Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant advertisement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk hotel (software)

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

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

hard to find notable sources on this product. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree but we should give the page creator a chance as there does seem to me reasonable grounds for eligibility. Certainly not a job for a speedy.

talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete- I CSD'd this (and I do think it's a valid CSD case, but it's a moot point now anyway) and the article creator removed the CSD tag (against policy). I won't bother to put the CSD tag back, but if a random admin happens to pass this page, and wants to preempt the AfD by doing a speedy, they'll get no trouts from me. As for the reasoning: it's spam (even if it's not very good spam) at this point. Unless there's 3rd party coverage, it's non-notable. I looked and I couldn't find anything either. Non-notable software product. Fails
  WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 11:19, 8 February 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bilquis Sheikh

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

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

declined speedy on the grounds that a book was published about her. Book is an autobiography which was cowritten by the subject, that is not an RS. gnews finds 0 hits on her. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her life and work were noted by many Christian publications, it is in my opinion a very interesting story. The content of our article is fixable/verifiable. --
  Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• withdrawn based on the additional references and expansion done by cindamuse.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 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 or merge. The eventual outcome for this article should be determined by editing consensus (a consensus which doesn't seem to have developed in this discussion); it seems unlikely that deletion tools should be used however. Might I suggest that the discussion continue on the talk page, perhaps in the form of an RFC? henrik•talk 10:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

This page is a recreation of content removed (with the agreement of the majority of editors) from Foreign relations of South Sudan. See Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for the full discussion of why this content is seen to be misleading and unencyclopedic.
In summary, South Sudan's independence is uncontroversial and so its international recognition is not notable (it cannot be compared to International recognition of Kosovo for example), especially because every country in the world recognised it when it was unanimously admitted to the United Nations.
Some countries have published welcoming statements or more formal recognition documents, but these are not necessary for diplomatic recognition to take place. This article just lists those countries that have published some sort of statement on the Internet (directly or via a news report), that we have been able to find. There are lots of missing countries, which makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is, with all countries recognising it. The list of recognition dates here is therefore misleading and unnecessary.
The details of diplomatic recognition dates are notable, but are a duplication of the data given in Foreign relations of South Sudan, and so also unnecessary in this article.
Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content was removed without consensus from

here) and was now put here as compromise. The content is notable, encyclopedic and sourced. Utilized sources are from MFAs around the world or news reports about official diplomatic acts of various governments. We have such lists for other cases elsewhere (such as here) and such lists of diplomatic recognitions (and relations) are kept on official MFA websites [3], [4], [5]

, etc.

Nobody claims that South Sudan independence is controversial - on the contrary, this is clearly stated in the article: "South Sudan was admitted in the UN on 14 July 2011 without a vote[6] or objections risen by its members.[7][8]", "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."

We - Bazonka and the other editors involved in this dispute - are editors contributing to many of the articles related to the List of states with limited recognition (such as Kosovo mentioned by Bazonka) - and that's why there is such inclination to "count recognitions" and to assume that "unless a source for recognition by X is found it's assumed that X supports the opposing-claimant position, e.g. Serbia against Kosovo, etc.". The case here is different. South Sudan is not like Kosovo, it's like Montenegro, where we also keep list of diplomatic recognitions.

Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. It's different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections, "warm welcome in the international community", etc.) such as "lack of objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of X". South Sudan has 100% "obvious recognitions" (as far as we know - no sources show any objections) and less-than-100% diplomatic recognitions - just like most (all?) states around the world, who also don't have 100% diplomatic recognitions. See the sources provided above.

The list here is just like similar lists MFAs around the world publish for their states or like similar lists elsewhere in Wikipedia. The notion that "diplomatic recognition is irrelevant" contradicts the fact that this act of foreign policy is conducted by governments around the world, published on MFA websites and reported by news agencies. All of them find it relevant, but few people around don't, because they personally aren't interested in it since South Sudan doesn't have a "recognition problem" and they are only interested in cases like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. "states with limited recognition".

"There are lots of missing countries" - Bazonka, if you have a source for some missing country, let's add it. This isn't a reason to delete all that aren't missing. Same for the claim against the quality of some sources - if a particular source is found to be not useful, by Bazonka or others, let's remove it. This isn't a reason to delete all others.

"makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is" - in the eyes of editors accustomed to Kosovo maybe, but the same list on the Montenegro article doesn't do that for the general reader (and editors there). My personal opinion is that on the contrary - having so many explicit diplomatic recognitions in so short period of time (compare with the MFA sources I gave above - other countries required much more time to get to such numbers) shows how big acceptance and importance South Sudan was given by the international community. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  FORK. Nightw 22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If there are "random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" .." instead of dates of "diplomatic recognition" those specific items should be removed. But diplomatic recognition is of course notable and encyclopedic - see links to MFA lists I gave above. Wikipedia also has other such lists - see my comments above. It's not a fork, but an unfinished split at most. And if you stop claiming false consensus I won't object to restore/merge it back. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per, well, previous consensus really. It's a misleading article. CMD (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The linked discussion is from August 2011 about merge of two articles. The result was [6] kept until November 2011 when Night w deleted the notable sourced information falsely claiming consensus, when there wasn't such. Few edits afterwards I restored the content with the discussion on the talk page continuing to the present day. The current new page was created as compromise (see here) so that the other article doesn't become too long. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I objected to its speedy deletion because there is likely to be someone who objects to its deletion, and it did not qualify under
  POV fork. In my experience, unless lots of people watch spin-off articles, they tend to decay into random tables, often pushing one party's point of view. If a few editors can agree to "adopt" this article, I would not object to its being kept. Otherwise, I am leaning towards deletion of it for that reason. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The problem is that the consensus decision to merge was "hijacked" by few editors pushing to delete notable sourced information instead of merging it. They have done this months after the merge was fully completed, but are persistent in deleting without consensus. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If that isn't successful, merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or restore relevant column of [7]. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also the previous discussion about a similar page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan. Current AfD noted to editors who haven't yet expressed opinion above. Japinderum (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Japinderum (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or keep. In the case of newly independent countries (compare Foreign relations of Montenegro), the order and timestamp of recognition is relevant even in non-Kosovo cases. I see no reason to delete this content. —Nightstallion 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/ Merge It is a useful encyclopaedic list of information. It could however be merged into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". After reading through this AfD, I have not seen any compelling reasons to delete this content. IJA (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, the reason is that all countries have recognised South Sudan already. This is therefore not a "list of countries that have recognised"; it is a "list of countries that have released statements about South Sudan that have been published on the internet that we've been able to find". It's meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a list of explicit official diplomatic recognition foreign policy acts. This is different from the "obvious recognition by all" (deduced from UN admission without objections or welcome statements) that you refer to. About the "that we've been able to find" part - included in the article are all presently known sources - if you have more - let's add those, but there is no reason to delete what we already have. Japinderum (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/ Merge This is very encyclopedic and useful list. Keep per IJA and Nightstallion. Sure, it doesnt matter should be have separate article or not, i even prefer merge into Foreign relations of South Sudan, but this list should definitively be kept. Every new nation or state should have this list on wiki, if you ask me.. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I say keep as this was an important international event. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rationale To further expand on Bazonka's opening above, there's nothing at all notable about countries recognising South Sudan. Notable was Sudan's assertion that it would be the first country to recognise South Sudan. Notable also was the speed at which South Sudan entered the international community, joining the UN within days of independence.

Japinderum has been trying to create a distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country. While one statement may be relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries (although in many cases I doubt it's important at all), a list made from a mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet is not encyclopaedic or useful. South Sudan isn't in a situation where it need to go around seeking recognition, like Kosovo. Neither is it in a situation where although it is in the international community it is still legally unrecognised by some, like Israel. Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan. By creating a list of recognitions, we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan, and with this implying those on the list haven't. This is made even worse by the map, which shows countries which have granted "recognition and diplomatic relations", those who have merely granted "recognition", and of course the others, in grey.

Since 14 July, and very arguably since 9 July, South Sudan has been a fully recognised state. The Chronology of diplomatic relations is found on the main foreign relations page. The Chronology of recognitions is misleading and unnotable, and based on disparate internet sources. All the notable moments of recognition will go perfectly well on the main Foreign Relations page too. This article implies that countries not on the list, and grey on the map, do not recognise South Sudan, and implies all the baggage that goes with that. This article is a great disservice to readers not up to the level of political nuance Japinerdum seems to be trying to employ. CMD (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the act of diplomatic recognition is "relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries". That's why governments do it, MFAs keep such lists and news agencies report it.

CMD continues to avoid the issue - I don't speak about "distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country". I speak about distinction between the explicit official foreign relations act of diplomatic recognition and the "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections), "welcome notes" and similar notions he refers to.

"mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet" - again, it's fine if you object usage of a particular "bad" source, but requesting deletion of all sources (most of which aren't contributing to a "mishmash") isn't.

"Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan." (e.g. "obvious recognition") - the same for Montenegro or Croatia, but this doesn't diminish the importance of the acts of diplomatic recognition, and because of this importance for foreign relations their MFAs (and others) keep lists of the official recognitions (see above).

"we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan" - no, we're telling that the countries on the list have taken the explicit official act of diplomatic recognition

"with this implying those [not] on the list haven't." - no we're not implying anything. Just as we're not implying such thing on the Montenegro list and the MFAs I linked above aren't implying such thing on their websites. On the contrary - it's clearly stated that "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."

"diplomatic recognition" and "obvious recognition"/"lack of objections" are different. Lack of diplomatic recognition may be assumed to be (mistakenly or not) for lack of obvious recognition/presence of objections only for problematic cases/states with limited recognition like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. and it seems some editors, who are accustomed to working on those problematic articles try to apply that logic here.

Actually, removing the diplomatic recognitions (~115) from the list makes South Sudan appear "bare" and "less accepted, than it really is", because it leaves listed only the cases that already reached the next step, diplomatic relations (~40), which is much lower. Japinderum (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recognitions we found were basically statements on websites, hardly amazing acts of foreign relations. Again, you're trying to use an extremely nuanced point here, but one I feel readers will fail to grasp and one which I don't think your sources substantiate.

As for the implications, their being recognised is exactly what we're implying, and I'm not just assuming this. In the past, many users have come from the Montenegro and Croatia pages trying to have them added onto the List of states with limited recognition.

You've provided no sources which show the difference between what you call "obvious recognition" and "diplomatic recognition". I would argue that Israel has obvious recognition from the states around it (it's quite hard to ignore), but it clearly doesn't have diplomatic recognition from all of them.

Removing diplomatic recognitions doesn't make it less bare. It makes it as bare as perhaps France, or Canada, which I'm sure you agree are fully accepted. Or Bhutan, if you want an example of a state with few diplomatic missions. Bhutan's diplomacy is indeed bare, but we're not going around saying how it is only recognised by this many countries.

In the end, if you have a map showing countries that have recognised South Sudan, it's only common sense that those not coloured haven't recognised it. And that is wrong. CMD (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The acceptable sources are government/MFA statements about diplomatic recognition and news reports about those. If some sources are of the kind "welcome note" this is a different thing and shouldn't be utilized. I think that's clear.

As you can see Montenegro or Croatia aren't added to the List of states with limited recognition. Somebody may "request" such a thing, but it doesn't go trough. Same for South Sudan. If you think that somebody could still mistaken obvious and diplomatic recognition or think that South Sudan has a recognition problem like Kosovo - let's add an additional clarification - it's that simple. Same for the map - it's is about diplomatic recognitions and relations, not about obvious recognitions.

What about Israel? It's quite clear - we have sources for countries that made explicit statements about NOT recognizing it as state at all, so they give it neither "obvious" nor diplomatic recognition.

Also, any source about the act of diplomatic recognition, especially after previous UN admission without objections shows the difference between "your" obvious recognition and "mine" diplomatic recognition. The MFA links I gave above are full of recognition dates after the UN admission date.

Not showing the diplomatic recognitions (and their dates) deprives the reader from getting the chronology picture. South Sudan gathered so many diplomatic recognitions in such a short period of time. This is seen in the chronology and wouldn't be seen otherwise. Compare this number/period to Montenegro's for example. Japinderum (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources at all make your point about differences in recognition, not without some synth or OR. You haven't defined what you call "obvious recognition" yourself, let alone back it up with any source. The MFA links above give no context as to what they mean. They do however provide a nice source for those countries, so it may be important to them. None have yet been provided with South Sudan, and its quite easy to see that the Yugoslav MFAs are in the minority in regards to keeping a list. CMD (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources clearly show UN members, who list the recognitions on their MFA websites and some of those recognition dates are years after the UN admission. You can see also the US source that wasn't provided by me. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 out of how many? Also, the US source is about their recognitions, not about when they are recognised. The modern ones I checked, including South Sudan, didn't note the countries recognised the USA. CMD (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are examples of lists kept on website. You can find many more examples of MFAs announcing diplomatic recognition of individual states, including in the current article. The US source is an example of the notability a government puts in diplomatic recognition - contrary to "it's irrelevant, when it's obvious". Also, the US source includes dates not only for when the USA recognized another country, but also for the cases where the USA was recognized by another country (check Spain, France, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note I said "the modern ones". Spain and France are older than the USA, back in the day before international politics became structured and formalised. The US government may keep stuff for red tape purposes, but this conversation still lacks any source which notes the importance of diplomatic recognition in Montenegro like situations. I'm sure there are some, as your argument has valid points, but the way this page is presented is still inherently misleading. CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few states are older than the USA (it's the first colony to become independent), that's why most of the recognitions are of USA recognizing X instead of X recognizing USA. Exactly for Montenegro-like situations we have a source - the Montenegro MFA itself![8] And for South Sudan too - for receiving diplomatic recognitions after its UN admission. As said already - I don't object adding some further clarification notes. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which makes it a very bad example for modern states. When this is merged or kept, we can work on clarification notes. CMD (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Ron 1987 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge Redundant
  fork of Foreign relations of South Sudan, but has some encyclopedic information worth keeping. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A record of dipolomatic recogniton for any state is notable, the US state department web page keeps a record of its own diplomatic recognitions for example.XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Link? CMD (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found here, it is complete for all current states though some extinct states are lacking on the page. [[9]]

• Keep or Merge --Avala (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. Relevant information with encyclopedic value that should remain, but not in a stand-alone article per rationale of nom.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. It's a rehash of the information in the Foreign Relations article, but a rehash that's been greatly appended and updated, so merging it back ("de-forking?") would also address any issues of incompleteness one might have with that article as well. ChristopherGregory (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable Th order is important (as som were at first reluctant). Furthermore all states havent done so yet. Or a transcluded template can go on the redirectd page.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Seems like a decent compromise solution to me. I don't think this information is terribly useful, but it might be a good reference for someone else. I'm just happy to have it off the Foreign relations of South Sudan page, where it was creating a mess. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The main argument for keeping, as I see it, is the list of recognition dates. However, Wikipedia is not a place to store raw data. Encyclopedic content (all of the article's seven cohesive sentences concerning universal recognition and admission to the UN) is already present in
  WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (point 3) applies to everything else straight on. Whatever happens, just don't stuff this huge thing into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". --illythr (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, albeit weakly per XavierGreen and Kudzu1. James F. (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dufo (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per XavierGreen. This is a standard entry for any encyclopedia, much like Relations pages. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point that all countries have recognised South Sudan following it's unanimous admittance to the UN. All we're reporting is those who have published pleasantries on the internet. This is absolutely meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Again - if some source is about "pleasantries" it should be removed. The encyclopedic content here is the list of "diplomatic recognitions" - a foreign policy act different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objection, pleasantries and welcome notes, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that is needed for diplomatic recognition is some form of diplomatic activity in which the two states or polities recognize each other as soveriegn peers. A treaty, diplomatic note, or simply the accreditation of a diplomatic agent is all that is needed to establish diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it could be anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity. Outback the koala (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does voting to accept it as a UN member count, considering that shows clear recognition the other is a equal, valid, and sovereign entity? CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the situtation, yes. However in this case, as stated in the second paragraph of the article; there was no vote. Maybe we could clarify this in the opening paragraph to explain that these are explicit recognition? Wouldn't that cover it? I just don't see a need to delete this article. Outback the koala (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no vote because they joined through acclamation, which is equivalent to an unanimous vote. The UN only votes if it needs to (which surprises me, with the bureaucracy of the UN and everything). CMD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, I (and sources I can provide if you insist) don't agree with your view of the UN as "sovereignty gatekeeper". It's just an intergovernmental organization, a politically important one, but without any such powers given to it by its members.

The UN admission without objections shows us the "obvious recognition". As shown in the sources - UN admission is not correlated with the issuance of diplomatic recognitions by individual states - such are issued both before and after the UN admission. And this is not only for South Sudan, this is the common practice as you can see from the sources for other states too. Governments around the world find these acts notable, but a few editors here argue that they aren't. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Both before and after South Sudan admission to the UN many states have issued official explicit statements about its diplomatic recognition and some have established diplomatic relations with it." - that's the next sentence - I propose we tweak it additionally (and/or change the existing footnote "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit official unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement doesn't necessarily mean the state has objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party. South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."), so that any CMD concers about "implying SS doesn't have obvious recognition from everybody" are addressed. I think the explicit and not one of the states with limited recognition are sufficient, but I'm OK with further tweaks to the text. Japinderum (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japinderum, that was a question addressed specifically to Outbacks note about "anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity". It had nothing to do with statements of explicit recognition, and nothing to do with the UN being a sovereignty gatekeeper, and so your post has completely missed the point of my question to them. CMD (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan since South Sudan is a large and new country in the world. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to

TDL (talk) 23:15, 12 February 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 Seneca, South Carolina. Wifione ^Message 05:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. N. Kellett Elementary School

J. N. Kellett Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

School, now de-commisioned (so unlikely to generate much in the way of new news), through grade 5. Appears to be run-of-the mill, but for the fact that it was closed. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Nominated for AfD half a decade ago, and kept under what appear to have been standards different than those applied at wp today.Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect as per Spyder_Monkey. - Jorgath (talk) 22:04, 14 February 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) Bmusician 03:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices

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

)

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

This article appears to be a kind of glossary of eurospeak. Fairly clear violation of

• Keep We need a better title, but I think it is nonetheless sufficient important as an auxiliary aid in understand the articles in the encyclopedia to be kept here somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no rule against glossaries on Wikipedia; in fact, they are specifically recognized as a legitimate variety of list. See
  MOS:LIST#List articles, as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries (currently undergoing a revision). Although not currently titled as such, this article is a useful list, mainly populated by (and providing concise and helpful explanations of) blue-linked terms. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. My $0.05: the article can be useuful for quickly findig relevant articles on the European Union. I'd use the following rule of thumb; anything that is factual, informative and helps readers quickly find what they are looking for should usually not fall foul of Wikipedia house rules. --Grimne (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 February 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. henrik•talk 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Buckle

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

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

Just as with first nomination,

• Delete Hasn't produced enough work of note to pass
  WP:BLP1E applies. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per media coverage.
  WP:BLP1E is a vague reason for deletion in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep His awarded works as producer and director are enough for me to pass WP:ANYBIO#1. Cavarrone (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Yunshui. Not notable as a filmmaker, the other matter already has its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reading over
  WP:VICTIM and that matter is handled elsewhere.--MLKLewis (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per MLKLewis. - Jorgath (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP1E is a "vague reason" to delete? Err, that is a black-letter notability guideline, and failure to meet its requirements is a solid reason to delete. As far as the subject putatively passing WP:ANYBIO, what about honorable mentions at minor film festivals constitute "a well-known and significant award or honor?" Perhaps we can revisit Buckle should he win a genuinely significant award such as an Academy Award, a BAFTA, an Emmy or receive notice at a major film festival such as Cannes, Sundance, Venice or Berlin. Ravenswing 08:41, 15 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arlo Jackson

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

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

Not a

• Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in
  WP:MUSIC at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

FURTHERMORE IT WAS FOOLISH OF YOU TO TAKE THIS ACTION. THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.118.146 (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - You'd a lot more persuasive if you backed up your claims with proof, with
    calling people foolish... Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Partly per nom. Partly because it appears to be an autobiography as well (not a reason in and of itself, but rarely a good sign), and lacks any independent sources. While we're at it, we might want to put up one of those "this is not a vote" templates in the event that we get some more "interesting" comments like the above.Tyrenon (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not demonstrated in any way that relates to WP
  WP:FOUR) 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Lack of third party coverage. Doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete per the fact that he doesn't meet
  (talk? contribs?) 22:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article will be deleted if User:Coryburnell confirms his identity, per the standard treatment of "no consensus" AfDs in which the subject requests deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Burnell

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

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

The subject is borderline notable, if notable at all. The only secondary source which appears to be about him is no longer accessible. Various single-purpose editors have deleted his only noteworthy activities: his well-sourced participation in two separatist groups. I'm guessing the subject now finds these past activities embarrassing. Rather than continue to tussle over the bio it seems like it'd be simpler to just delete it. The subject would still be mentioned as a co-founder of a notable group, Christian Exodus, but his other activities, like starting a meet-up group, are not noteworthy enough for a standalone biography or even worth a redirect.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is not the way to resolve content disputes. Burnell has obviously received significant coverage in news sources - a simple gnews check reveals numerous articles, such as Christian movement moving in from USA Today. StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many crappy refs, but there's gold amidst the dross; between the Seattle Times and USA Today articles there's a clear pass of
  WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Subject disputes accuracy of secondary sources. Nothing's notable other than founding of Christian Exodus and subject is referenced as such on that page, consequently this article is redundant from a notability stand point and should be deleted. Anteater21 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence at all that the "subject disputes the accuracy of secondary sources"? StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that question. I'm not aware of the subject himself making any statements about this material. Some editors have objected, but none have identified themselves as the subject.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know Cory Burnell and will tell him to post here. Anteater21 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A content dispute is not ground for deletion. Three solid sources (Seattle Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal) establish notability. What we need to be discussing is why several statements that are well-referenced continue to be deleted from this article, and what should be done about it. I propose that this page be protected. If the subject disputes something in the article that others can substantiate with reliable sources, he should handle it through
  WP:BLP. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it seems reasonable to relist in anticipation of possible comments of the subject to which Anteater21 refers. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've emailed Anteater21 to let him know the discussion has been held open temporarily to allow further comment.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the subject clearly isn't notable. A few 1-segment appearances on TV doesn't qualify anyone as notable or deserving of a listing in this encyclopedia. Turner17 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I direct the Delete proponents to
  WP:GNG, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Burrell is mentioned in significant detail in several reliable sources; done deal. Whether he is now embarrassed by some of his past involvements - as the nom suggests without proffering any evidence of the same - is irrelevant. Whether he disputes the accuracy of the news reports - again, something a Delete proponent alleges without proffering any evidence of the same - is irrelevant. Ravenswing 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Gentlemen, thank you for your involvement in this discussion, and I apologize for its controversy using up your valuable time. My friends have correctly posted that I didn't hold an official post with the Texas League of the South, but my involvement was mistaken as such and that misinformation was then repeated. However, as to being embarrassed about it or any other activities that's simply not the case because there's nothing to be embarrassed about. The Texas League had no sinister or racial motivations that I ever witnessed, but was solely focused on Texas independence - a notion that's gained momentum in recent years. It's unfortunate that misinformation quite easily spreads these days and the League of the South has been a victim of this with perception overwhelming reality... so few people make any effort at truth-seeking beyond perception (and no, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not an objective or credible source LOL :-). I'm sure that's what's given rise to the sensitivity surrounding accuracy with my associations with the Texas League of the South; accuracy being necessary because perception isn't accurate. So as the subject of this article, I'd ask you for two considerations: either 1) please delete the incorrect reference to my holding an official position with the Texas League, or 2) delete the article entirely to end any future controversy. Please contact me if I can provide any further information to keep the record straight. I thank you all in advance and wish you all the best. Coryburnell (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)— Coryburnell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have temporarily removed the

the Response Team at info-enwikimedia.org to confirm your identity (in theory at least, anyone could register an account under the name User:Coryburnell in an attempt to derail this discussion)? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:33, 15 February 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.

Roma (character)

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

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

Unremarkable movie character - no notability outside the films, and no significant coverage found for the individual character. Completely unreferenced. Tried redirecting to the main film article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conservatively merge to
  Don series, the best location for characters featured in more than one of these films to give an overview of them from the entire series. This kind of merger should almost always be done with fictional characters from notable works or series, and we should handle that through normal editing rather than AFD. Roma (character) should probably redirect to Roma, given that there are multiple fictional characters to which that name could apply.

  Note: the nom's description of this as "completely unreferenced" is incorrect (to the extent an article's current state as unreferenced is even relevant here; we are concerned with what is verifiable), as the movies themselves are reliable sources for their own content, provided a description does not veer into interpretive OR. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But the character is quite important aswell as the male lead which is the character don she is the female lead and has notability outside the film and she has been at events as the character and was notable at every event whether it was awards, conferences, premieres or promotions.2.26.14.49 (talk)— 2.26.14.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  I also think that the article should not be deleted it has alot to offer. .Bollywood Fan1 (talk)

  Comment - the above comment was added by 2.26.14.49, not Bollywood Fan1 - this appears to be a single editor trying to pretend to be two. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a few comments were made without being signed in. It's a common newcomer oversight. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree that the article is not in good state and does not have even a single source, hence it looks like it should be deleted. But the creator of the article, if he wants the article to stay, then he has to clean it up and make it match Wikipedia's quality standards, along with many reliable sources. If Bollywood Fan 1 refuses to these, I am sorry for his article :-( ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD is

  alternatives to deletion such as merging which don't require compulsive processes anyway but can be done by any editor. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  ok i will clean it up but can you please just leave the article up because i am trying to clean it up and get sources and pictures so please leave it up and i will clean it up Bollywood Fan1

  You better do it fast. By the way, sign your posts using 4tildes. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  By "4tildes", he means this: "~~~~" (upper left area of your keyboard). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:19, 7 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truveris

Truveris (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 and no real asertion of notability. A few refs confirms that it exists but none give it any claim for notability. Looks like a back-office type software provider. Quite big, but size doesn't count for anything on Wikipeia  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:
  Businesswire (in the article) seems to be one, another can be StartupGazette's Truveris Raises $3.8M in First Round of Venture Funding (though it seems to address the same event). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Delete per SL93. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Businesswire regurgitates press releases. Most of StartupGazette's content is the same press release. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a news source has things like "About company name" (this press release has it in 4 places), has mostly quotes from the company, is filled with promotional language, and has no author listed with only contact information for the company, it is a press release. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  minimal significance; if they hadn't, no one would bother to spam on their behalf. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 9 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Palmer (footballer born 1977)

Steve Palmer (footballer born 1977) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't find any suggestion that this player meets the

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —WFC— 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As above. The leagues he's played in aren't part of the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo (software)

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

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

Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. All offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: article's talk page contains some more reviews which seem to be less related to the copyright holder. But don't count this comment for keep vote: I neither checked those, nor made my own research. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually checked those links: there are 4 more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone), but all come from some obscure sites. I thing it is just not enough, so I vote delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czarkoff, I am obviously biased, but I don't suppose I could put on the scales two mentions by http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ as evidence that Apollo is indeed something that is being talked about and considered? We are not going to be mentioned by the NYT, but we believe we are notable and Wikipedia-worth. Tony Mobily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong keep: Am I allowed to vote, being one of the people behind Apollo? Maybe not, but I would like to make a couple of points. LoudHowie, maybe I am biased (or, definitely) but I don't see Apollo as "minor". Many working in the industry would agree with me. I love Wikipedia and want to keep totally honest. I was open about things in the discussion, and am adding links to the article from the discussion page (I didn't do because I expected others to do it). Plus, I want to highlight that a lot of the reviews from sources that are anything _but_ obscure. Finally, you call the article a "minimal listing of the maker" -- did you see
  Basecamp's entry? What's your take on that, since I didn't see a deletion tag for their article? I am happy to extend the article with more information.Tony Mobily (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Several points: (1) please avoid arguments like
    WP:OTHERSTUFF, (2) sure, you are allowed to vote (you might want to change your comment label above to keep or strong keep), though your vote would be given some less weight, as you are the initial editor of article, (3) if you know of reviewers in reliable sources, please identify them. As you might have seem, I voted above delete, as I failed to find those. Still I would be happy to vote keep if they were in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    (1) Humm ok (2) OK I voted 3) Not sure what makes a reliable source in WP books, but ReadWriteWeb is strong in Europe. Also, TechCrunch mentioned Apollo in an article as an alternative to ProductEve, does that count? http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Tony Mobily (talk) One extra note: if you consider ReadWriteWeb (ranking 1,545 in Alexa) obscure, or The Next Web (ranking 1,487 in Alexa) obscure, or BrightHub (ranking 1,994) obscure, or TripWire (Ranking 954 in India) obscure, then I don't think I stand a chance to get this article to stay -- but I don't think it would be fair and feels like WP:ZEAL to me. Tony Mobily (talk)

    I see no ReadWriteWeb article. The four sources I identified as "more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone)" are BrightHub, TheNextWeb, TripWire and AppStorm. Among them only BrightHub has the editorial oversight, which is a minimum for satisfying

    WP:RS. Am I missing something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Humble apologies, ReadWriteWeb only did a passing mention to Apollo (but well it's there) here http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php OK, so 4 major web sites covered Apollo (the ones mentioned above), and two major ones did a passing mention http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Amongst the 4 ones I consider "major", you only consider BrightHub as noteworthy. The fact that it's talked about, reviewed, etc. does, in my (biased) opinion, make it qualify to stay. Tony Mobily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Per policy passing mentions don't count, but it seems you can relax anyway: this AfD stands for 7 days and have 4 editors' opinions: it is very likely too close as keep if closing admin takes your side or no consensus otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A cursory look at the nom's contributions reveals a streak of
  WP:GNG. If these references need to be put in the article, then a {{refimprove}} tag would be a far better better choice and an AfD. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Could you please specify those sources that are usable for
    WP:GNG purposes? Hope you don't consider Tumblr post as satisfactory reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. I'm tired of deletionism. It really demotivates potential contributors. 79.183.31.138 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: after some more though I conclude that Tony Mobily has the point: though the sources this article has are not as good as one may generally expects, they are discuss the software in depth; though Alexa ratings don't show the quality of sources, they may be taken for the credibility people put in the sources. And in the end this article has a devoted editor who will gradually improve it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:44, 14 February 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. henrik•talk 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuen Wo Road

Yuen Wo Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

prod contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  18:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Delete and merge content into locality or locality-transport article. - Jorgath (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Honestly, I think this cops an A7; never mind that there is no evidence of notability proffered, there is no assertion of notability in the first place. Ravenswing 08:52, 15 February 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.

Marianella Machado

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

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Golothir. On the merits, I have no position at this time, though I may comment on the allegations in the nom. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original rationale from the nom's edit summary reads thus: Not a famous person; information on this page has been used in Wikipedia Copy and Paste Fraud. See

ISBN 978-613-5-78520-3 in Google UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I've asked the nominator to comment here; I can't find the work the ISBN refers to, either through the search link or through Google. Even if the subject used wikipedia to write a book, they can do that if it's properly attributed, and that's not a reason to delete. The non-notability, on the other hand... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Marianella Machado is a Music Encyclopedia topic and therefore considered notable enough for an article. I'm the writer. What copy-and-paste fraud? Pkeets (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; well-established composer with a notable career. Having an article in the
  New Grove -- and she does, by Carmen Helena Téllez -- is certainly evidence of notability. Antandrus (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I did a search for terms, and found a copy of the Wikipedia bio on her Facebook page and also here: Amazon link, which appears to be the ISBN in question. The book and page both credit Wikipedia. I can't see any fraud. Pkeets (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've asked the nom to post additional information here. As to notability... it is a little thin, but news articles and encyclopedia entries are good evidence of at least some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with an entry in another encyclopedia is considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Pkeets (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very much depends on the encyclopedia, I imagine. But in this case, I agree. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I note that she is an accomplished composer, musical and mathematical theoretician, and has many musical and scholarly article works. Moreover, her work has itself been the subject of articles. This is from one of the sources: Some of her scholarly and creative achievements have won awards and recognitions: her dissertation for her Doctor of Musical Arts degree in Composition, "Dihaguara" (1993), a ballet that integrates music, visual art, mathematics, was sponsored by The University Research Council Summer Fellowship, University of Cincinnati (1991); her dissertation for her PhD degree in Hispanic American literature, "Asi en la tierra como en el cielo" (1998), an approach to analysis and creation of poetry from a music theory perspective, won the Taft Foundation Fellowship Award at University of Cincinnati (1997-98); her choral composition, "Trilce, Poem XXXII" (1982), was chosen and recorded in Ukraine by ERMMedia Recording as part of its CD collection, "Master Pieces of the New Era" (2006). Also, two of Marianella Machado's articles, "Reflexiones sobre la relación poesía-música" and "Una interpretación del ritmo poético en Mester de Lejanía de Pedro Lastra," (published by the journal Mapocho, in Chile, 2005 and 2007, respectively) are examples of her interdisciplinary research. Moreover, her musical composition "The Triumph of Love," based on an old Spanish legend, was commissioned and premiered by The Starling Chamber String Orchestra of Cincinnati at the Kennedy Center of Washington D.C. in November 2005. Finally, it is important to mention that Butterfly Triptych, for chamber ensemble, was the subject of a cross-disciplinary research that Marianella Machado undertook with Dr. Dirk Schlingmann (a Professor of Mathematics and Chair of the Eastern Kentucky University, Mathematics and Statistics Department) and Dr. Chris Kulp (a former Assistant Professor of Physics at EKU). The result of this collaborative work was the publication of an article, "Composition and Analysis of Music Using Mathematica," at the journal, "Mathematica in Education and Research" (MIER), in February, 2007; and also the presentation, "Composition and Creation of Music Using Mathematics," for the Roark Lectures Series Award of EKU, in March 2007. Furthermore, she was given the Excellence in Research and Creative Activity Award of EKU for the academic year 2009 - 2010.Marianella Machado's poetry books, "Encuentros Causales" (2006) and "Menudencias" (2001) were published by Authorhouse Publishers in March 2009. "Marianella Machado Biography". American Composers' Forum. Retrieved February 8, 2012. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that she's notable, membership in the ACF is not restricted or audited in any way; it seems that anyone could join and have their biography posted in the member directory. But I see where you're coming from. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that membership does not establish notability. But I think accomplishment (and scholarly reaction to it) does. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

And if you look up her name on U-tube, she has a really neat video of her horse. Actually, she has like three videos. :) Just kidding (about the notability of that, but I did like the video). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Found many references in news, books and google scholar that point to meeting criteria for
  WP:CREATIVE--MLKLewis (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Meets our relevant criteria for notability. Agree that her membership does not factor into that determination.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which goes to show that "notable" is not the same as "famous." Pkeets (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Has an article in Grove; nomination rationale flawed ("not famous"?). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I cannot think of a single precedent in eight years of being a Wikipedian, for seeing someone with an article in the New Grove -- the gold standard for music encyclopedias, in any language -- being deleted at AFD. Speedied sometimes, if the article was just a single line stub, but never AFD'd. Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the nominator hasn't commented since I opened the debate, nor have they edited anywhere, this looks very much like a drive-by tagging. If nothing else, note that no one is recommending deletion, and this will likely be a slam-dunk close as keep. It also puts what could be a serious allegation (copyvio) to bed, seeing as how the AFd tag got people looking into that. Not a total waste of time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the allegation? The book postdates the article, and it looks to be one of those things that presents Wikipedia biographies in book form. It's clearly identified as such in the Amazon description. Pkeets (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, I asked the nom to explain what exactly he was on about, and he never showed up. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I work in IT at Ms. Machado's university and am writing on her behalf, as she is not experienced in such matters. Her point of contention with this article is two-fold. Firstly, information was copied from another source almost verbatim as an article. This article was then published in a paperback "anthology" which cost $40 USD. She was notified about this from colleagues at another institution who questioned the authenticity and quality of such a publication. Additionally, I believe other works of hers have been published in a similar manner originating from this technique. She is concerned that future publications may be rendered using this information in which her likeness and work are used without her knowledge and consent. We are aware that the ISBN is invalid. She has and can provide proof that such a book exists.

Moreover, she argues that she is a private individual and not someone of renown sufficient to warrant that an article be published.

I would be happy to put her in contact directly with anyone wishing to verify these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.50.120 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Within the scope of Wikipedia, there isn't a whole lot we can do once our material has been published - even if this article were to be deleted, such deletion does not revoke the License under which it was originally published. This means that the material could still be used for a book (or whatever), so long as it is correctly attributed to Wikipedia. That said, it's possible that Ms. Machado may wish to pursue recourse against whoever is writing inaccurate books about her, and that falls into areas of law - and Law is one area on which, by rule, we

cannot offer advice. In the context of this debate, a good first step might be to post the correct ISBN here. AFD debates are not indexed by Google and other search engines, so noting the ISBN here will give no free publicity to this individual, if that is your concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

(after edit conflict) You claim that information here was copied from another source almost verbatim. Could you please identify that source? If there is a copyright violation then such content will certainly be removed from Wikipedia. You also say that Ms Machado is a private individual and not someone of renown sufficient to warrant that an article be published. Does this mean that she has also contacted the Oxford University Press to request that her entry in

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

157.89.50.120 writes: "her likeness and work are used without her knowledge and consent." Her likeness? Her work? Where? What is she talking about? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]