, and others who in turn bombard these leads with high pressure telemarketing calls for the ultimate purpose of maxing out their credit cards under the pretext of so-called "coaching opportunities". He is indeed a well known con man, who appears to be in need of wiki page to legitimize his status. Lionscitygl (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comment What people are saying here is not related to the article, does anyone have proof of what you are saying? Article has sources and you all have proven by talking soo much that Dean Graziosi does deserve to have a page. He seems to be a "hot topic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.143.126 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some interesting links http://saltydroid.info/dean-graziosi-rocks-the-bottom/ or http://saltydroid.info/band-of-bothers/ and particularly this one which is the authentic Graziosi/Morrison scamming script used by the PMI employees (some of whom are apparently posting on this page as we speak) http://saltydroid.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Boiling-Instructions.pdf Lionscitygl (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You again provided single and individual opinion about him. There are the exact same references in the article that are showing that he is a well known and successful man, that his books are mentioned in New York Times, that he appeared in my TV shows, etc. You all obviously have something personal against him. I do not see any hard arguments for deletion, except some private opinions. --BiH (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently some (or perhaps the same) of Mr. Graziosi's shills are getting really desperate by waging personal attacks on whoever disagrees with them. Note to administrators: shall this remain as a nomination for deletion page, and if so - for how long, or shall it be highjacked and used for skirmish purposes - aimed at diffusing the focus in question? Lionscitygl (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have anything against him. What I see is an advertisement, not an encyclopaedic article. I came across this article whilst watching recent changes, and saw it vandalised. I looked through the article history in an attempt to find a clean version, but could only find adverts or vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to hero worship people like Dean. Lionscityg1, normally articles for disscussion remain a discussion for at least a week so that interested editors can have their say.Martin451 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Keep People hate Dean for some reason, they are not being objective at all.. They are voting for deletion just because they think he's a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.79.154 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article, fully comprised of promotional content, is an attempt to dedicate a wiki page to an otherwise total nobody whose only 'fame' seems to stem solely from his taking advantage of the unsuspecting public 67.163.48.84 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever the reason for the fame, he's still a person of note. Should the article be edited and less promotional, I think we can all agree on that, but deleted? Wikipedia is meant to provide info on all types of notable subjects. If he's a scam or takes advantage of people, just add that with a legitimate source citing it and proving it. I don't know much about this guy in terms of national recognition, but searching through his site, he's been invited on to news programs like WGN [1], (I understand it's on his site, but it obviously happened). Obviously he's notable enough to be invited as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.163.98 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This man has always been on tv. You can also find all of the good things he has done for people on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.173.53 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems that there is a very good number of people who are benefiting from Dean's books and training. Some of the sources quoted for deletion do not seem very credible or are highly manipulative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.42.56 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There seems to be a lot of IP users !voting keep. This is not a vote, and should be taken on merit.Martin451 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing the pattern and commenting on the matter before this charade got out of hand, as "their" behavior only further underscores the original issue at hand, not to mention the fact that the article fails to meet wiki notability criteria, by a few miles. I put "their" in quotes as it is more than apparent that it is no more than 1 or 2 individuals from Graziosi/PMI team who are posting here virtually identical 'keep' comments (all statistically improbable in frequency and full of promotional praise) while using internet masks and/or proxies which allow "them" to sign with numerically unrelated IP's. 99.135.168.169 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2013 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jannot

[edit]
Mark Jannot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is non-notable, apart from being a (former) chief editor of two magazines, and did assorted things for other magazines. Also, the person who created this article is named "Rjannot." Possible conflict of interest? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 14 February 2013 (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. Secret account 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dukes

[edit]
Daniel Dukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I hadn't refreshed and was adding an AfD tag myself. Although no one's death is truly minor, this was a minor event that happened to a not-notable person and had very limited news coverage. I'll add that this might be very painful to relatives and friends - we don't need this article and we should get rid of it as soon as possible. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that there's no basis for a bio article here. His death did receive significant press coverage, and it is discussed at Tilikum (orca)#Second incident. It's possible that a few bits of the content here, and the additional sources, could be used to amplify the discussion there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, it isn't actually a BLP1E since the subject has been dead since 1999. An analogous principle applies, though, amd we shouldn't keep an article about an otherwise non-notable person who received press attention only because of the unusual nature of his death. As Arxiloxos notes, the death is covered in the article about the notable orca. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 14 February 2013 (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. MBisanz talk 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abrantee boateng

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Abrantee boateng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated after the deletion discussion for DJ Abrantee, which was deleted and salted (Abrantee Boateng was also deleted under G4 as a recreation of DJ Abrantee). The user recreated the article again, and its prose is substantially identical to DJ Abrantee, but I wasn't comfortable G4ing it because they did add some references (and lack of those was the problem brought up in the last AFD). Most refs are to random websites for promotion of musicians, or youtube, or other sites with no claim to reliability that I can see. But one goes to the guardian.co.uk and another goes to the London Evening Standard which seems legit. I offered to userfy this for the author and help them work on it but no response in a week and a half. I did a Google search to see if I could turn up any reliable sources to add but no luck there. I think he's got the potential to become notable after a little more coverage but there's not enough written about him yet to have a verifiable article, so delete. delldot ∇. 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Memory debugger. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MemCheck

[edit]
MemCheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited mention of how the term is used by multiple people. Half of the article's text lists similar terms. Not encyclopedic nor a dictionary definition. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2013 (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. Wifione Message 07:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mandalawi

[edit]
Ali Mandalawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails both WP:BASIC (no substantial coverage by independent reliable sources actually about the subject except his own interviews) and WP:CREATIVE, as his works appear only in private collections, none of which are themselves notable, and none of which are permanent or approach any other factor of the alternative criterion. Not surprisingly, this article is a family project by someone who, as best I can tell, is a family member of the subject. The most reliable coverage, that of the LA Times, is about cartoonists, but this subject's place in it is scant, and he is not the actual topic of discussion (he talks about being a cartoonist, just like the several others in the story — cartoons are the actual topic). The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES in previous versions contained trivial mention, and some were even associated with the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked Arabic sources; my Arabic reading (that is fuṣḥa 'l-3aṣr) isn't that of a native, but I can indeed read, and generally better sourcing didn't jump out at me. FWIW, the Arabic Wikipedia article was written by the same family member as this one, and isn't sourced to anything better: insubstantial coverage in reliable sources (example, example) and deeper coverage in completely unreliable sources such as self-publications and things the subject has been involved in (example, example). The best coverage I could find was this, which is a perfect example of mid-grade human interest journalism (Firas Hajjaj isn't well-known in this field) that should never underpin notability alone. Otherwise, things that Mandalawi wrote (example) do not indicate their own importance and must be discounted without third party coverage. Finally, I'm not sure why Farsi would be relevant, and I didn't get any noticeable Farsi results. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With no prejudice to recreation if more reliable sourcing is created/found. Secret account 01:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relyon

[edit]
Relyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Article is cited entirely to primary or unreliable sources. Article's creator has been blocked for using a promotional username. A search for sources turns up some stuff for another company called Reylon who manufacture furniture. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No non-primary reliable sources found that would demonstrate this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete - It could be the language barrier but multiple detailed searches including the key people and products haven't provided anything substantial aside from a search with only "Saral" in which I found this 2007 crn.in link. Additional searches at The Hindu found links here and here (brief mentions for a job fair). Searches at Indian newspapers Deccan Chronicle, Times of India, Economic Times, The Financial Express and The Telegraph yielded no results. A search at the Financial Times provided one result here and a search at The Business Standard provided four results from nearly ten years ago for their other products (CompTax and software CDs). There may be some non-English articles out there but I would have expected to find something more significant among these searches and news websites. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 15 February 2013 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low participation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Model United Nations conferences

[edit]
List of Model United Nations conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of club events, none of which is independently notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect target, if anything. I don't think it fails WP:LIST as indiscriminate. Also, while each Model UN may be NN, the concept of such conferences, and the circuit of clubs, are inded notable, as shown by many citations in article already. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is already an article about the Model United Nations. As a general concept, it is quite notable. However, the list of individual branches seems excessively trivial. The many citations in the article are merely links to each individual club's website. That does not confer notability to any of the individual clubs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (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. Not one of the keep commentators mentioned any type of policy here, clear consensus it fails WP:V.Secret account 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mouldings Industry Association

[edit]
Mouldings Industry Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent coverage or references to be found anywhere - not notable -- nonsense ferret 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Looks to me like a significnat industrial association. An association of this kind with nearly 4000 members ought to be notable. I agree it is a bad article, but that is not a reasaon for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion isn't because it is a bad article, but because none of the details from the association's website are verifiable - can you find a single independent source anywhere? notice for example the picture of 'mouldings house' in telford [7] - you might be forgiven for noticing a remarkable similarity to Spear House in Staffordshire [8]. Bit disappointed in your research on this one to be honest.---- nonsense ferret 13:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed odd, and Google Street View confirms that the image is indeed that of Spear House. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe Spear House was the call centre where many of the calls were routed, but postal address is a different location, which explains the confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) — Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2013 (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 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be art

[edit]
Be art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable art movement. No significant improvement in the refs since the PROD was removed two years ago. The French version has been deleted for the same reason. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 14 February 2013 (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. Secret account 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serv-U FTP Server

[edit]
Serv-U FTP Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. No references to assert notability other than state "it exists". Bob Re-born (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source in the article is a press release, searches for it don't return any non-trivial RS mentions, and neither do searches for the supposed award that it won. — daranz [ t ] 20:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 14 February 2013 (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. Secret account 03:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked salmon cheesecake

[edit]
Smoked salmon cheesecake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: no evidence this is a notable recipe, being mentioned briefly on a television program. Also doubtful whether it describes one thing or a class ("cheesecake made with Salmon") – a Google search, especially an image search, turns up images almost all very unlike the included one. Probably wikibooks:Cookbook is a better place for it.

De-prodded with the reason "I disagree, the program cited shows the dish is locally well known."; but being locally well known is not enough for notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image search throws up thousands of images, which by itself indicates some notability. Most of these images seem consistent with the article to me. Just because some are big cheesecakes and some are small doesn't indicate a contradiction. Did you search on the term "smoked salmon cheesecake" in quotes, or were you searching without quotes, on the individual terms smoked, salmon, and cheesecake? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This dish is locally well known in Scotland, and apparently also Canada. Even seems to be available in the US. There was much more than a brief mention on the TV program, it was a major segment of the cited episode and was covered in depth. I note that the nominator is still pointing to the inappropriate image, but has cut from the quote of my reason for challenging the prod that I agree the it is a bad image and does not represent the dish. This might be grounds for removing the image, but it is not grounds for deleting the article. SpinningSpark 22:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That just looks like a list of search results. The ones I looked at are recipes. I don't see any that provide significant coverage of the topic beyond that. WP doesn't have a policy on recipes but then it doesn't need one: the content of recipes can't be copyrighted so they are widely reproduced with minor variations in many publications, especially now in web encyclopaedias. For a recipe/food to be notable it needs significant in-depth coverage other than in recipes. If it's e.g. a significant regional dish it should be easy to establish this from sources. But the local site in the references doesn't mention it at all.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - recipes do not establish notability. The provided sources are not about the item but just show it exists. Notability has not been established. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – clearly notable. Discussed, for example, in 85 books according to Google Books, including the iconic Betty Crocker Cookbook and other publications such as 1001 Recipes: Ultimate Cookery Book, Prizewinning Recipes: 200 of the Best Dishes, Red, White & Blue Ribbon: Winning Recipes and The Best of New Wave Cooking.
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The classic opening line is worthy of repetition: "Smoked salmon cheesecake is a savoury cheesecake containing smoked salmon." Well, that explains everything, does it not? Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wikibooks:Cookbook, per JohnBlackburne. While many recipes and images exist, there don't seem to be other sources about the dish to demonstrate notability; the TV-show source discusses the program itself, not the article's subject. Miniapolis 21:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Foods and dishes (recipes) can be encyclopedic. But there needs to be something other than appearance in a number of recipe books or mention in a television programme. Cultural or historic importance would be examples, whilst the fact that some people liked the taste generally not. I have not seen anything here to persuade me that this passes the test. --AJHingston (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several editors have given "Wikipedia is not a cookbook/recipe book" as the deletion rationale. Actually, there is no recipe given in the article for that very reason. There seems to be some knee-jerk reaction against food articles going on here. And the idea that a recipe book cannot be a reliable source for a food article is quite baffling - that is just the place one would expect to find reliable information about a food dish. As for notability, it has been said that appearance in recipe books does not establish notability. If only in one or two isolated books maybe, but if it is found in numerous books it does show just that: that is how we define notability. SpinningSpark 07:45, 17 February 2013 (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. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork universe theory

[edit]
Clockwork universe theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whereas there's a popular analogy, there's no "Clockwork universe theory"... Most of the citations fail WP:V and the page has become a POV WP:COATRACK, as evidenced by the TOC: 1 Art; 2 Opposition; 3 World-machine; 4 Objections Due to Free Will; 5 Objections Due to Entropy; 6 Objections Due to Axiomatic Mathematics; 7 Objections Due to Chaos Theory; 8 Objections Due to Quantum Mechanics... A redirection to either Determinism or Mechanism (philosophy) has been proposed.—Machine Elf 1735 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand the thinking. Clockwork universe has been in vogue as a theory describing the predictibility of the universe coming out of the renassaince since at least the 17th century. It resonates in popular parlance as a metaphore described in the introduction. Recent (mostly last 40+ years) discoveries have sharpened our understanding as the whether the universe is mathematically predictible. If these discoveries are discomforting, don't read about them but don't supress them... Just a thought... this section as you must have noted bears mostly on Newtonian dynamics which was the underpining of the theory... JudgementSummary (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Clockwork universe Speedy Keep: The paradigm of the clockwork universe has been a notable topic of philosophical discourse since the time of Isaac Newton. A Google Books search on the phrase "clockwork universe" turns up several thousand results. The article already contains over two dozen references, many of which qualify as WP:RS and the "Further Reading" notes that an entire book is devoted to the subject (The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World). "Clockwork universe" has even become a notable concept outside its original domain of philosophy and classical mechanics (e.g. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy). The article readily satisfies WP:GNG and the topic is sufficiently distinct from both Determinism and Mechanism (philosophy) that a merge is not required. Any portions of the article having issues with WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, or citations which fail WP:V can be corrected through ordinary editing. These are all surmountable problems that do not represent good reasons for deleting the article. I agree with the nom that there is no Clockwork universe theory per se. It's more proper to speak of the topic as a paradigm that is based upon a philosophical interpretation of physical science, especially Newton's theory of classical mechanics, than a "theory" in its own right - a word which should be reserved for scientific predictive/explanatory models which have become established through a substantial body of supporting experimental evidence. So I would support renaming the article to Clockwork universe (which currently redirects to clockwork universe theory). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Based upon subsequent discussion, it appears the nominator's arguments fall within the scope of WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:MOVE. WP:SK criterion #1 applies. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of improving the article as opposed to removing all mention of the subject, I think that dropping "theory" from the title is a good idea. While the concept has elements of "theory" and "paradigm" and "metaphor" and whatnot, I think that "theory" is the least supportable for the reasons given eloquently above. "Paradigm" is a big improvment but has the connotation of being an archetype or example as if the subject involved different types of clocks/watches. "Metaphor" is the best in my opinion but also lacks something of the essence of its widespread usage... and "concept" is too generic and lacks color JudgementSummary (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: While I agree that the WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and WP:V issues could be addressed by stubbing the article and moving it to Clockwork universe, I'd like to clarify that no one has actually suggested 1) that Clockwork universe be deleted, 2) that Clockwork universe is not a notable analogy, 3) or that the misapplication of the sources in the Clockwork universe theory article also fail WP:RS. MA, are you suggesting the subject of the article ought to be that of The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World? From the NY Times review: "London before the mid-1600s was a general calamity. The streets were full of thieves, murderers and human waste. Death was everywhere: doctors were hapless, adults lived to about age 30, children died like flies. ... This little history begins Edward Dolnick’s “Clockwork Universe,” so the reader might think the book is about the Royal Society and its effects. But the Royal Society is dispatched in the first third of the book, and thereafter, the subject is how the attempt to find the mathematics governing the universe played out in the life of Isaac Newton."—Machine Elf 1735 10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "that no one has actually suggested that Clockwork universe be deleted." Clockwork universe currently redirects to Clockwork universe theory. By nominating Clockwork universe theory for deletion, you effectively did suggest that it be deleted. Should your statement be interpreted to mean that you are now withdrawing your nomination? And no, I am not suggesting that the article's contents ought to mirror the contents of that book, but it may provide one useful reference regarding the cultural impact of the "clockwork universe" paradigm. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why someone couldn't just change clockwork universe now/recreate that title later, as proper article/stub about the analogy (not a "theory" or "paradigm").—Machine Elf 1735 07:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be two elements in your comment: (1) A WP:MOVE from Clockwork universe theory to Clockwork universe, and (2) Editorial cleanup of the article's existing problems. For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that neither problem necessitates an AfD (Articles for Deletion) process. It would be a good idea to discuss both concerns on the article's Talk page to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS first, both for the proposed move and for any major revisions of the article that you believe are warranted. Given your comment that "no one has actually suggested that Clockwork universe be deleted" it does not appear that you (or anyone else) at this point is arguing that the topic be deleted completely, which is what the AfD process is about deciding. I'm going to change my vote from "Keep" to "Speedy Keep" so that the discussion about the article's WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems can be moved to where it should be held - the article's Talk page. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, once again, nothing's stopping you from surmounting the article's talk page. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what this article is about... much less the mutant "paradigm" in the stories you're telling. For my part, "stubbing" was a euphemism for deletion and again, just to clarify, IMO the target of the clockwork universe redirect should be to one of the mature articles on topics for which the analogy is primarily known, regardless of whether or not this "theory" gets deleted.—Machine Elf 1735 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: Speedy+Talk pageI should clarify that the issues mentioned + the two suggested redirects in the nom came directly from the article talk page and OR noticeboard. (It seemed to me, had I created the article, that a choice between redirecting it or gutting the OR, would both suck... that some suspiciously like-minded handful of objection-raisers were effectively deleting it either way). The article's talk page is wide open, and with regard to WP:TONE, at least, improvements to the article are being made. It's not unheard of that the exposure an article receives during AfD precipitates some consensus, discussion or wider input than its normal traffic might otherwise have yielded. Surely the intention was not to thrust this article back into obscurity ASAP, but it seems facile to argue the nom has no merit owing to content issues which, evidently, are insurmountable for a newcomer in relative isolation.—Machine Elf 1735 23:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid a complete deletion of the section on "entropy" by MachineElf which is well supported by the literature. Indeed entropy is so fundamental to physical processes in clockwork universe that it determines both the beginning and end of all physical law. q.v. "heat death" of universe for instance... would appreciate knowing your thinking on the subject before wholesale deletion of major portions of article thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step through the WP:COATRACK...
The 1st of the 3 short paragraphs in the contrarily named "Objections Due to Entropy" section is some vanilla 'what is entropy' copy with some OR about "the Multiverses", the only non-theological mention of entropy, and the duller of the three mentions of thermodynamics, etc... It caught my attention because you had just added the Hawking citation, (that would have doubled the number of cites, had it not failed WP:V).
2nd paragraph... now this is some top shelf OR: Science proves non-ex nilo whatnot to be impossible... many invoke a supernatural being... (who finds them delicious) but has nothing to do with the clockwork universe, which is well described by (lake of) thermodynamics and supernatural origin of all pre... no, on second thought post—Newtonian mechanics "thus raising the possibility of a higher order than can be described by physics alone"... (they should have sent Brian Greene)
The 3rd paragraph claims the laws of thermodynamics support Saints Thomas and Augustine before degenerating into bizarre claims about Atheists renouncing science and entropy. Although it sports the suggestive title: “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event”, the 2nd citation fails WP:V for want of Atheists.
A or B? A: Self-revert; or B: coming along quite nicely, thank you—Machine Elf 1735 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBATTLE Please don't encourage farcical WP:DISPUTES. I have better things to do than clean up an analogy/redirect.—Machine Elf 1735 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being a little off-topic in responding to a difference of opinion on editorial content in a section devoted to your nomination to remove the entire article, nevertheless appreciate your response. It's probably better to give reasons first rather than to cut out an entire section without comment as I noted. It's a little ironic that my adding an additional citation by Stephen Hawking "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever... The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang..." which in my experience is well supported science [entropy] and which is the entire point of the first paragraph, sparked your deletion. Also whether time had to logically begin at the "beginning" [at that ill-defined moment] was a pivotal point for Augustine marking a significant departure from the widely accepted Aristotelian philosophy of the time and based purely on reason without experimental evidence. Didn't want to get much beyond the physics vis-a-vis Newton to delve into history of philosophy. Nor is the use of "multiverse" non-scientific... Rather the entire thrust of string theory is the proposal of colliding branes [multidimensional surfaces enclosing higher dimensional spaces] which may generate sequential big-bang explosions... but even these highly speculative [because they are elegant math but unverifiable] objects would not remove entropic considerations, i.e. would still require a begining.... And also this is not a section on the validity of atheism but rather on the consequence of the current science... I had been distracted by removing suggestions of "theory" in favor of "paradigm and metaphor" but will rewrite my section on entropy [very fundamental to the clockwork universe with lots of fast moving new science] and see if I can (sorry) satisfy your objections... hopefully in a different forum... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still ignoring the reasons I gave in the edit summary, the intent of which is to give an example of what the other editors and I were objecting to, when we tagged the article with WP:COATRACK and to demonstrate the remedy which is to be expected. Such tags are not meant as a badge of shame or warning to the reader, but rather an invitation to collaboratively address the outstanding issue. Consider how the final paragraph of your latest revision brushes aside all the string theory you've added... honestly, I don't quite know how to disabuse you of naïvely brushing aside the unanimous objection to such WP:OR as a "difference of opinion on editorial content" rectified by switching up the coatrack. One can't be blamed for genuinely failing to be informed, but by undoing the efforts to directly or indirectly address the issue, you're simply insuring that whatever sourceable contributions you may make are so entangled with coatrack OR, that regardless of whether clockwork universe theory is retained in addition to clockwork universe, it's unclear which, if any of your contributions, might help improve such an article.—Machine Elf 1735 23:48, 20 February 2013 (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. Very soft delete; the equivalent of an uncontested PROD. No previously contested PROD and the deletion rationale stands unopposed for over 7 days. NPASR. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid World

[edit]
Mermaid World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:Notability, no references, looks like an ad. PhantomTech (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 14 February 2013 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.deangraziosi.com/wgn