Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 April 20 April >

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 delete.  Sandstein  05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Burnett (meteorologist)

A. J. Burnett (meteorologist) (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, fails

WP:BIO Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is also this but not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject appears non-notable as per
    WP:BIO. Stormbay (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep As per consensus, with no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bothel, Cumbria

Bothel, Cumbria (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 sources, dubious content Labrat256 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like a real and distinct population center to me. [1] "Dubious content" is not a reason to delete an entire article but to improve it and the only "dubious content" I saw was the sentence "People flight here", which was added by an anon about a month ago and was just removed by me. --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly exists (look at the map) and all verified settlements are generally held to be notable, however small. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been cleaned-up as of this post. A source has been added. Per
    WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep — agree with Necrothesp. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Google maps celarly show that the place exists. I cannot see any obviously dubious content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Only

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

Recently deleted article that was almost instantly recreated. I can't find any real reliable sources, and I don't believe the one award is enough for this to pass notability guidelines. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteDoesn't appear to be notable.JoelWhy (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article because it was something I had searched for, only to find that an article didn't exist for it; I realized it had been previously deleted but did not take note of how recent it was. In the music industry, Promo Only is a well known promotional music service and was one of the first services that offered CD subscriptions. I would surmise that it gets searched for with reasonable frequency on Wikipedia. I was planning to add to the article when I had time, but I tried to at least partially establish notability with the reference to the awards that the service has won.--Jimdavis4u (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... the only problem is that it doesn't matter how often people have or haven't searched for it. Popularity is not notability, it only makes it easier to find reliable sources that show notability. Even if something has over 40 million hits in Google, those hit amounts will not mean anything as far as
    talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair argument; upon further investigation, there aren't very many news articles about Promo Only since it's been in business. While I still believe it's a notable company, I guess I'd have to agree that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.--Jimdavis4u (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I motion to delete with regards foremost to

WP:NMO?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gab _ 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Some minor mentions: [2], [3] but aside from that I could only find press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Video game music. Consensus is to merge back what can be sourced, and omit the rest.  Sandstein  05:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video game music culture

Video game music culture (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)

Unreferenced since 2006. Very little of this info is relevant, and what isn't is already covered in video game music and chiptune. Most of the links at the bottom do not seem reliable or non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was spun out of video game music as that article was getting large. It IS a different subject, and the info itself is mostly worth having. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what of this is worth having. None of it is sourced, and none of it seems unique — as I said, most seems to overlap the existing articles on video game music. "Keep becuase it was spun off" and "it's worth having" are not reasons to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into list articles or merge to related topics unless appropriate references can be found.
    talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge anything specifically relevant to video game music back there and delete the rest as trivia. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge any sourced content to video game music. Otherwise, the topic is too specific to satisfy GNG and "culture" is used very vaguely and loosely. A lot of the content is OR (i.e. remixing, sound format list), and chiptune already has an article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As mentioned, the label of "culture" in this article is too vaguely defined, and there are already articles on
    Video Game Music that better covers the topics here. If there is any information here that is not present elsewhere, I would not be opposed to merging it, but only if actual references are included to support it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Maddou

Jean-Paul Maddou (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. Google search turns up nothing apparently related on the first page (book search too). Speedy declined because the second sentence says the word "renowned". Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability per
    WP:HOAX. This ought to have been speedied. Scopecreep (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anexas

Anexas (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 indication that this company meets

WP:CORP. I also can't find any information on the 'Best Lean and Six Sigma Institute in India' award. The company's web page says that they won 'Best Six Sigma Training Institute in India' given out by Brands Academy, which is another management consultancy firm. ... discospinster talk 21:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments amount to

WP:WAX, sorry.  Sandstein  05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Alex Schriver

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

Not notable according to Wiki policy; most articles come from subjects website Theseus1776 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, insufficient evidence of non-inherited notability in Google/Gnews searches. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    Location (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)edited 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This argument does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Subject must have multiple citations to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.: This article falls in line with previous National Chairman of the College Republicans who also have had biographical articles. I also suggest the authors add more newsworthy sources and notations

User:JoshTHallmark (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. User:JoshTHallmark is correct; all the other non-entities who have held that office have entries, surely there's room for one more. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is "NO" reason to keep this article. Authors have provided no new articles, and article does not meet notability guidelines.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - The strongest arguments seem to be to delete, but there's not been a great deal of discussion. I'm giving those who want it kept a chance to produce reliable sources and/or other strong arguments based on Wikipedia policy. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage (as oopposed to passing mentions) needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Very weak reasoning for keep (Reuters, and definitely not the blogging). Consensus is to keep (

BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Allbritton

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

Subject fails to meet WP:N (both WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR), entry fails WP:RS. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does show how easy it can be to get money out of people... Appears to be self-published, although I can't find evidence yet. It's not easy to pin the book down, unless I'm going wrong somewhere. All in all, blogging is blogging, even when crowd-funded. Willing to change my mind, as always. Peridon (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Seems like he's slightly more notable than the average blogger, perhaps even enough so that he warrants his own page.JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with notability concerns. Subject seems to have written significantly more articles than articles were written about him. There is little notable details of biographical value. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chris was the original crowd-funded blogger, and was the inspiration for many other projects, such as spot.us. He is now bureau chief for Reuters in Pakistan, and a notable journalist in his own right. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pakistan Bureau Chief for Thomson Reuters is probably notable enough. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (social game)

The Game (social game) (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:MADEUP Jac16888 Talk 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Etch A Sketch. Whether to also merge any additional material is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Etch-a-sketch gaffe

Etch-a-sketch gaffe (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)

An article based around a single event during the 2012 primary season. While there are sources discussing the event, it seems to fall under

wp:1E. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to
WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence (yet) of "additional enduring significance", though if such significance becomes apparent at some point, the article can always be recreated. For now, it makes more sense to redirect to the article which already has a section on the topic.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge for same reasons as above. No reason to redirect since I can't imagine anyone would search for a page on this. (I could even be convinced to delete entirely, but this incident having its own wiki page? Not a chance.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the individual did not meet

BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Velimir Habrun

Velimir Habrun (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)

Contested PROD, by IP with no rationale given. Player has not played in a

WP:GNG. Sad circumstances surrounding his death but doesn't make him notable, unfortunately he's one of thousands who lose their life's in road traffic accidents ever year. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Does not meet notability requirements. Consensus is to delete (

BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Don Fraser & Detour

Don Fraser & Detour (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)

Article does not show subject meets

WP:BAND, a local artist that has not released any albums on a major label, no charting singles, no major national tours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that RSs can be found for a subject that is self-admittedly not notable. (See my talk page). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military in South Asia

Military in South Asia (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)

Why list militaries of different countries in a single page based on the continent? Fails

WP:LISTPURP. SupernovaExplosion Talk 15:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination: this serves no useful purpose Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WHY?Petebutt (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be edited to make meaningful, and unnecessary information can be removed. Sheikh Mohammad Shahzeb Talk/Stalk 10:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be kept as it is an important topic covering the Military of South Asia. It gives detailed information about different militaries and also has a table where various characteristics of the Military can be compared. It also covers the Military history of South Asia which can be extended further. If we have History of South Asia, why not its Military History? Moreover this article is still a stub.

ChitranshGaurav 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - duplicates information in articles that it is, apparently, cut-and-pasted from - which, if true, makes it a copyvio. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article adds nothing encyclopedic and can only duplicate what is already contained in other articles such as Indian Armed Forces and Pakistan Armed Forceswhich are complete, well sourced, authoritative, up-to-date and encyclopedic. DocTree (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Consensus is to delete (

BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Beverly Hills Cox

Beverly Hills Cox (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 claim of notability. No references. No sources. Just an extended plot summary for a porn film that fails NFILMS and the GNG. All GNews and GBooks hits are spurious or, at best, trivial/passing mentions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Delete votes are unconvincing. The awards won seem to satisfy GNG and the applicable secondary guidelines. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy

Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy (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)

1. notability - minor industry awards aside, no establishment of notability 2. taking awards into account - they are minor (not best actress or film) - someone will be able to confirm this? 3. claim of "As for article's subject meets WP:MOVIE#1" - please spell out reason rather than just state as I don't follow that, so have AfDed it Widefox (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NFILM, as the the claimed award/nominations, the only plausible reason advanced for notability, do not meet the guideline standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on the AVN Award for Best Gonzo release satisfying
    WP:NFILM. An AVN is the biggest award for pornography. Nominator does not understand that the Best Gonzo Release award is for the best film in one of the two major movie categories (gonzo & feature). Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment There is no third party source for this article.
Do you have a third party source for the AVN award or any other part of this article - as per requirement "independent, third-party reliable sources" in
WP:NFILM ? (This seems pertinent due to the reputation of the AVN awards AVN_(magazine)#Award_Shows Widefox (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There are third party sources confirming the AVN award [4] and other awards [5][6]. A lot of editors just like to cite to the awarding organizations instead of a third party out of convenience. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citing primaries makes a weak case for an article. Although I'll agree adding xbiz refs are the right direction - the question being how independent and 3P are they? Any precedent as a WP:RS and indep.? They are not obviously independent. If I understand AVNs, they started as business promo awards, and have expanded, more business promo than quality, unlike Oscars right, and derided on the WP article about them. Widefox (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the reliability of XBIZ or AVN? If we're talking about XBIZ, they are independent of AVN since they are competing trade journals. If we're talking about AVN, their reliability as a source is irrelevant in determining whether they are considered major awards under NFILM. I am the main author of that wikipedia article deriding them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yawn. Read the first sentence of the
    AVN Award article and its corresponding citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep has won several major awards, has numerous refs. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was redirect to 2012 Daytona 500. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Dryer Incident

Jet Dryer Incident (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 a particularly notable incident as car races go. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Redirect to 2012 Daytona 500 as its own section. It was pretty cool, but it should be part of the race article, not its own article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nintoaster

Nintoaster (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 indication of notability (declined PROD). Appears to be a minor internet meme of sorts, with some novelty coverage in things like Kotaku. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's so poorly written I couldn't even confirm what it was about from the article itself, but a Google search confirms it's a non-notable internet joke/meme. Stuff like this can be safely deleted under A7 as web content with no significance shown. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I thought that, since it's a thing that exists in the real world, calling it web content was a bit of a stretch. Close enough, though, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it made toast that might be notable, but it's just another game console hardware mod (people put video game consoles inside all kinds of boxes[7]). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Colapeninsula. People, for whatever reasons, put video game consoles into all sorts of different things. Not a noteworthy feat really, especially since this isn't even a sort of hybrid, it just has a toaster case to it. I don't see any
    WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 'Delete - For a plethora of reasons.JoelWhy (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly' a weak Redirect to the Angry Video Game Nerd, but otherwise Delete due to lack of any apparent notability. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:GNG as far as I can see with multiple, reliable, independent sources doing non-trivial coverage of this NES mod. That said, the amount of information (and little critical reception) is suited for a parent article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Food Recipe

Asia Food Recipe (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)
Errm, what does "Queried speedy delete" mean, and why is it a reason for deletion?
talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
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! 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article does contain link to objective source which gives the company notariety. They are the largest food recipe upload site in Asia and also allow YouTube uploads (unlike other recipe site). There are less notable articles on Wikipedia including
talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional citations added. I think if anything, the article should receive a notability tag but not deleted. The topic is noteworthy and should be left so that people can expand upon the article. Additions can be found here: 1 2 --
talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Just because your press releases show up on other websites does not make them
    BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for the information. I am looking for additional sources. However, the press release is not mine. The only connection that I have to site is that I use it. I found some additional information about a controversy with the website but I am still trying to find sources that confirm it. --
talk) 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional Information Added - Made a couple of additions to the article. 1, 2 Not sure if this leads more towards notability. I would appreciate a little more insight on what would make it notable for Wikipeida. I am not associated with this website other than using it. I created the aritlce (as I have done with other articles) on topics that I come across that are interesting. I believed that it being the largest recipe submission cite in Asia would make it notable. Any additional guidance that can be given would be appreciated. --
talk) 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
What you need is to meet the
WP:BIGNUMBER). Other assertions you've added to the article which aren't cited to a reliable source aren't particularly useful. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
@Morning, I reverted both of your edits. The first adds unsourced material. The second relies on an unreliable source, and even if the source were more reliable, the assertion is misleading based on what the sourced website claims it does.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I looked, but didn't find any sources not based on PRWEB press releases. Since there seem to be no available independent, reliable and verifiable sources for the assertions in the article, the article fails
    the guidelines. Geoff Who, me? 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadia Abdullah Shire

Sadia Abdullah Shire (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 novelist who does not appear to meet

WP:AUTHOR.  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Meets more than one

criteria for speedy deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Youngberry Agency

WE NEED OTHER POINT OF VIEWS FROM OTHER ADMINISTRATORS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.

THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATOR (User:Bailo26IS USING DOUBLE STANDARDS BETWEEN MY_Youth and YOUNGBERRY_AGENCY.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.93.38 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Youngberry Agency (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 do not believe this to be a notable company. The claim of "First youth Specialist agency in the Arab World" is not backed up by a reliable source and therefore cannot be verified. None of the companys noted that it has worked with/on are notable and the author of the page has a heavy COI as he also claims to be the founder of the company. Bailo26 12:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your research before deleting. You can't control ownership on this page. As I informed you, you may invite other and back your self with justified reason. Your current reason that I'm founder of this company doesn't stand for deleting a page. Tarek Kassar

I'm the author of the article and I will NOT accept that you consider deleting it unless you state how it violate the policy.

1. You claim that it says "First Youth Marketing agency in the Middle East". Please go and make your search for free on google.com and get me an youth marketing agency in the Middle East. 2. You claim that I'm the sole author and I'm the founder of the agency. Have you given it the organic nature timeframe for fans to come and make their revisions or edits. Also, I registered with my correct identity to provide credibility and I'm aware my username is the name of founder, it's not rocket science, instead, it should give some validation note. 3. You claim it violates the policy of Wikipedia, I asked you several time to bring me any group of administrators who would review that. 4. You claim that information are not of significant importance. Yes, it's not Star Trek and will never be about Star Trek, if it's not your area of specialty, bring into the discussion someone else who knows about this subject. 5. You claim that it's some sort of marketing for corporation. Well, we've been in business for over 2 years and I don't need a link from wikipedia to Youngberry website. Also, by the time I'm arguing I would have submitted my link to various directory. However, I'm stating in my article something of significant importance to the industry.

To end this discussion: 1. You may review "First youth marketing agency in the Middle East", in order to resolve this issue. 2. You may review the only external link to Youngberry's website, in order to resolve this issue.

Otherwise, I will NOT allow a person with little/no knowledge about Marketing Industry or Middle East region to delete this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarekkassar (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


THIS IS UNFAIR.

CHECK OUT MR_YOUTH AND YOU WILL FIND THE SAME SENTENCE: offers client services in brand strategy, research and survey as well as word of mouth, social interactive and experiential marketing".

CAN YOU DEFEND THAT NOW?

If you wish to delete this sentence then you should delete for both Mr_Youth and Youngberry_Agency. You should read your guidelines that you should NOT show stubbornness.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, I NEED HELP FROM OTHER ADMINISTRATORS.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.93.38 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FK Dukla Banská Bystrica B

FK Dukla Banská Bystrica B (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 indication why this team is notable; B team of FK Dukla Banská Bystrica, therefore not eligible for national cup competition and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources supporting notability. Cloudz679 11:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 11:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep With no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkicon

AfDs for this article:
Ikkicon (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 con, no secondary sources found anywhere. Previously deleted in 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, my previous search didn't pick it up. Sadly, that was all I could find, so I'm not sure if that will enough to establish notability. I don't know which notability guidelines conventions fall under, so if there is one I might be willing to reconsider.
csdnew 04:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, the notability concerns raised in the nomination appear to have been appropriately resolved by uncovering and integrating significant coverage from independent,

Salvidrim! 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

MAGFest

MAGFest (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)

There do seem to be lots of hits on Google News, but almost all of them amount to "Such and such will be at MAGfest". The rest are just press releases from things like Anime News Network. One source was suggested on the page in 2007, but it turns out it's just a fluff piece from a local newspaper.

In the article itself, the only sources are a con directory of dubious reliability, recaps from people who were there and primary sources. The article has been tagged for primary sources since 2007, but none have been forthcoming. Every source I found was primary, press release, fluff or trivial — no non-trivial, third-party, distinct coverage whatsoever. It's also overrun with some of the guys who were there pimping themselves out by shoehorning links to their own sites in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are borderline, particularly the CBS coverage since it seems to exist only as a youtube vid at the moment.. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, while the CBS is marginal, the NPR segment and CNN blog are well within the sphere of reliable and verifiable sources. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some of the secondary sources mentioned above (full disclosure: I am one of the Magfest organizers, Dom). Also, in the future, if any of our bands/guests etc hijack the page to plug their own stuff, we'll definitely remove it as soon as we find out about it. We have a compilation of our press coverage from secondary sources and will continue to improve the quality of the article by making sure everything is up to wikipedia citation standards. Binary1230 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more update (Dom again), in the past we've discouraged people that are directly related to organizing Magfest from editing this article directly and were hoping that someone would eventually come along and clean it up. However when I saw the page was up for deletion today, I added those sources myself despite probably having a COI for editing this article, I just didn't want to see it deleted because no one had taken any action. Can you guys please advise on in the future what the best way would be for us to help get this article up to Wikipedia standards? I was basing the decision to edit it myself off of what was in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest:

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing"

17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dom. One of the best methods to mitigate these concerns is to use the Request edit template. As an interested but un-involved party, I'd definitely be willing to help out with assessing and making any requested edits for this page. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CNN and NPR articles are reliable, independent, and in-depth enough to allow us to write a decent article. Most of the cruft and external links need to go. Disclaimer: I've never been to MAGFest but I know plenty of folks who have and I like many of the bands mentioned in the article. However, I think my contribution history shows that I'm more than an
    talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable and independent sources have been provided (CNN, NPR, CBS, Destructoid) to satisfy
    WP:GNG. Although the CBS source is just a screencap video, it's a reliable source and I see no reason to consider it unreliable. Additional sources that don't fulfill GNG per se, do strengthen the event's notability argument nonetheless as sources are giving the event coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments for deletion mainly argue that the principal source, a work by Richard G. Hovannisian, is unreliable or partisan, but considering that it has been written by an academic historian whose article makes no reference to any academic controversies about his work, and that the book was published by the reputable academic publisher University of California Press, such arguments would need to go substantially beyond mere allegations of partisanship to be convincing.  Sandstein  05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaibalishen Massacre

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 article is based on one single source, which seems too partisan for an article making such a claim. The only link to a non-partisan source (de Waal) contains no reference whatsoever to the event or the place where it allegedly occured. A quick web inquiry shows that there are no academic sources supporting the accuracy of this article. Furthermore, the article was contributed by a user who has been blocked indefinitely. Parishan (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    t • c »  10:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Hovannisian is an extremely recognised scholar. On top, it's not difficult to find other sources. Sardur (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. Perhaps you can help? Parishan (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Sardur. Hovannisian is a respected scholar from UCLA and, knowing his works, he usually bases himself on multiple sources. Whether or not this article was created by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked is irrelevant and has no bearing on the quality of the article. I would ask that Parishan in future to desist from putting up such ill-faith nominations.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs more references, that is the only issue I see. We can add a template to improve its referencing quality but deleting isn't really the solution.Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it seems like this event may not be known by this precise name in the literature, it is clearly worthy of encyclopedic inclusion and in its current state is single-sourced well enough that it should be retained. Hopefully and presumably additional sourcing will emerge. I suspect there is another name for the event. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, an author using exclusively one-sided terminology such as "Shushi" which in fact has never been the name for the town of Shusha can hardly be considered impartial. Second of all, single-sourcing does not mean proper sourcing. Even if Hovannisian considered apt, the reference to Hovannisian is as dubious as that on de Waal. In the book shown, Hovannisian simply talks about a battle between "2,000 Tatar-Kurdish irregulars" and "armed villagers" in a place called Khaibalikend (sic). There are no mentions of any massacre or civilian deaths. The section of the article dealing with the so-called massacre quotes Hovannisian on page 181, which does not mention Geybali or any other village, or any "innocent civilians" who supposedly died. All the other references to a massacre in Hovannisian have to do with the
Shusha pogrom rather than with Geybali. Parishan (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a deceptive and weasel-worded summary of what the source says. It is in a subsection titled "Bloodshed in Karabagh", which has the phrase "carnage in June of 1919" in the section introduction. On pages 176-177 the source talks about "2000 Tartar-Kurdish irregulars" attacking the village of Kaibalikend (i.e. Geybali), whose population were able initially to repulse the assault because they were armed, but when regular Azeri armed forces joined in the attack the village was looted, burned, and many villagers killed. Then the same attackers went on to attack three nearby Armenian villages, again looting and burning them and killing their inhabitants. The sources says 600 villagers lay dead after the attacks. In a footnote, the source mentions a British report of June 11 1919 in which a British officer on the scenne reported that of Kaibalikend 700 inhabitants, only 11 men and 87 women had survived. If that is not a massacre, what is? Meowy 23:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source uses the POV Armenian terminology such as 'Ghaibalishen' and no one calls it a massacre. Your own interpretation of Hovannisian cannot serve as basis for using this rather powerful term. This is precisely the reason why this article has been nominated: we do not have enough sources to even determine what it was that happened in Geybali. Calling a massacre something that was, more than anything, a military episode of a bigger ethnic conflict based on one dubious source is a bit far-fetched. Not to mention the fact that 80 per cent of the article deals with issues around the
Shusha pogrom than with what happened in Geybali. It almost seems like the author worked hard at lugging in everything possible to bring about this highly controversial article. Parishan (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe, before giving your opinion and displaying ignorance about the subject, you should have done some minimal research on the work being used as the source and on the time-period in which the events described in the article took place. The nominator's statement is full of ill-faith wording: he gives as a reason for deletion the fact that the creator of the article has been blocked. However, this block had nothing to do with either this article or any content added to any other article by that editor. The nominator of course knows this, revealing ill-faith. His description of the source as "partisan" with the claim that "there are no academic sources supporting the accuracy of this article" also reveals ill-faith, because the source is a well-known academic work, and its author is a highly regarded academic. Meowy 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you, Meowy, that this article falls in the scope of
WP:AA2, and its creator was banned exactly for displaying blatant bad faith in editing articles in the authority of this particular arbitration case. So it does matter in this case. Parishan (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
A quick read of the
Shusha Pogrom article reveals another source: "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation" by Christopher J. Walker. It is used as the source for the text in mid-June Azeri mounted "irregulars", about 2,000 strong, attacked, looted and burnt a large Armenian village, Khaibalikend, just outside Shusha, and approximately 600 Armenians lay dead. Khaibalikend is the Azeri version of Ghaibalishen. Meowy 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hovhannisian also mentions (in footnote 51, page 177) a British War Office report (WO class95/4880) in which a British officer on the scene reports finding only 11 male and 87 female survivors from Khaibalikend's 700 inhabitants. That should settle any question that the subject of the article cannot be verified as taking place. Meowy 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines 'massacre' as a general and unnecessary extermination of one group. If according to Hovannisian, armed Armenians of Geybali confronted those 2,000 irregulars, what massacre is there to talk about? Parishan (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep the article since it tells the story based on the historical facts. Richard Hovhannisian, who is the most cited reference is a well-known and respected scholar with a very rich academic background. Moreover, the story refereed to non Armenian scholars as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprutt (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not meet main Wiki criteria of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The single source which was plagiarised for its creation, is partisan, non-verifiable with third-parties, and unreliable. The two other sources mentioned in the reflist do not support the allegations of this article at all. Angel670 talk 22:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Wright said ""a massacre of 600 Armenians took place centred on the Armenian village of Khaibalikend". The link provides the book where he says that so does Christopher Walker mention the massacre so how is this not valid?Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Hovannisian is a respected scholar and he usually bases himself on multiple sources how he can write that “The massacre was organized by Azerbaijan's so-called Governor-General Khosrov bek Sultanov and took place under the direct supervision of his brothers, Pasha bek Sultanov and Sultan bek Sultanov.” Khosrov bek had no brother named Pasha bek. His brathers are Sultan bek, Rustem Bek and Isgender bek. Pasha bek is his father and died in 1915. Did the massacre take place under the direct supervision of a man who died 3 year before? --Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hovannisian wrote no such thing. He wrote (page 176) that the Governor-General (i.e. Khosrov Sultanov) "called forth his brother, Sultan bek Sultanov, the chief of nearly 2000 mounted Tatar-Kurdish irregulars. On the morning of June 5, this large band attacked Khaibalikend." Hovannisian also mentions that the eyewitness account by the British officer had stated that the massacre had been "fully visible from Sultanov's residence". I have edited the article to reflect what the source actually said. Meowy 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are sufficient references listed, though I think more should be sought. particularly where the Hovannisian source is relied upon. It appears some errors may be present in the text, but it seems that participants are fixing them.Marikafragen (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as copyright infringement of various sources.

talk) 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Surabhi shodh sansthan

Surabhi shodh sansthan (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)

Direct copy from a facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Surabhi-Shodh-Sansthan/222585821123182) and obviously copy pasted. Not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I submitted this for speedy deletion for copyright infringement.JoelWhy (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business4Better

Business4Better (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 like a noble cause, but it just doesn't meet Wiki notability requirements. JoelWhy (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I found no coverage. Google News turned up nothing. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012

(UTC)
:We sent out a press release today http://www.marketwatch.com/story/business4better-launches-to-transform-community-involvement-engagement-2012-05-15 announcing the event - can we bring the page back now?

  • Delete - event that hasn't taken place yet. Merge content (ideally after the event) with UBM plc Wikipelli Talk 13:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails

BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

A-fu Teng

A-fu Teng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youtube artist, hard to find sources, hard to tell if ref provided is reliable. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although she seems more notable than other YouTube artists we get here (she seems to have risen to success beyond YouTube), I cannot find any sources beyond blogs and listings which do not given notability. However, there may be non-English sources that are
    harder to find; if any emerge I may reconsider. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - The additions to the article made by the commenter to Sandstein's talk page evidence notability under
    WP:GNG, and, now having been able to search on the appropriate Chinese name, well, additional sources seem plentiful. [13], [14], etc. This Gnews archive search netted some meat by limiting the search to a specific album name, and several search results apply. --joe deckertalk to me 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album). ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How I Roll (song)

How I Roll (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)

No source for any info on the page Saulo Talk to Me 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to
    talk) 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NSONGS for non-notable songs, although I don't see a need to use the delete button, and retaining the history may be beneficial if the song does become notable in the future. Rlendog (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brigido Lara

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 a BLP with no sources. It would be a major stretch to say that he meets any guideline under

ЛееСуда. 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Response I did not discount it, but since there is no inline citations, no one can tell what pieces of the article are source. Did the entire article come from that source? If so, that's pretty close to plagiarism. I also still contest that he does not meet
ЛееСуда. 18:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
IMO he would not count as a artist, crafter maybe. What he does count as is famous forger. As for first source, there is no copy of exact text so it should not count as plagiarism - Skysmith (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count him as an artist either, but
ЛееСуда. 23:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colapeninsula, following Oakshade's reasoning. I do suggest, however, that additional relevant sources be added to the article.Marikafragen (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Might have been

BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Loughborough Top Shed

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

I'm afraid this is a project that never got off the ground. Funding was promised, on a timescale of several years (as this project required the bridging of the Gap north of Loughborough Central station). The roof girders of the former LNWR Workington shed were obtained, intended to be used, and stored at Swithland Sidings for a while, and then quietly scrapped as they were in worse condition than previously thought. Meanwhile, it turned out that the former tip site where they wanted to put the shed, being made of rubbish, could not really support the weight of the buildings/locomotives that would site on it, at least not without very expensive. Furthermore, there would have to be a new bridge over the Hermitage Brook, which would cause additional expense. Present plans are to rebuild the life expired shed at Loughborough on more or less on the same site, probably with a single track on the down side. Tony May (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any of that is verifiable, then what you have is more verifiable information on the subject to add to the article, and an implicit argument for keeping. (Of course, if what you say is not verifiable, then you have no argument at all for anything.) Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and remember that this is an encyclopaedia. We don't delete things because they don't exist. We delete things because they never got documented by the world and are not published parts of the general corpus of human knowledge. We keep things that are known about and documented by the world in depth, even if that knowledge is that something was planned and then failed. Readers expect to receive the knowledge of that planning and failure when they look that thing up in an encyclopaedia. If you have verifiable knowledge to add to the encyclopaedia, you should be adding it, not nominating articles for deletion. Only nominate articles for deletion when you have determined that there is no verifiable knowledge to be had at all, because the subject was never documented. Uncle G (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG I could not find any significant in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep As per consensus, with no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Aizik

AfDs for this article:
Moni Aizik (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)

Controversial biography of living person with an on-going edit war. I would like to establish community consensus about whether we should have this article when supported by the Black Belt Magazine references and the Advertising Standards Authority references. jmcw (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find these references reliable and sufficient to establish notability. The controversy concerning this living person has reliable references. jmcw (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guy appears to be notable. Even if everything he's said is a lie, the fact that his lies have garnered coverage would make him notable. I think the key is to try to create a NPOV article, rather than deleting it.JoelWhy (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The Black belt coverage is a good standard in this area; his books, his competition record, and the ASA issue all contribute to his notability. An article on this individual is appropriate and there are adequate sources for such an article. Continue improving it but do retain it. JJL (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still mulling over my !vote, but I'm having a tough time considering the ASA opinions that his claims are pretty suspect as "coverage" that supports notability. That would be akin to using a police report to establish the notability of a burglar. Someone complained and they did their job, which is to investigate and report their findings. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that on their own even many news articles of that sort would not generally add up to notability. But I do find it helpful in light of the fact that he has received much coverage in martial arts sources to note that his name has come up in more general sources. The Black Belt etc. magazine coverage is what really makes the case for me. JJL (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are no sources for any of his championship claims, but there seems to have been enough coverage of him to pass
    WP:GNG. I'm not sure he's notable in the non-WP sense of the word. Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The referenced material has been returned: could you take a look again? jmcw (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable but more sources needed.
    Talk to me 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep There is sufficient coverage to establish notabilty.--Charles (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the fact that he seems to have no independently verifiable achievements. Even the Black Belt articles say that everything is based on his claims only. That's like the people who are interviewed because they claim to have seen a UFO, but they have no evidence. I'm reminded of the self-generated Frank Dux notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. I don't consider USA Dojo, Real Fighting or any article reprinted/hosted on the subjects site to be valid RS's. That said, BB magazine and Inside Kung Fu are certainly RS's and get him barely by. This all smells of Dux. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These three Black Belt links (one hosted on the subject's website) all appear not to be working at the moment: [23], [24], and [25]. Does anyone have alternative links to these articles or listings? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

I added new source which proves that our enemy keeps lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam.kamil (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Super Mario game (Wii U)

Untitled Super Mario game (Wii U) (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers

AfDs for this article:
NetMovers (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. Previously deleted in 2009 as such, recreated a week ago with two new claims - 1 is a press release (the 2011 ref) and the other is a link to NetMovers own website. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added more notible sources, I will also be adding more shortly. Friskuk (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)copied over from the talk page of this page by me Syrthiss (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPAMish and WP is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like an obvious delete to me.JoelWhy (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ps3 bopbd

Ps3 bopbd (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)

From another editor's original (author contested) prod: Not encyclopedic. A tutorial. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - not encyclopedic at this time, though it could be if the tutorial material were removed and sources were added. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if sources are found, I'm not sure if this is independently notable enough for its own article. If anything, sourced information about this could just be added to
    Playstation_3#Reliability, the same way other hardware issues with the system are. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Slow Readers Club

The Slow Readers Club (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has been some coverage (here and here), but not enough to satisfy
    WP:MUSIC at the present time. --sparkl!sm hey! 09:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meilinda Soerjoko

Meilinda Soerjoko (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)

Actress with too few and minor credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no significant coverage and she has had only minor roles. Fails
    WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Paul Donahue, Jr.

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

nn, "known professionally" but no profession listed-being an heir or a claimant of gossip does not make one notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A search on Google Books shows many additional quality sources for impact on the historic record, more than sufficient for WP:Notability (people)#Any biography to be satisfied. Being known as a gay playboy is not an argument against the notability criteria. --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I make the argument that it is. For that matter, it's not an argument for it. Don't put words in others' mouths.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, from the sources his being a gay playboy was the main source of gossip. Were you referring to something else when you included the word "gossip" in your nomination? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because I actually read the article, where it says "Donahue claimed he had a four year affair with Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, the wife of the Duke of Windsor, the former King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms, who was born Prince Edward in the 1890s. However, Donahue was notorious for his inventive pranks and rumor-mongering." Which does not make him any more notable than those that harass actual notables nowadays. Again, stick to the words others use, not your interpretation of them.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was using words from the sources, why should I make them up? "No doubt the most famous and notoriously Gay New York archetypal playboy of the 20th century was Jimmy Donahue" is direct from Seattle Gay News as cited in the article, if you are in doubt as to the main thrust of gossip being about his gay antics, I suggest you read the extensive list of them in the SGN article. It sounds like he had a great time of it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you're not reading the Wikipedia article as it stands, as I am. Apology accepted. I understand. Some people weren't raised to treat others with common decency. Keep working on it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to apologise for my upbringing. I'll pass your comments on to my Mother, unfortunately my Father is long dead so I am unable to pass on your feedback for his failures. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (rap) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A book-length treatment generally implies multiple independent reliable sources offline. Wilson's book is reviewed by Kirkus and Cahners at Amazon. Neither reviewer likes the book, but the book itself is entirely about the subject's relationship with the demi-royal couple. St. Martin's is not self-publishing. IMHO, the Hingham and Wilson books put this past GNG. Subject may be tawdry, but he's verifiable and notable. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A third relist is exceptional, but I couldn't think of a good way to close this; is this person really notable? Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evaluate- NYT paywall obit [28]. Dru of Id (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Times obit, which corroborates notability, and per BusterD's cogent argument re the published book-length biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of a book-length biography is normally notable, and there's a bit more material to corroborate (obits don't necessarily prove notability, but they can help). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination misrepresents our
    notability guideline which has nothing to do with the worth or respectability of the subject; it's just a matter of notice and sources which this subject has in abundance. Warden (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There does not seem to be a clear consensus for what to do, but further discussion on a possible merge or redirect can and should take place on the article's talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Thomassen (journalist)

Carsten Thomassen (journalist) (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)

A non-notable journalist who was killed in a much publicized terror attack which targeted the Norwegian foreign minister. Article is heavily bloated with circumstantial prose, but strip away all that is not focused directly on Thomassen and we're left with very little. Nomination is a follow-up on

talk) 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, I didn't see 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack, I think a merge would be a good alternative if the article isn't keepable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge. If he was "very much" the "poster boy" for the event, it would seem he gained a certain amount of posthumous notoriety. Marikafragen (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Whether or not this article is badly written is beside the point, the journalist himself seems notable and the ending piece about the statue/monument being put up in his honor is definitely note-worthy. The link to that article is broken, however, and the writer of the article should be made aware of this. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a library, not a statue/monument, and it's a school library for a school paid for mostly by the Norwegian government. Which makes this even more look like spin to me. According to additional sources Norway is helping finance more than 100 schools elsewhere i Afghanistan. I'm adding additional references about this in Norwegian where the Afghan minister of education states that Thomassen was a great journalist, in front of the Norwegian foreign minister. This is all going to remain thinly varnished spin if we're unable to document that Thomassen was indeed a great journalist. I've added an archive link to the broken reference. __
    talk) 14:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: I have yet to see any reason why this article should not be deleted. --Sywoofer (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Since I've not actually voted, I now think the best course would be to merge the ample material with reliable sources to 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack. In future years if Thomassen continues to be an important figure, the original article could be recreated. Deleting is perverse, as good, well-sourced content could be saved by a merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Bailey

AfDs for this article:
Ramon Bailey (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)

Declined speedy deletion under

WP:NSPORT not having played in a fully pro league remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dungur. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Sheba's Palace

AfDs for this article:
Queen of Sheba's Palace (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 one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia, if not the worst and I'm suprised it hasn't been deleted by now. It claims that the structure was built in 1000 BC, which is ridiculous as the Aksumite civilisation (which the building is clearly from) didn't come into existence for over another thousand years. It also claims this was the palace of the Queen of Sheba, which has no basis in fact and is no more than local folklore. The References are not credible either, the first and third ones being especialy bad. A more accurate article with credible sources exists here: Dungur EmperorOfSiberia (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Uhlmann (media executive)

Robert Uhlmann (media executive) (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)

Appears to fail

WP:BIO - while there are a great number of references used, they are either not reliable, or appear to be passing mentions. I have checked factiva, google news and books and am unable to find any suitable sources. (His father seems more notable, but even he doesn't appear to satisfy BIO). SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really can't make a better argument than SmartSE, she's ....smart.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The End Is Where We Begin (Thousand Foot Krutch album)

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

independently released album from notable band,

WP:NOTINHERITED

all major sales from itunes (only sold directly via kickstarter), no charts. (Itunes sales "charts" are not charts for the purpose of inherent notability)

in

WP:BEFORE
, found two possible redeeming sources

http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/04/12/review-thousand-foot-krutch-the-end-is-where-we-begin/

Nice detailed review, but its a blog, and does not meet notability criteria imo.

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3524087

Nice reliable source, but very local, and is a "local boys make good" story, mostly about the band, with a few sentences about the new album being released without a label.

did google and gnews search using The End Is Where We Begin -"Our Lady Peace" as criteria (Our Lady Peace apparently also released an album with the same name previously) Article was prodded, and endorsed, with prod removed by creator. I decided to let it sit until release to see if any significant buzz happened, but I don't see it. (Was released May 8 in Canada, April 17 in US)

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, my bad, I forgot that I had previously nominated this for deletion and it was kept. I would not have done it again had I remembered, but since I have, and I still hold to my logic above, I will not withdraw at this time, but let it ride out. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For fairness sake, here are the 3 links provided by others in the previous discussion

The first 2 clearly do not count as only being database/track listings. the third is a brief album announcement from a non reliable blog. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An album does not have to be released on a major label (or score a chart position) to be notable. If the band that released it is notable, and its existence and track listing and release date can be properly referenced to
    reliable sources, then the album is notable enough. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not debating the notability of this particular album as it is clear the way the wind is blowing, but you are completely incorrect in your justification. the notability music guidelines specifically addresses that notability of albums is not inherited from their band. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ronald McDonald. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Lennon

Brad Lennon (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 found no notability per

WP:BIO. He has played Ronald McDonald in commercials since 2007, but he has never received any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What I'm finding is for the Reverend Brad Lennon, not he McBrad Lennon. The only source in the article simply lists his as being Ronald McDonald from 2007 on, which falls short of significant coverage, and is IMDB to boot. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list at Ronald McDonald#Actors. Even with hs being "Ronald" (or maybe because of it), this fellow has not any impact. But as his work can be verified,[29] even if lacking enough coverage for a separate article, we might at least send readers to the one place where this fellow's name has any sort of context. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thought for a minute I'd agree with a redirect, but now I think not.Marikafragen (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you will... but he has no sourcable notability meriting a separate article and redirects are cheap and intended to serve the readers. If the only thing this guy can be sourced for having done is his being Ronald, then those readers who follow the minutae of Ronald McDonald would benefit from being directed to that one place where he is mentioned. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per Schmidt. --joe deckertalk to me 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Apple

Nancy Apple (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 found no notability for this musician. Fails

WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Michig; the Allmusic spot is good enough for me, though obviously it could do with a few more sources to be sure of satisfying
    WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 10:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While a single source isn't the strongest case for notability, it is a reliable source and a true bio. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep More sources would help, but the
    Allmusic coverage is good, plus the source that Michig found demonstrates notability. --sparkl!sm hey! 07:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Popular is not a criteria for inclusion. Fails

BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Three.js

Three.js (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, de-prodded without explanation or this being fixed. Existing 'refs' to project pages or Youtube, no reliable sources establishing notability. A web search turns up more of the same and some blogs. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Three.js is a kind of popular API in rendering 3D graphics in HTML5. It has more than 6000 watchers in GitHub, and some of the experiments in Chrome Experiments also used Three.js. See [30], [31], [32]. Derek LeungLM 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is notability, not popularity, based on reliable secondary sources such as scholarly publications and mainstream press. The idea is that if it is really popular someone will take time to write about it, someone who does not have an interest in it, writing in a publication or format with a degree of editorial control (peer-reviewed or with a editorial policy).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about a popular Javascript API. Why should it be deleted? It is an important topic as it is used a lot for 3D animation in webpages. Llightex (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Popularity is not a criterium for inclusion. Lacks references to coverage in reliable sources per
    WP:GNG.  Sandstein  05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Magazine

Amsterdam Magazine (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)

Article describes a short-lived magazine and its even shorter-lived offshoot. During their brief existence, the only attention received from independent sources (of doubtful reliability - some read like press releases) consists of brief mentions in a marketing magazine and on two local radio/TV stations. Does not meet

WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While short-lived, these two magazines are relevant because they were once among the few English language publications in the Amsterdam area. Furthermore, this entry can/should serve as a cautionary tale from what is an incredibly tough publishing market. The coverage/citation come from Dutch radio + TV stations and do meet Wikipedia's policies concerning reputability. Like many articles on this site, the subject matter isn't significant enough to warrant coverage from the New York Times but it is both highly relevant/important to its niche and the city of Amsterdam. Also: an additional citation has been attached to the article since the deletion tag was placed. Albertheineken (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Albertheineken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Actually, that "additional citation" is a link to YouTube, which is not considered to be a
    WP:NMEDIA. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • As you have only been editing on this one subject, I don't think that you are in a position to say much about the general atmosphere here. As for all those other badly sourced articles out there, you're absolutely right:
    WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As the person arguing that this article should be kept, the onus is on you to find good, independent, reliable sources that show notability. I couldn't, but perhaps you can and if you do, I'll be the first to withdraw the nom (or, if that is not possible any more, to !vote keep). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Hee...I'll have to remember that one. There's no arguing that there seems to be a plethora of editors on Wikipedia that spend all of their time policing the place and tearing things down rather than striving to improve them. Ultimately, it makes the site a rather unpleasant place and will only further discourage newbies (and there was all that hubbub recently about women not wanting to come anywhere near the site) but I digress. I still think you're being altogether too harsh with this article and that you're employing the full extent of Wikipedia's rules to have it deleted. Not every subject can, or will, be able to have rock solid citations and the ones included here, at the very least, are legit sources and not personal blogs, for example. But let me approach this debate from another angle. One problem with trying to find citations for a magazine is that they, in general, don't typically draw much attention from other publications for an obvious reason: other publications are their competitors and they're typically reluctant to draw attention to other contenders for their readerships' eyes (unless they have something negative to report). I took a quick glance at the citations over on the Wikipedia article for Wired, the popular tech magazine. They too read like press releases and many of them are blog posts. I'd say that Wikipedia articles about publications should be given a break, given the nature of competition in publishing/media. Albertheineken (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Not the strongest sourcing, but notability isn't temporary and while short lived, there was enough impact to get some significant coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG the coverage is not in depth, nor significant. if this was such a notable magazine I think we would find at least a large amount of Dutch coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the citations again. There are five citations from outside sources based in the Netherlands. Albertheineken (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn, default to keep. Deryck C. 21:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel national student and youth council

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

Author removed PROD tag. I was unable to find any reliable sources about the organization, although I did find some passing mentions of statements by then. I will withdraw this AfD if sources are found, but unfortunately I could not find sources.

csdnew 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - exceptional claims (of a membership of 700,000) require extraordinary evidence. None exists. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article created by a
    WP:N. Pmedema (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for a lack of ability to verify any of the information. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverified. Is there anything on this in Hebrew, perhaps? If so, I might reconsider. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps stub it. I added the interwiki and website to the page. It's for real, surprised me too, a national student council body recognized by the Ministry of Education. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep prominent and influential Israeli youth organization. I've significantly expanded the article as well and would be adding more sources soon. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep – this might not seem so obvious to non-Israelis, but this is a well known student council here. It is the national student council of high school students. Seems inherently notable. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is well-known doesn't mean it is automatically notable. Reliable sources must prove so and thankfully some have been found.
csdnew 04:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Superstore

AfDs for this article:
Motorcycle Superstore (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)
How does this nomination differ from the first one? Are you asserting it doesn't meet notability guidelines? This isn't a directory per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. tedder (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The article does not meet the spirit of
WP:MILL. I don't want WP to be a business directory and I want editors to build up actual encyclopaedia articles not turning WP into a free advertising service. The inclusionists who hover around here are not seeing the bigger picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since previous AfD three months ago. Proposer offers no reason why that decision was incorrect or should be revisited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per the following sources, comprised of significant coverage about the topic:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still run of the mill. There are thousands of internet retailers exactly like this one. The only significant coverage has been limited to industry insider trade journals, notable for credulously parroting company PR, e.g. "Bad reviews travels fast online: Motorcycle Superstore seeks to nip 'em the bud". That is not actual journalism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rather than rehashing the previous AFD, suffice it to say that a look there offers plenty of links and rationale that justify inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The point of
    censorship. Warden (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I disagree. IMO, the point of
WP:MILL demonstrates. This one's blue, that one's purple, that one's green - no fundamental differences. Google search results for "internet motorcycle accessories" puts it 4th, after the sponsored links (where it's 3rd), but Google rank can change rapidly. I tend more towards inclusionism than exclusionism, but I have to question: why does this particular internet retailer stand out among its peers? Because I don't really see evidence of it on the page. Weak deleteMarikafragen (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Savages

Friendly Savages (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 band has not been signed to any record label and there is no notable work done by them Yasht101 23:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The Austin Chronicle item is not an article, it's an event announcement. The event seems to have rolled off the calendar, but it's not even clear that the Chrionicle are the ones who have applied the label "Austin's Newest folk rock buzz band" as the event copy seems to come from the event promoters based on what I can see in the current event list. Belmont Vision, Inside Vandy and Ethos are all college student publications and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_April_19&oldid=1142636251"