Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 16

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) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus William Hare

Augustus William Hare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Not notable. This fellow was the son of a
  WP:NN
  . He married one of 40 cousins of some obscure noble (but with a bio). He wrote several non-notable books. He is related to several people with bios in Wikipedia, who themselves, are barely notable.

He was sent by the non-notable widow of a non-notable knight to school. Okay, one of the schools was Oxford and he was a tutor. Along with maybe, what 40,000 alumni and several thousand other tutors? He was pastor of some church. (What was called then "a living" since the incumbent could do as much or as little as he liked and get a stipend from somebody. It was considered the lowest end of the upper class). A nephew whom he never knew, was named after him, and, in turn, is also barely notable!

This is the second nomination. The first was not made by me nor did I comment at the time.

Student7 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep—i didn't participate in the first discussion either, but on reading it, i find the arguments put forth there convincing, and feel that nothing has changed since then to make the subject less (or more) notable. if he's good enough for the Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature, he's good enough for wp.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ALWL. A more than adequate number of significant sources was produced at the last AfD; I don't understand this nomination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—a pretty minor historical figure, but there's enough secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Citation added. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RJHall. Well-attested if now forgotten, but notability is forever. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If he was notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edward321. I am considering writing about him in Swedish too. Fernbom2 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this is an encyclopedia. If the nominator doesn't understand that rationale then maybe it's time to get another hobby.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer

Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Dante and LuLu both have stand alone articles at Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer - this is an extention of that under the claim they are a fictional "supercouple" - however the FOUR sources provided are all fansites dedicated to US daytime soap operas.

I just did a news search, a book search and a general web search using different terms - but the most worrying issue was there were no online sources citing them as a supercouple, the very scope of this article, apart from a few stray soap opera fansites.

Because they have not been mentioned by any sources inline with

What is worse is that only ONE source provided mentions them being a supercouple.

Other issues are that the article is another recount of in universe plot information - the very similiar recount of plot featured in there stand alone articles. This page cannot be merged if it already exists in other articles and is a branch of from two other poorly sourced fictional character bios.. which is what they are. Hense why this needs to go in my opinion. RaintheOne ^BAM 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I stumbled across that page a week or so ago, and couldn't even bear to look at it. It's a mess, ineptly sourced, nearly all
  WP:OR and poorly written (though that, obviously, is cosmetic and could be fixed if the article was otherwise solidly sourced, which it's not). I'm very glad you brought this here. There's a couple other GH-related pages I think should go on the block for similar reasons, but I'm still pretty new around here and I don't feel comfortable listing articles on afd without more edits and time under my belt. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete per A10. When you strip away the
  WP:PLOT recapitulation, what you are left with is unnecessary duplication of material covered by existing articles for the individual characters. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete per A10, as above.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pãnzu Mörena Shanzé

Pãnzu Mörena Shanzé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

To my opinion this lady and her company are totally not notable. If you cut all the blahblah and namedropping away, you are left with a lady who runs a parttime own baking company singlehanded. Without proper and reliable sources, this article can straight into the bin.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. None of the sources in the article are reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. All sources in article and from web search on subject and her company are trivial, tangential, or primary. Could probably be speedily deleted per G11 as unambiguous promotion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (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 SCORE International#Current and past classes. Per below. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCORE Class 22

SCORE Class 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Article is two sentences long, has no sources, and says nothing that Baja 1000 and Baja 500 do not say. nprice (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to SCORE International#Current and past classes. I can't find any significant coverage about this class of motorcycle for racing. If there is coverage about this in more specialist magazines or books that can be presented here, then I'll reconsider my position. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes sense, several articles such as Baja 1000 and Baja 500 should be updated to remove their "mirrors" of the class lists if this is the outcome. nprice (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Baja 1000 or Baja_1000#Motorcycles. The Baja 1000 article has 10x the traffic of Baja 500, so I assume that should be considered the main article. Score Class 22 already has an entry, so no need to merge. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect somewhere, as above.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Burris

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

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

Politician. The only evidence of notability being one article in a local newspaper. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:BIO. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:POLITICIAN.--Crimsonedge34 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:POLITICIAN. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm new to this so I am not sure how to contribute to this article.. But Melvin Burris is my Uncle and I wanted to do something interesting for the family and create him a wikipedia page, it would be appreciated if you guys would help me gain further knowledge about editing etc. The only reference I could find online so far is a local newspaper article and obituary. Sorry if I have the wrong format for posting this message, i'm a new user. TornEditor (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  encyclopedia, and is quite selective about subjects for articles. I will put some useful links on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal University for Women (Riffa)

Royal University for Women (Riffa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines, and does not contain sources. Tinton5 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a duplicate listing for the
  CSD A10 would be appropriate, or a redirect if it's thought that this is a likely variant title.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete. Per A10, Arxiloxos has it right. I think redirect is not necessary for this title, but "Ruw", which currently redirects here (and was the original name of the article before being renamed by someone else), should probably be repointed to Royal University for Women. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Per A10.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kremblas

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

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

Non-notable minor league baseball individual. Minor league managers are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep 1,600 hits in Google News Archive tells me there's probably enough out there to pass GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Minor league managers may not be inherently notable, but this one is. Full profiles in El Universal, The Columbus Dispatch and The Tennessean could be used for expansion and sourcing, for just a few examples. He's also received several prominent awards as a minor league manager, including PCL Manager of the Year in 2007 and Southern League Manager of the Year in 2003, and was twice selected to coach in the All-Star Futures Game (the article says that he was Venezuelan Professional Baseball League Manager of the Year in 2008, but I haven't been able to confirm this yet). Oh, and he led Nashville to the PCL championship in 2005, so he's got a notable team performance under his belt as well. Trout-slap to Alex for obviously doing no research whatsoever before nominating. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If I am reading the El Universal article correctly, he seems to meet WP:BASE/N by virtue of managing in the top Venzuela league. But in any case, he seems to have enough coverage to pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HBWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HBWS. Spanneraol (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European Geopolitical Forum

The European Geopolitical Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is substantially derived from the organisation's website "About" page. No independent 3rd party references found to demonstrate notability. Perhaps one day it will become notable, but as it stands an article here is premature. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References in article and from web search are all primary or trivial. Gscholar returns 2 hits. If and when this relatively new organization achieves
  notability, a WP article would be welcome. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk
  )

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Harrison

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

)

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

Non-notable minor league executive. Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable," meaning he fails that. Sources are lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This guy is a major league executive, not a minor league executive. As scouting director of the Tampa Bay Rays, he gets a lot of media coverage and he's made TV and radio appearances. I see subject-matter experts as having more than inherited notability, but I'll leave that for others to debate. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Failing to meet a specific notability guideline never supercedes meeting
  WP:GNG. His notability is as a scouting director, with source citing his opinions at [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Also coverage in books [7][8]. Im sure more offline sources exist.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Bagumba's sourcing. Scouting directors aren't inherently notable, but I see no problem with having one, as long as there is sufficient coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Former minor leaguer, now does scouting for a major league team. Fails presumption of notability on
  WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TamaHawk Native News

TamaHawk Native News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An independent native news source with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Deletion Recommendation It may not be well known in your circle, however it is extremely popular news source for thousands of Indigenous in Indian Country. With article being published weekly, it deserves to be relevant in wikis history. I am a regular reader of the network and was thrilled when I learned that a page had been created. I as secondary school teacher allow my students to utilize wiki as a credible source, unlike many institutions who find it not as scholarly. Wikipedia can not delete a page based on lack of "Coverage". Read their news, see their stories, it is relevant and pertinent to our society and should be represented in our online encyclopedia.

Thank You L.Lightey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.221.75 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a little confused in your comments. It is precisely our insistence on reliable sourcing that gives us any claim to be a credible source. If we didn't have that requirement then no competent teacher would be able to recommend Wikipedia to their students.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing in Gnews, Gbooks, Gscholar. Few Ghits, none useful as
  notability. Could find no evidence of the alleged connections to the World Health Organization or International Labour Office. Simply addressing notable issues does not make the newsletter itself notable. If anyone can find substantial, secondary sources that suggest notability, will be happy to evaluate and change my mind, if warranted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk
  )

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 - a clear consensus after taking appropriate account of those whose only contributions were to this AfD. —SMALLJIM  21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zayed Hassan

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

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

This article is about a musician who fails our

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. →Στc. 05:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails

• Delete I doubt him selling 5000 copies of his first album really "brought him a global recognition overnight." Dream Focus 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sufficient notability and references found on Google. Pass
  WP:MUSICBIO. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] wiliravan (talk) — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
  outside this topic.

Well, a lot of these seem to originate from the subject himself. For example, the "topnewsreports.com" link is definitely from the subject himself. --Ragib (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found few notabilities on the subject online, which is definitely remarkable and are independent of the subject. But I must say most of the references sounded like originated from the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanalam (talk • contribs) — Mizanalam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete:Subject is virtually unknown in Bangladeshi media. Has no coverage in Bangladeshi news media outlets. This is a vanity autobiography. --Ragib (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the references used in the context are independent of the subject and a little Google research revealed more about the subject than it is presented in the article.[17] The author commented below, which seems like it is not "Autobiography". I suggest you to go through Wikipedia:Five_pillars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicabn (talk • contribs) — Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: Looking at the other entries in the Reverbnation chart, I'm surprised to see no notable artists there. Almost all, if not ALL, of the entries in the chart are obscure artists/bands with no local notability in Bangladesh. I'm not sure how Reverbnation creates its list (is it a social network?). But inclusion into this list is no proof of notability as an artist since no notable artists/singers of Bangladesh are included there. Perhaps no real music band/artist from Bangladesh cares about this website. --Ragib (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: He seemed to have followers around the world. Well I've never heard of him. I also found he claims to avoid local media.[18] I also found his recording label is not notable. [19]. But even then I think the article is okay.--Jessicabn — Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: His works are remarkable but his notabilities are weaker to be honest. I think subject needs more acceptable sources. —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
Delete As a author i am hurt and i request you to delete it. Everyone in the world has a fair chance to be on wiki and all admins do here is bully people and only allow people who come on page3 and don respect people who have influenced so many life in their countries.

There's no need to be hurt. This deletion discussion is not in any way a reflection on Zayed Hassan's worth as a musician, but is simply based on the fact that nobody has produced any evidence on which to base the article's content. There doesn't seem to be any clear evidence in English on the Internet, but if you know of any reliable sources, such as books or newspapers, that have significant coverage of him in Bengali then please identify them here. They don't have to be available online.

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I know you can feel sorry for this. But we need reliable sources. He is definitely a remarkable name in Statesville and Dhaka [20] and also an awarded photographer [21]. But reasonable media coverage should be presented here. I must say, still this article is sufficient enough to be on Wikipedia.[22] Jessicabn — Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Subject is more remarkable over internet: I believe the dispute started with a specific intention. Can someone please clear the claiming source [23] and its relation to the subject please. To claim failure of our
  general notability guidelines concerning this article, we need to be clear that first. Please keep the space clean abiding by WP:Five_pillars --Jessicabn

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

Nice, a single purpose account created solely to support the subject!! I'm pretty sure this is a sock created by the article author to support this vanity bio. --Ragib (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to know how this article was created with a conflict of interest [24] Wiliravan

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

• It was listed as a sample work on that page. "bockee" must have recently changed the page to hide the info, but the old version still be seen with google's cache [25]. ThemFromSpace 03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  [26] says "I will give u advice to have your own page on WIKIPEDIA", which seems like a "HELP" and subjects article was modified many times by several contributors. So we can say it passed majority of the notability guideline. Please be informed that I am not author of this article, but I am have enough contribution on this article. I have googled about the subject since the first time I watched it. Hence I am more concerned on this dispute as the whole claim sounded very much intentional or decisive to me. Kindly can you also share with us, how we came to know about this [27]. It will surely help us clearing up the purpose of the claim. Please don't take this discussion personally. As

  Phil_Bridger said, the subject will not have any impact for this; rather it may create impact on our judgement norms. Please let's move on with a transparent discussion. --Wiliravan (talk · contribs) — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits

  outside this topic.

• Comment: It seems that the accounts Mizanalam (talk · contribs), Jessicabn (talk · contribs), and Wiliravan (talk · contribs) are all single purpose account created only to support the article. Handiwork of "bockee", the article-for-pay creator of this vanity bio? The duck test says YESS. --Ragib (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking this "discussion" personally. We are discussing here about the originality of the article and its authenticity. But it is you, User:Dream_Focus and User:Themfromspace who are concerning on same point "Vanity". --Wiliravan — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Subject's official release is available online: Please check Zayed Hassan's official release [28]. It seems like the subject is more concerned on online coverage. --Wiliravan — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• CommentSo Being a author people here are question and accusing me of some guy who puts links on his profile on some website and claims to be the author of this article. As a Author i ws inspired by Zayed's Music so i wanted to make an article which follows wiki standards. I guess i was wrong. U can clearly see from ur ips tat different people have edited the article how can u accuse things without Valid prof.Its unacceptable. No one gives u the right to point fingers at people in this free world without a valid prof.

Anyways People can delete this article. --Musicfanz1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfanz1 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI recommend keeping this page and suggesting if any further citation required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiliravan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. References from article and web search are press releases or otherwise primary, trivial, or sales-related. Nothing useful from
  WP:RS perspective to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk
  )

There are virtually no Bengali language references to the subject. Google returns 46 hits ... out of these, none (except for this Wiki article and its 3 mirrors) discuss the subject. All of the Google hits refer to other people with the same name. --Ragib (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-slut defense

Anti-slut defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails

• Delete - Seems like a non-notable
  neologism, based on unreliable & primary sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete or merge into Mystery Method, per
  WP:NEO. Article seems to be based on a primary source. Second source is paywalled and could not verify that the topic is actually mentioned there. If anyone has access to it, please post relevant content to discussion here. Doesn't seem to be a common enough term to warrant an article at this time. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep—ick! these people are icky. however that's not the issue. first of all, the find sources template books link shows 5 books besides the authors which discuss the term. admittedly, most of them are just admiringly noting it, but this one has some material that's encyclopedic and could go into the article. also, there's at least one other scholarly paper besides the one cited in the article (@Kaldari: which does in fact talk about it) that talks about it, admittedly not at length, but some. that being said, i see no reason to oppose a merge and redirect, which could have been done by ordinary editing rather than bringing it here and forcing me to look through those slimy pickup artist books.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw these refs myself alf.laylah.wa.laylah before I opened the AFD, however a thesis is still self-published (until it gets turned into a book) and the other book contains a trivial mention. However IMHO these don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NRVE--Cailil ^talk 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's an interesting point about theses, which i haven't thought about before. i would argue that a thesis is not self-published once it's approved by its committee and accepted by the university as part of the requirements for granting the degree (as this one has been). the next step after that is to deposit a copy in the university's library, which is clearly a publication of the thesis. this whole vetting process is outside the control of the author, which seems to preclude it being self-publishing. it's always acceptable to cite theses in academic papers and books, so probably it should be at wp too. anyway, like i said, i don't think this is any kind of obvious case, and we just disagree on something that reasonable editors can disagree on. maybe we don't even disagree so much since you propose merging as acceptable, and that's fine with me too. it's not necessary to get consensus at an afd before merging, though. it's super easy to just merge and replace an article like this with a redirect.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALWL, PhD theses are generally considered reliable sources; master's and undergraduate theses are not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The WSIF paper doesn't give significant coverage to this idea as opposed to the general methodology and ideology of "pick-up artists," and the other source is of course primary. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts in the seduction community (2nd nomination), or failing consensus for that, redirect to The Mystery Method per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (5th nomination). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism of sorts which is not notable, and if it were, perhaps it would fit better at Wiktionary or... nowhere. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 08:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per ItsZippy.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstonworth Rovers FC

Barnstonworth Rovers FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

General lack of notability and lack of references. CarlosPatiño (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-professional and does not seem to have any coverage from reliable sources which would establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - plays at a non-notable level of soccer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable team. GiantSnowman 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication that the team has played at a high enough level.
  ^talk 22:16, 18 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1483 Online

1483 Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I could not find significant coverage of the game in reliable sources. Delete per

• Delete - Non-notable web content. I cannot find any significant reference to it in any gaming/computing sources online. It might even be a candidate for CSD. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:45, 16 October 2011 (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) 00:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, unreferenced, unverifiable, no source.
  talk) 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Japan

F.C. Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is not notable enough, does not cite any references, and the external links mentioned in the article are unrelated or insufficient as sources. CarlosPatiño (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting
  general notability guidelines and (as a minor, local amateur team) not being presumed notable as a football club. Could redirect to Cosmopolitan Soccer League. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability.
  ^talk 09:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect. Suriel has it right, there is nothing
  WP:RS out there to support notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2011 (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. Tone 12:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan invasion of Somalia (2011)

Kenyan invasion of Somalia (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Stub article does not meet

• Delete. WP is
  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is clearly a notable event in Africa's military history and international relations. We don't delete articles about notable events just because they're also covered by newspapers (or whatever your reason is for citing that policy). Deterence ^Talk 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep—it seems to me that notnewspaper is notapplicable. that guideline seems to discourage first-hand news reports on breaking stories, which this article does not contain. notnewspaper refers us to
  WP:EVENT to gauge the notability of recent events. that guideline tells us that As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events. on the other hand, it's possible for reasonable editors to disagree here about whether the event is notable, but i don't think that it can be decided on the basis of guidelines alone. also, wp:persistence, cited by nominator as reason for deletion, does say That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. (i'm not cherry-picking excerpts here, since i'm assuming everyone's going to read the guideline). the nominator's point about the word "invasion" is well-taken, though. should the article survive the afd, i support moving it to Kenyan incursion into Somalia (2011), unless future events moot the point.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

FTR, I think the suggested name sounds sensible. Orderinchaos 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the operation is apparently Linda Nchi. So if it is indeed notable and the page survives the Afd, then "Operation Linda Nchi" is obviously what the article should be renamed to like the other similar operations in the List of military operations. Middayexpress (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As something that only happened today, I think an article is premature. Firstly,
  WP:BREAKING advises that we wait some time before creating an article, to prevent a poor perspective or undue weight being put on an event. See below. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable event in military history and international relations. Obviously. Although, the article could do with some more content, that is a reason for expansion, not deletion. Deterence ^Talk 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No it isn't. As explained above and can readily be observed on the
  War in Somalia (2009–) article, border crossings of this sort are actually quite routine in that part of Africa. It's the UN-sanctioned. three year-long Ethiopian intervention of 2006-2009 that's a notable event in Africa's military history and international relations. And even that doesn't have its own article, but is instead discussed in the context of the War in Somalia (2006–2009). Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm not sure that we can make such an assertion that this is clearly a notable even in military history. We have no idea what the consequences of this will be, so cannot determine whether or not it is a notable event until some time after. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteor merge into
  War in Somalia (2009–). Dozens of these "invasions" have happened over the last few years. People really need to look at the larger context. JimSukwutput 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and merge into
  War in Somalia (2009–). Discounting the trash talk of the offended party, this is at best an incursion. If Kenya decides to conquer and take possession of Somalia, and reliable sources term it an "invasion", then we can start to think about a separate article. Neither of the two marginal sources provided call it an invasion. The only, um, 'source', that is given calling it an invasion is a tweet by an unknown person quoting the Somali ambassador engaging in some trash talk. They chased some criminals across the border who have kidnapped western aid workers, and it's an "invasion"? Puhhhlease.... First Light (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To those advocating Delete AND Merge- This is a legal impossibility based on Wikipedia's licenses. If any thing from an article is merged, it must be retained for legal attribution purposes. (Note to closing admin: this should not be considered a keep or delete vote). Umbralcorax (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Those who have !voted "keep", please re-read the article. I've copy edited, so that the article is actually based on the sources. There was a considerable amount of completely false information in the version that you !voted to "keep. Both the article title and its (original) content are seriously in violation of
  WP:NPOV. First Light (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

thanks for the warning, but the deletion of an article shouldn't depend so much on the state it's in, but on notability according to guidelines. even violations of npov are reasons to edit, not to delete. i think that the nominator and perhaps others are misunderstanding this as well as wp:notnewspaper, and my keep was based on the sources, not how they were used in the article. anyway, your editing looks good.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your keep was based on the sources, why didn't you change the article to correct the outright lies that were in it? Did you not even read the sources? It was an "incursion", not an "invasion". An "incursion" in that part of the world is hardly notable enough for an article, which the sources would have shown you that it was - contrary to both the title and most of the article. So yes, when making a decision at AfD, you need to actually read the sources to see if the article meets notability and common practice with such articles on "incursions". (And my comment, a 'heads-up' to clueful editors and admins, was as much a "warning" as the incursion was an invasion.) First Light (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you didn't notice that i was the first editor in this discussion to suggest that the word incursion rather than invasion be used? i read the sources, the sources convinced me of the notability of the subject as well as the misapplication in my opinion of the policies cited in the nomination. only the existence of sources and what the sources say are relevant in these discussions, so i didn't feel any urgency in editing. you seem to be upset that i described your comment as a warning, and i'm sorry if that's the case. i didn't mean to insinuate anything negative by it. i just meant that were advising people to be aware of something. this action is commonly described as "warning". also, why does the part of the world where the incursion happens matter for notability?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there have been other incursions that were part of the Somalia conflict that don't have articles, but are part of the main Somalia conflict article instead. The editor who nominated this for deletion pointed that out in his nomination statement. In fact, incursion is not accurate. Somali military sources are calling it a joint operation with the Kenya military. In other words, they were invited there by the Somalia military. "Incursion", at least according to Merriam-Webster, is "a hostile entrance into a territory." They were invited. It wasn't hostile. An accurate title, at least according to those increasingly bothersome reliable sources, would be

WP:Warning. I wanted to be sure that other editors would take my comment at face value, rather than the value given it by another editor. First Light (talk

)

ok, i didn't mean to give your comment a value. also, i don't really care what the article is called. incursion seems accurate to me, because they're entering into a territory and they're shooting at people in the territory, which seems hostile. you seem to be saying that incursions must be hostile towards the political entity legally in control of the territory. both merriam webster and oxford english dictionary seem to be silent on this point. if you want to move the article to your suggested title, that is also fine with me. i'll drop it now, but i stand by my original point, which is that i think the article should be kept, and that wp:notnewspaper doesn't apply, for reasons i explained above.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Per deterrence. Easily meets threshold for notability. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge the relevant information into War of Somalia (2009-), don't delete it outright. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isnt some minor border raid like the kenyen incursions of the past, but a major invasion ment to push al-shabab back from the border.XavierGreen (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems important and a major push if one follows what BBC and other news sources are saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delivernews (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Middayexpress; no prejudice to recreation if this particular incursion gains *much more significant* status than all the other incursions by neighbouring nations' armed forces since 1991. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A significant historical event. The article can be altered to be a comprehensive coverage of the Kenyan campaign and it's events and impact. Yet it has significant value and turning point in the history of Kenyan policy towards the conflict and what better place to track the events occurring of such importance than here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPHKUSA (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just because western media is less interested in Somalia does not mean we have to ignore it as well. The incursion is very large (no specific numbers but analysts and observers agree that it is large and talk about "truckloads" supported by helicopters and jets) and therefore an important part in the Civil War. It is also likely that the invasion is part of a longer Kenyan involvement. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111017171543493140.html --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This probably meets notability criteria already, quite a bit of fuss, but even if it doesn't now, I have a high certainty that it'll have it very soon. Even if it slightly fails some criteria now, there's no point to delete it only to have it recreated in a week. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a source refers to two Kenyan batallions and a few helicopters, hardly a "major invasion", secondly reports allude to close joint operations rather than an independent intervention. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the largest military campaign ever conducted by the military of kenya during its entire history, surely that in itself makes this notable.XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Military operations are by and large notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important military operation and Wikipedia need articles like this, and updates.--Densaga (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 78 deaths so far, most likely in total thousands of soldiers mobilized, and organized forces should be enough. To those who say Ethiopia's incursions did not merit an article and therefore this shouldn't, I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, make an article if it deserves it! This one does not hinge on that one. To those who say that it is a joint venture, that appears to be true, but it also seems that in the beginning the TFG was not aware of the situation, based on their initial response, so the present title should suffice. Most verily, 'tis Metaknowledge! 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. From what I can see, this situation has been basically a country having to extraterritorially enforce criminal law in a neighbouring lawless state due to the impacts upon itself. The Ethiopian situation is even more complex as the Ethiopian government has vested interests in the outcome in Somalia which explain its repeated interventions, and there would be some merit in having an article on that aspect, as there's certainly not a shortage of literature on it. Orderinchaos 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the situation at all. The Kenyan army got involved with the operation at the behest of the Somalian military and even signed an agreement with it for the purpose. The Somalian army has made important gains on the Islamist militants over the past year, managing to wrest control of Mogadishu. The Transitional Federal Government was looking to stamp out the insurgency before its interim mandate expires in August of next year, so the TFG basically capitalized on the hostage-taking situation to press its claim. Kenya's Minister of Defence who helped spearhead the operation is also himself an ethnic Somali, so the incursion for the most part has always actually been a Somali-led affair. Of course, none of this was apparent on the 16th when the story first broke and I nominated the article for deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to keep. It seems that this has become a notable event now, so is worth keeping. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First Kenyan deployment on foreign soil since independence.Neumannk (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the first ever military exercise carried out by Kenya. Kenya is a major African nation in many ways and this event will be is a significant point in the history of the people of Kenya. Wikipedia is not for Americans only. This event is very note worthy for the African reader of wikipedia. 05:44, 21 October 2011(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsakala (talk • contribs)
• Keep, but rename Clearly a notable event, given it's the first military action of this type engaged in by Kenya, and both its causes (the Al-Shabaab movement kidnapping people in Kenya, which is fairly new for them) and consequences (re the famine). I'm in Australia yet had casually heard about this on no less than three media sources today (ABC, NPR, BBC). A new name which reflects
  WP:NPOV and the facts on the ground would be a good idea, however - it's not an invasion as an invasion according to my dictionary involves subjugation and occupation, which isn't evident here. Orderinchaos 14:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The East Africa-wide food crisis is obviously not a consequence of the brand new coordinated Operation Linda Nchi; it was caused by the harsh drought that was itself precipitated by consecutive missed rainy seasons. Al-Shabaab has also denied responsibility for the kidnappings. But it looks like it may be responsible for them after all since the militants' recent pullout of Mogadishu and successive territorial losses seem to have been at least in part caused by financial difficulties i.e. the insurgents appear to be running out of funds, so they're now resorting to kidnapping foreign tourists and such for ransom. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to a NPOV title (i.e.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyfriends (Filipino band)

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

)

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

No claims of notability. My db-band tag was removed on the odd claim that being signed to a major label makes them notable by default. Where does it even say they are signed to a label, let alone a major one?

• Keep Delete. Can find no evidence of notability per
  WP:RS sources, would be happy to re-evaluate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've changed my mind, per Pmresource's links and further research done on the back of that. I'll have a go at buffing up the article, accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Several of their hit songs were revived by many artists. For instance, Dahil Mahal Kita [29][30] was made into a Vilma Santos movie theme song here (newspaper). This song was revived by Ogie Alcasid. Bakit Labis Kitang Mahal was revived by Lea Salonga here [31][32] and Dingdong Avanzado here [33]. The song was even made into a movie of the same title (blog with scanned paper movie poster). Their hit songs continue to be hit songs by various artists every time these are revived. It's hard to find reliable online sources on them right now because most of those reliable sources have been published on paper long before the internet and scanners became popular. Pmresource (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]