Knowledge (XXG)

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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. On reference I'm finding is a single insignificant mention in a directory of ghost towns. No other hits in Google Books or Google search. Several hits on an unrelated site in Colorado. RadioFan (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, article had a valid citation and I've added a history section. Nomination seems to be on no better grounds than "I've never heard of it." Yworo (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The Doukhobor Genealogy Website reference is a bit concerning and appears to be self published, can you expand on how you feel this is a reliable sources and helps establish notability here? Perhaps this would be best merged to West Kootenay where notability is not a concern.--RadioFan (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable award-winning writer and historian. You're a bit quick on the trigger. I had no knowledge of this subject and found this material rather quickly. Yworo (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

comment how do you see this article expanding? If you see this expanding into a detailed multisectioned article based on numerous sources (more than a directory entry in a book and a single map on a geneology website, then great, I look forward to reading the improved article. If not, can we agree on a merge to West Kootenay. --RadioFan (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be counter to the goals of WikiProject Ghost towns, which has a standard outline of how the article should be expanded, including sections on Geography and Demographics. The article does need to be moved to comply with the projects naming guidelines. Length of article is not an issue. Clearly the subject is covered by an in-depth historical sources as the appropriate newspaper article in the series could be added, and there are obviously offline sources that were used by Kalmakoff for his research. Notability has been shown and there is no further need to discuss deleting or merging the article. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Two adequate refs provided, notable enough for me. Let's not use Google as a notability detector here. The Doukhobor element means there is probably even more sources out there than your average ghost town. This could end up expanded, but even if it doesn't, we don't arbitrarily delete/merge stubs. The Interior (Talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Per: Basque Garnet (1982), British Columbia Ghost Town Atlas, Sunfire Publications Limited, , . Knowledge (XXG) also functions as a gazeteer, and this is a useful entry for Knowledge (XXG) to retain. Northamerica1000 02:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Megan and Liz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

For all reasons listed in past deletion debates. They don't meet WP:GNG all of their citations come from social networking sites because of the scarce amount of reliable sources on them. This is a joke of an article. Put it out of it's misery. | _dןǝɥ | 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Haha, they seem to pick up an RS every second AfD. Currently: Oprah appearance, Niles Daily Star, Newsday, Billboard (coverage a result of charting in Billboard's new Social 50 chart). 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Do we really need to go trough this again?.. By the fifth AfD nomination it should stand quite clear that these girls passes WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I was on the fence last time around; given the choice between keeping or deleting, I prefer the former as coverage (cited above by 86.44.31.213) in independent reliable sources does exist for this duo.  Gongshow  05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find much coverage online outside of blogs and primary sources. Pol430 talk to me 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This appears to be a candidate for WP:CSD#A7. I see no evidence that the band meets any of the WP:BAND criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Some genuinely independent coverage, but none from sources of sufficient stature in AfD terms. I expect they'll pick up reviews from more mainstream outlets soon enough. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks substantial RS coverage, and does not otherwise meet our music notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Trademark dilution. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Depreciation of goodwill/dilution in trademark law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be duplicate to Trademark dilution, though I am not an expert. Since the article appears mostly to address the concept in Canadian law a merge may be in order, but I'm listing at AfD to get more input on this. Prodego 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I prodded this article earlier today, and the reasoning still stands "Essay and how-to" in addition to the evidence brought up by Prodego. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 22:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge there is sourced content worth keeping --Guerillero | My Talk 22:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge though the content that is sourced is mainly primary sources, and WP:SYNTH is on the lurk, it could provide valuable material for the other article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into Trademark dilution, which is the nom's second choice. If nobody can do it, then a redirect will save the history. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Article has zero refs. I cannot myself find substantial RS coverage of the magazine. Tagged for zero refs for well over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find anything leading me to believe enough reliable sources exist for this one. —Ed! 17:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular  22:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. 3 years of failing to meet WP:SIGCOV is long enough. If the subject ever becomes notable, the article can always be re-created. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nom and Amatulic.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Barely any reliable refs -- fails WP:GNG. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 05:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Redhot & Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No substantive, independent coverage. TM 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm seeing just enough independent coverage in the gnews hits, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to the independent coverage? Because I just see event announcements, nothing substantive.--TM 15:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• In both gnews hits, the regular google search, I see info re the history of the band, how it is constituted, and its international tours. Note: Remember to check both spellings -- a) with and ampersand, and b) with an "and".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak delete This seems a close one to me. There are plenty of sources mentioning the band, but outside of Yale-affiliated sources, coverage is cursory. —Ed! 17:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment--I'm agnostic leaning towards keep, but whatever the result is, this page should probably redirect to a disambig page that distinguishes between the a capella group (if kept), the Cole Porter musical, and the barbeque chain. Meelar (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular  22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep A significant musical group from a fine university, but perhaps better sources are needed. Maybe the ARS editors will find more sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Reading the article and the sources, I'm fairly convinced that Lembcke is right in his assesment that there might have been no single historical figure that was this Apache. However, as the article stands, his minority position is noted, and the majority of sources all concur with Hathcocks account. That I (or other editors) believe differently is all well and good, but we should edit articles to what the sources are saying. Even if there was no historical sniper Apache, but as Carrite puts it " A story about an urban legend among American troops", then its certainly a notable legend. In the end, finding the truth is not up to us. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Apache (Viet Cong soldier) (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 a Vietnamese. I have been studying about Vietnam war all my life. This is the first time i hear about this name. I have studied about Vietnam war on both USA and Vietnam sources. I'm currently live in America. Anyone with enough knowledge about Vietnam war can tell it's pretty much fake. Perhaps the person who written the book, which is the source used in the article, is someone who really hates Communist so he made up terrible stories to defame something the Communist didn't do. This conversation is not about Communist is bad or not. All i'm saying is this article contains FAKE information. Trongphu (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus another stupid mistake the author made, which make anyone with any knowledge about Vietnam can point it out. If that person indeed Vietnamese why she doesn't has a Vietnamese name? Which confirms strongly that this article is a big lie.Trongphu (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the nickname "Apache" came from U.S. soldiers who didn't know her real name. That makes the subject difficult to verify, which is quite different from being a big lie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The story itself doesn't make sense. There is not a single crazy woman working alone herself torturing Americans. Where are her friends? Where are other Viet cong? It said in the article "she was torturing US Marines and ARVN troops and letting them bleed to death." Sounds like she has captured a lot of US soldiers to me. Plus in the artile "Apache was a female Viet Cong sniper, platoon commander, and interrogator". After read that i can assume that she is some kind of high rank officer in Viet cong. For the sources (the sources themselves made me doubt on their reliable) i have read so far, there is no mention of any other Viet cong except her. Is there an expert about Vietnam war here in English Knowledge (XXG)? Or someone knows a lot about Vietnam war. For the expert, it is easy to tell that the story itself has too much contradiction to be true. References 7 to 9 are from the interview of Carlos Hathcock, who is suppose to be the one that killed her. You can listen to it to confirm. And the The Ultimate Sniper book, which was used in the article as reference. I doubt that Apache is even in the book. It's extremely easy to make things up in this internet era world. You made a website and started to post thing on it and make some random references, knowing that not many people are going to confirm it. And then when people started to read and then got tricked into it and then it got spread around. There are plenty of people out there who really hate the Vietnamese because of whatever happen in the Vietnam war. Propaganda stories, usually FAKE, are common. This article needs to be delete if not then it must have a notable source. Perhaps from NBC news as an example.Trongphu (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the article, she lead a platoon. Nobody said she was crazy, just a sadist.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NBC News? That would be pretty low on the reliablity totem pole in my book. The article has reliable, verifiable sources. This doesn't come from "the Internet", it comes from multiple published sources from major publishing houses. I'd point you to WP:VNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

By using your logic. I can use some random books as my references to write articles on here in Knowledge (XXG). How are people going to find out if i'm lying or not without reading the book? Tell you what with all the my knowledge i have i can proudly say it's fake. Well perhaps it can trick people for a while but not forever. One day, this article will be delete. I don't care if it's a year from now or 10 years from now. Just something as my opinion. HAAA.Trongphu (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG) does not require the use of online sources. And that is a good thing. These are not self-published sources. And the article will only be deleted if it fails on merits - not because you are determined to delete it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not determined nor do i care. My policy of life is just to eliminate lie when i see them. I have no problem with if it happens otherwise. Does it affect me if people are reading fake stuffs?01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep we have 9 verifiable sources including 1 that casts doubt. Trongphu's accusations are the only thing that is false here and completely without merit, which seems to be par for the course with this editor. I certainly do not hate him or anyone else for being a communist any reason.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't accuse people of being communist when you don't know a single thing about me. And don't talking off topic. Are we talking about communist here? It has nothing to do with this discussion.

You were the one going on about a persecution complex about the commies and the North and calling people, liars. Your comment appeared like you were saying I hated communists, I misread it, apologies.

9 verifiable sources? What make you think they are verifiable? Show me some famous sources that i can trust, can you? I can't and won't believe this due to the fact that it's easy to make things up in this time period. Anyone can write books, websites... Do that mean they are right?Trongphu (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see...Penguin Books, Simon and Schuster, Pocket Books, Berkley Books, University of Massachusetts Press...oh, yeah, they're all penny-ante publishers with a reputation for hoax creation, aren't they? Not hardly. Your statement above beggars belief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what Bushranger says. These are reliable sources.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DeleteAs what i said above and this is an obvious propaganda against Vietnam. It's all fake!Trongphu (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You only get 1 vote, old kid.

So what? Stop acting like i care. Who will get the bad reputation for allowing fake articles eventually? And don't be too quick to say you're winning. There are still many more days until the final result. The tide may turn whenever it wants. HAAA.Trongphu (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I struck out this double !vote, written by the nominator. Northamerica1000 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

???? This is my first vote here? What are you talking about? I did not double vote.Trongphu (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your nomination is your vote,phu.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Article is reliably sourced to multiple reliable sources. Nomination is a fairly obvious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Another falsely accusation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT???? I like it or not has nothing to do with me thinking it's FAKE. Don't mix things up together. Plus "multiple reliable sources", oh sound pretty good huh? Do you bother to check if they reliable or not ? Or is it just all make up by some random websites? Anyone can write books, websites these days!Trongphu (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted above: Penguin Books, Simon and Schuster, Pocket Books, Berkley Books, University of Massachusetts Press. Are you saying these are unreliable Internet sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You got messed up the idea. Let say i wrote the book about Vietnam war. And in my book i wrote Nixon is a bastard, who raped all Vietnamese women. In the references all of them except for three, are information from the books. How can we so sure that Apache is really being mentioned in the books? The other three are the interview in youtube, which i don't think he talks about anyone named Apache. This is kind of like a circle reference, created by someone who hates Vietnam, with purpose to trick many people. A lot of people got tricked as i can see.Trongphu (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wrote anything that was ever published in the English language, I would be very impressed. However, you are not a published writer. When you write for outlets such as these, they have these people called editors and fact checkers. A publisher of non-fiction will not remain in business for very long if they publish lies or sloppy facts. For example, there was an author who made a career of that and published things he made up to suit his point of view. He even won a prize for it. However, it was proven within a year that he was a fraud and his work was discredited, he was fired, etc. That has not happened with any of these authors. I have met three of the authors, including Hathcock and see no reason why they would have made up such a story. I was hesitant to work on the article as we do not know her real name, as we do not know most of the names of the 94 viets that Hathcock killed. However, multiple reliable sources talked about this woman's existence, so I helped out. I even added one source that doubts the story to offer balance for folks in denial such as yourself.

I'm not saying i will. I probably won't. I'm not a writer nor do i even think about being a writer. Just made it as an example. Let clear things up, the books were written by people who made them up was just one of many possibilities that could happen. I didn't certainly say that is the case but i said or and perhaps it is. I also listed other possibilities. Ok let me ask you this, have you read the books? To this point, what i'm concerned about is do the authors actually mention Apache in the books? Let say author A wrote a book named B. And then someone else used his book to be a reference on something that is not even in the book.Trongphu (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG) does not require the use of online sources. And that is a good thing. These are not self-published sources. You are showing an alarming lack of good faith, and a distinctly non-neutral point-of-view. What are your sources that the article is untrue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My source is me. I have grown up in Vietnam and currently live in America. Not to brag but i have to say i'm one of the people who have the most neutral view about Vietnam war. I have been exposed to both Vietnam and USA sources and their teaching about Vietnam war ALL MY LIFE. In other word, Well i don't want to call me an expert yet but perhaps i'm an expert on this stuff And as i said above, you're welcome to invite any of experts in Vietnam war to confirm it.Trongphu (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And you are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your additions, phu, would be original research, based on your POV.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't act like you know more about Vietnam war than me. Both my grandparents fount in the Vietnam war, one of them fought for America, the other one is fought for the Communist, believe it or not up to you. I'm proudly to say that i'm the most neutral guy you can get out there about Vietnam war. With my more diversity knowledge than you i can say that you have been brainwashed by the America government and the people who bias toward the North. I bet you have never been in Vietnam. I can bet anything including my life you don't have more neutral view than me. Nice try but this i was born for this.Trongphu (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And you are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not either.Trongphu (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And by the same logic, what make you guarantee that the books are references in the articles do mention about the Apache woman? We both are on the same road here dude except i have better knowledge about this particular topic.Trongphu (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The same way we assume any offline source refers to the subject sourced - by assuming good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Then there are chances that you got tricked and according to me, you indeed got tricked.Trongphu (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Don't think i'm stupid. It's not even close to be a coincidence that you choose this article to keep. You participated in article for deletion once per day. It has about 100 articles everyday. So the chance of you randomly choose this article to participate in is 1%. You banned me once for a stupid reason and yep you still have some kind hatred toward me. I believe you have been "watchlist" me and patiently waiting for a chance to interfere me again. What shall we call this? Discrimination toward your own victim? Perhaps you can win the conversation but so what? It's not like i care. I just take a chance to destroy any lie that i saw. But i have no problem if people don't see them as a lie. Not my business. It's your own English Knowledge (XXG) reputation one day will be ruin by allowing fake articles. No matter what you do, you have no effect on me. Enjoy wasting your time. To me victory is mines in the long run. I have fun doing this, thanks for the entertainment. And also thanks for the reason that you opened my eye for me to see what Knowledge (XXG) is really like.Trongphu (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I don't sit around watching people ready to pounce like a hawk. I saw the article listed on WP:DELMIL, looked over the data, and entered the debate. I participate in AfD discussions that are added to WP:DELMIL and WP:DELAV. Whatever you wish to believe, however, is, of course, your own choice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry perhaps you do. You can trick others but not me. HAAA. Yep i'm believing in it.Trongphu (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - So what is this individual's name? This fails the veracity sniff test. A story about an urban legend among American troops? Something like that... Carrite (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unknown according to the article. They just simply called her Apache. I agreed with you on this perhaps an urban legend among American troops, pretty much fiction.Trongphu (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What was Jack the Ripper's real name?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to compare. Jack the Ripper is the whole lot different than this. I would rather believe Jack incident than this.Trongphu (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is this: there are contemporary newspaper accounts indicating that Jack the Ripper actually existed. There is a vast published literature dealing with the serial killer whom we remember by this name and his crimes. There is no such documentary evidence indicating that this "Apache" ever even existed, outside of the war stories of a sniper and his partner, as published in the commercial press. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Comment - This is clear war propaganda. (1) Title is POV ("Viet Cong" is pejorative). (2) No name of individual supplied of the subject of this "biography". (3) Sourced to first person opinion in a mass market paperback and a video. (4) A platoon commander and an interrogator?!?! Okay, military folk — tell me what's wrong with this picture??? (5) Shooter claims to have "identified it was her" and then shot her. How did he know it was her? More likely scenario: sniper plinked a female soldier and started telling a big story. (6) Atrocity story at end about rats in basket plagiarized from George Orwell's 1984. This is not a legitimate biography. It is a coatrack of implausible stories about what would seem to be a fictional figure. Sourcing sucks. Knowledge (XXG) is not a catalog of war stories about fictional characters. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep! There are no historical figures to confirm = pretty much fake. Perhaps it's not really the book authors who wrote it but the person who wrote this article, has embellished the story to make it more favorable toward Americans. This is the same thing as killing any random woman in the war then made up some cool stories associate with it. Pretty good tools for propaganda.Trongphu (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Either it's an account of a real person, or it's a common enough hoax that it deserves coverage of the sort given to Piltdown Man or Prester John. Both are suitable article topics when there's sufficient sourcing, and there's definitely sufficient sourcing in this case. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is to keep then it should states clear in the article that this account is mostly fictional or embellished by the article author.Trongphu (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Administrator comment I've just blocked Trongphu (talk · contribs) for one week for disruptive and rude comments and collapsed the above debate. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. As stupid and offensive as it is to use "Apache" for any brown person white people disagree with, and as dumb as this racism is which continues to the present day, "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Trongphu's argument, that this article should be deleted because it is insulting to billions of Asian people, is not valid for our purposes, even if it is true — which it may well be. There are about three levels on which this article may be attacked and should be deleted: (1) Failure of GNG for not appearing in multiple, reliable, independent published sources; (2) That it represents coverage of fringe views not present in the scholarly literature on the nature of guerilla patrols and prisoner interrogations conducted by the Vietnamese National Liberation Front during their civil war; (3) That the article represents a fictional or mythologized character from the lurid war stories of an ex-sniper and his partner as an actual person. (more)

To the first point: Is there a single scholarly source independent of the shooter and his partner which indicates that any such person ever existed? A journal article??? A general history or monograph by an academic??? An official military history??? A Vietnamese historical source??? Contemporary journalism from Stars and Stripes or any other publication of the American armed forces??? Show me ONE. Here's what User:Berean Hunter had to say on the talk page of the piece: "Henderson's account may be highly fictionalized because he is producing a huge amount of quoted dialog including supposed dialog on the enemy's side. What do the other sources say?" (17 August 2011). Here's what User:My Public Account had to say on the article's talk page: "What year was the earliest mention of her in books, newspaper, or TV? I have not yet been able to reference my assumption, that she was mentioned in book, before newspaper and TV." (18 August 2011). Here is what User:Into That Darkness had to say on the article's talk page: "I'm very wary of this whole issue simply because she doesn't seem to have been mentioned before Hathcock. Given the volume of Vietnam writing (memoir and historical) I find this odd, especially if she was as infamous as Hathcock makes her sound. Honestly, I think we need something solid prior to 1984." (19 August 2011). User Ønography asked: "Have any first-hand accounts by other persons (than Hathcock) been published? Have any ethnic Vietnamese first-hand accounts about her been published?" to which Into That Darkness answered: "In English, I haven't seen any that don't track back to Hathcock's original story. Can't speak to Vietnamese accounts, though. Sorry." (19 August 2011) So again: this is a sourcing failure and should be deleted on those grounds, in accord with WP:GNG. (more)

Stars & Stripes never published anything on US Sniping until the 1990's, they definitely would not have published anything during Vietnam as it was not a popular war. Do you really expect liberal American campuses to give treatment to such a topic, too?

The following is the preface from Henderson's biography on Hathcock:

"This book is based upon the personal recollections of the participants and upon the official Marine Corps records kept at the Marine Corps Historical Center in Washington, D.C. Operational orders, situation reports, and after action reports provide the historical framework for the story Marine Sniper tells. As for the actions of the enemy, whatever was not observed by American eyes was reconstructed from the evidence found after battle. And in specific instances spectacular windfalls came my way: the notebook of the "Apache woman," in which she kept a record of her day-to-day movements and observations and in which she reports on her encounters with the American enemy, was recovered after her death and lent me by a Marine who was on Hill 55. In a few places I have taken the liberty of inventing dialogue for Hathcock's North Vietnamese and Viet Cong opponents. Those are the only elements in the book that cannot be fully justified by a careful examination of the evidence. Everything else has been made factually accurate to the best of my ability."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear: Henderson was the spotter and Hathcock was the shooter, yes? This alleged "Apache woman" (sic.) never appeared in any literature before this book, correct? This purported notebook resides where? Who translated it? Carrite (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Henderson was the author of 2 bios on Hathcock. Hathcock was the shooter, Jim Burke was his Spotter and Jim Land, then a Captain, was the spotter and signatory on the kill sheet. I do not know the current whereabouts of the notebook nor the translator. I can try to find out via an email to Henderson if you wish. I will be seeing Marcinko next week, possibly Plaster and Sasser as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The following is an email I just received from Mr Henderson: "The notebook in question was loaned to me by a fellow Marine Chief Warrant Officer, Jim Geralds, who was on the Parris Island shooting team when I competed in the Marine Corps Matches at Camp Lejeune. I was competing with rifle and pistol on the Quantico team. We had the Interservice Matches at Quantico that year. At any rate, CWO Geralds was an enlisted Marine based at Hill 55 in Vietnam during the period in which the Apache ran her platoon. He had personally seen some of her handiwork, as had Major Jim Land and others in the 1st Marine Division Scout Sniper School based there then too. Geralds was on patrol and discovered the notebook, dropped near the wire. He pocketed the notebook, wanting a war relic, rather than turning it into the S2 for translation. He did not consider it that important. Then, when some of the words were translated for him, he realized it was the platoon leader’s notebook, and probably belonged to the Apache. The handwriting was feminine. He loaned me the notebook and I had a man named Mr. Nguyen, who worked for the Marine Corps Exchange Services Headquarters at Quantico translate the book. Not a lot of earth-shattering information, mostly notations and locations of troop movements and helicopter sortes. But it did establish with a document that Apache was watching Hill 55 and taking advantage of her opportunities as she saw them. After I retired from the Marine Corps, I took an assignment from LIFE Magazine to go to Saigon and write an article about the 20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Dirck Halstead was my photographer on the job. After we completed work on the assignment for LIFE, we remained in Vietnam and retraced all the major battle sites from the final days of the Vietnam War. This took us from Saigon, overland, zigzagging across Vietnam, from coast to borders with Cambodia and Laos, up to Da Nang and then to Hanoi. While In Saigon, I had two occasions to interview in depth General Tran Van Tra, the Commander in Chief of the Viet Cong and second in command of the North Vietnamese Army. I also interviewed a Colonel Vo Dong Giang, who was a long-time cohort of General Tran. During my interviews with them, which was mostly about the fall of South Vietnam and the NVA victory, in which they were both key players (see my book Goodnight Saigon), I also interviewed them about Carlos Hathcock, Jim Land and others at Hill 55 and the Da Nang area. Colonel Giang had commanded forces there, and the Apache was under his command. Likewise, General Tran was Colonel Giang’s senior commander. Both recalled the Apache to me and offered me their perspectives of her. The name, Apache, was not one with which they were familiar, since it was a name given to the woman by the Marines at 7th Marines and 1st MarDiv. However, they knew her well by the stories that I told them from Marine Sniper. A good deal of the interviews were recorded on Hi-8 video tape that Dirck Halstead has stored and remains unpublished to this day, as well as audio tapes that I have stored and are unpublished. Since they are unpublished, raw tapes, as are my interviews of Carlos Hathcock and others, I do not release those to anyone. I did use the interviews as information resources for the Marine Sniper sequel, Silent Warrior, and I cite the interviews in that book."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To the second point, this is a fringe theory. There is a copious literature on the treatment and interrogation of prisoners of the Vietnamese civil war, by both sides. There is nothing of which I am aware which indicates that NLF platoons incorporated "interrogators" at the unit level. That, in fact, flies in the face of logic. Contending otherwise, as this article does, is a violation of WP:FRINGE — it is a crackpot theory unsubstantiated by evidence. Show me ONE scholarly or official American military or Vietnamese source which contends otherwise. (more)

No, it is a first-hand observation from the point of view of an Infantryman. Who is to say tht the "fringe" is not the naysayers who are denying this?Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

To the third point, that this entire individual is either fictional or mythologized — riddle me this: Why don't we know her name if we know she was "31 years old" (per the info box on the article)? How would the face of a guerilla be identifiable as a specific person through a spotting scope given the technology of 1966, bearing in mind that NLF fighters did not wear insignia? Why would we have not heard propaganda stories of this Most Evil Interrogator who flayed her victims alive and copied a fictional gross out story in George Orwell's 1984 by putting rats in a bag over there heads and letting them chew, chew, chew? What year did this story about this purported interrogator first emerge again? 1984.... That's almost comical in its obviousness — that book had healthy sales in that year, for obvious reasons, those of us who were around then will recall. By presenting a lurid and self-justifying and commercially fruitful war story as factual, Knowledge (XXG) does its readers a disservice. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When you are a Sniper in the Marine Cotps and you log a kill as confirmed; confirmation must be signed off by an Officer who witnesses the kill. In this case that was Land. Furthermore, confirmation of a kill includes a visual inspection of the body. It is for this reason that Sniper's are unofficially a part of the S-2 Shop in addition to HQ. Simply put, she wasn't just shot, they had to get up close to the body write a detailed description and log her in as bagged and tagged. They determined she was VC and her approximate age, among other things.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit to add, 1984 was actually published in 1948. It is not outside the realm of possibility that "Apache" could have read the book and got the idea from there in the 1960s.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Was there a Vietnamese edition that I don't know about? Are you seriously arguing that some NLF combination platoon leader and interrogator (!!!) in the hills of Vietnam read a translation of a gruesome fictional passage from George Orwell and said to herself, "Bwaa, haa haa — that is a splendid idea! We will put rats on the face of the American imperialist aggressors like the torturer O'Brien did to Winston Smith in Chapter 5 of the anti-totalitarian novel 1984 — that will bring about the desired result of gaining troop strength and movement information!" Is it not about 100,000 times more likely that a hack writer (who acknowledges having fabricated dialog in this book) ripped off a scene from Orwell's 1984 in the year 1984, when that book was extensively reprinted? Show me a serious source, ONE SERIOUS SOURCE, outside of this two-decades-after-the-fact war tale, that supports that there was ever any such person. This is the historical equivalent of a cold fusion article... Carrite (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That, I do not know, sir, but I am sure there was a French edition and Indochina was a French colony. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I subscribe to the principle that Wikipedians should be logical and not add obviously false information to articles as fact just because it appears in print somewhere... The editing process should involve a winnowing of chaff from wheat, which has been sadly lacking in this article, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Administrator comment Mike and Carrite, I think that what you're discussing here is beyond the scope of what can be resolved through an AfD. The only possible grounds for deleting this article are that 'Apache' isn't notable (per WP:BIO) or that this topic is an outright hoax invented by a Knowledge (XXG) editor. Without commenting on notability, it's clear that this isn't a hoax which stated on Knowledge (XXG) given that the for and against cases for this person's existence have been made in published sources. As such, I'd suggest that you wait and see what the result of this discussion is, and then use the dispute resolution process to find ways to improve the article if necessary. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're on target there. This is a pretty clear failure of GNG for lack of reliable sources, which is what we're debating here. After that it's a matter of getting a formal ruling on the suitability of using a book in which the author freely admits having inserted fictional dialog as a means of spicing up the book and claims possession of a mythical notebook, of the suitability of using a primary source in the form of a video of the tall tale teller, etc. and then — in the event those sources are tossed out, which they should be given an aggressive pursuit of this process — removing all the material based upon those heavily tainted sources. AT THAT POINT, the gutted article can be dragged back here for another look. This assumes a short-sighted closing administrator that closes this one as a Keep here. The best and simplest thing is for a Delete result to shorten the process. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - The sourcing clearly meets our notability guidelines. There are some strong points raised here about NPOV in the article, but this and similar issues should be dealt with by improving the article, not deleting it. VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Carrite's comments and as poorly sourced information which amounts to fiction/mythology about a war. Edison (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The article currently has a variety of different sources, the so-called hack writersm if you will:

• Charles Henderson, a retired Marine Warant Officer and author of 2 biographies on Hathcock, Marine Sniper and Silent Warrior. He had exclusive access to Hathcock, access to Apache's notebook, and I received an email from him yesterday on this very subject.
• Craig Roberts and Charles Sasser two Vietnam Veterans who operated in the area, both of whom have authored numerous pieces on Vietnam, the USMC, and Sniping. Two of their books are used as sources. Charles W. Sasser has been a full-time freelance writer/journalist/photographer since 1979. He is a veteran of both the U.S. Navy (journalist) and U.S. Army (Special Forces, the Green Berets). He served fourteen years as a police officer (in Miami, Florida, and in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he was a homicide detective). He has taught at universities and lectured nationwide. Roberts was a Marine enlisted man in Vietnam and later became a Lt Colonel in the Army Reserve and was a police officer for 37 years.
• John Plaster retired Army Major and SOG Veteran. Longtime author and authority on Sniping. His video interview with Hathcock is used.
• Richard Marcinko founder of SEAL Team 6, Naval Officer, Vietnam Veteran
• The History Channel made a documentary about this incident.
• Toby Hamden and Joe Nawroski both mentioned Apache in mainstream news articles.
• Jerry Lembcke a sociology professor who demonstrated against the War. He says it is made up, and cites movies that came out after the story was reported as the source.
• HE Jasper used Apache as a basis for a character in a novel.

Would your vote be different if the article had no sourcing at all, Edison? With all due respect, sir, if you think it is "fiction", who exactly are you accusing of making it up? These authors listed above? Hathcock, himself? Then he in turn duped all of these college educated people, including military veterans who served during the same time period, some of whom went on to become policemen. Not bad for an uneducated country boy from Arkansas who was suffering from MS.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to be a personal acquaintance with the author of the fictionalized book (invented dialog) upon which this whole article is based, please ask him if he was successful in attempting to option movie rights. That would be interesting to learn. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The book is not fictionalized, for whatever reason the author chose to create dialouge on the opposing side. As a personal note, it is something I would not do as an author, but I can see why he did it. Mr Henderson has never written any scripts and never sought to make any movies from his works that I know of. I am not a personal acquaintance of Mr Henderson, I have read his books and we both served as Marines, albeit he served a little earlier than I did. I simply knew his email address and asked him a question making him aware of this debate. Hathcock, himself has been the basis for several snipers in movies and television, but nothing has ever been adapted directly from Marine Sniper or Silent Warrior.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw that "The History Channel made a documentary about this purported incident." That's actually the FIRST source towards notability, if true. I'll investigate this further. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Look it up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Carrite (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - The sources are here. From my perspective, it's not our job to decide if this information is "true" or propaganda. We're only here to record what the sources say. The article needs a thorough analysis section where the truthfulness of the statements is matched up to reliable, neutral sources. —Ed! 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Upon further review, based upon existence of the History Channel documentary and the coverage of the "Apache" myth in Jerry Lembcke's book Hanoi Jane: War, Sex & Fantasies of Betrayal, this is a keep. What we have here is a content dispute, a case of misuse of POV sources, presentation of clearly untrue information as fact, minimization of contrary evidence, etc. This is ultimately not a matter for AfD, in my estimation. Debullshitting is a separate process. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Agreed, somewhat, I went ahead and removed the quotes lifted directly from the Plaster interview to make it less "inflammatory" and provided a link to the interview in the external link section, should anyone care to go see it. I should have paid better attention to the other editors while working on it, no excuse, sir.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Per all of Carrite's comments. Caden 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, Obviously not all of his comments, as in his lasr comment he changed to a keep. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I should point out that, even if this is a made-up hoax, it would appear to be a notable hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. "Hoax" implies intent, though, and I don't think that's exactly right. I think instead that this is more apt to be a grossly exaggerated war story which was then puffed up further by an author wanting to "spice things up". It's actually looking to me like a textbook case of myth-creation. Honest people may differ with this assessment. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, for the most part, just to add my own "introspection/original research" to the discussion(not the article): I think this person was an interrogator/intel type as most of the reports claim. My "opinion" is that she was not a sniper. I think she was only called a sniper because when she was killed she was carrying a Mosin-Nagant M91/20 with a 4X PU scope. It would follow that they would document her as a sniper (much the same way the Germans would consider anyone with a "trench knife" as a commando in WW2). My opinion based on small details is she had the rifle and used the scope for "observing". Despite media portrayals of all VC or NVA armed with Kalashnikovs (motion picyure armories have more of those on hand and adapted for firing blanks), in reality most VC used SKS's, Mosins, and older arms left behind by the French (MAS 36's and 49's). After you pointed out about the rat incident found in Orwell, I removed it (it is attributable to Land, as told to him by Military Intelligence but the focus is more on Hathcock's POV through the various authors). Bottom line, I don't believe that to be an invention by Henderson or even Land; if it was fictional, I would say it's what MI passed on. One of the things in combat is to get into a mindset to hate your enemy and I could see Intelligence spicing that up a bit to persuade a man to put a bullet into a woman. We're probably getting off base here with regard to AFD, so I'll stop, but at least the discussion turned more civil.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It is sourced.Please I have not read it is not a reason Vietnam War or the fact major wars history is vast and no one can really say he knows all aspects,incidents about the War.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It is sourced and not a hoax. The nominator has competence issues and seems to admit to having been banned by Bushranger before (blocked?) and seems to self-confess to trolling. No rationale founded in policy has been correctly stated for this nomination.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tertulia Magazine (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 did find this, but a list of contests does not show notability especially when it is likely that the website itself submitted the list. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No significant covering in reliable third partu sources. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Web Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:WEB.  Gongshow  02:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Zero references = goodbye. Max Semenik (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is about rumors of Hussein's death even though it is well-known how he died. It is thus an indiscriminate collection of unfounded rumors and no longer has sufficient significance to be included on Knowledge (XXG). The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge to an article about Hussain. US government spokesmen said that they thought they had killed Hussein with bunker buster bombs dropped on his palaces, then later by bombing and destroying a restaurant full of people they thought to be his inner circle. Perhaps the article should be recast as attempts by the US to kill Hussein by bombing. Such attacks and news conferences about the occasions times the US thought they had killed him is far from indiscriminate information. References for US government officials thinking they killed Hussein by killing the people in the restaurant in Mansour:"the betting in the Pentagon's executive offices is that the Iraqi dictator lies dead under a pile of rubble in Baghdad, according to defense and intelligence officials." USA Today, 2003 Ref for numerous civilians killed by the Mansour assassination attempt: "a young woman's severed head and a small boy's body were pulled Tuesday from a smoking crater.." "For the second time in the war, coalition forces were wondering whether they'd gotten their man." "..US-led forces first attempted to kill Saddam with an opening salvo airstrike in the beginning of the war.." AP, 2003. There was general coverage of rumors of the death of Saddam in 2003: "Growing belief that Saddam is dead," Sidney Morning Herald, April 2003. Cites intercepted Iraqi communications, Guardian, July 2003: mentions previous claims Saddam was killed, when his sons were reported killed. Edison (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the information could easily be included elsewhere, but I can think of no circumstances where this would be a valid redirect so a merge would be inappropriate, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It's a topic of intrinsic worth and interest. If, however, someone does a good enough merge, I would be happy to see a redirect. But for now, why not use summary style and have a link from Death of Saddam Hussein? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I believe a similar rationale for removal can be used as the one used in this discussion. WP:NOTNEWS applies in addition to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anything about failed attempts to kill Hussein can be covered within reason under the article about Saddam Hussein, but a redirect would not be a logical move as there is no obvious redirect. Who is going to search for rumors about his death, when it's already known how he died?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, I don't know; maybe the same people who would look the premature obituary of Mark Twain? See List of premature obituaries, in which I have now linked the present article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Your argument does not work because I am pretty sure no one issued an obituary for Saddam. These "rumors" are really just speculation about him being killed in some attack that we know actually failed. If we had an article about the various times every dictator/terrorist/combatant was reported to possibly be dead there would be lots of WP:NOT#NEWS clutter all over Knowledge (XXG).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect: wholly unsourced (as of time of this !vote) article giving WP:UNDUE weight to since-refuted WP:SPECULATION. No indication whatsoever that such WP:TABLOID journalism is notable. Do not merge, as there is no WP:Verifiable material (let alone material that does not fail WP:NOT) to be merged (though itt may be appropriate for a short piece of new material to be added to Saddam Hussein on the basis of sources listed here). Hrafn_Stalk 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  Comment The preceding claim is incorrect, since sources were identified above. AFD participants are expected to read what has been written previously in the AFD before claiming there are no references. Refs just have to exist in order to satisfy WP:N and WP:V; they do not have to be included yet in the article. Knowledge (XXG) is not on deadline; it is a work in progress, and any refs found during the AFD can be added later.As for "since-refuted speculation," the article never claims that Hussein was actually killed by the US assassination attempts in 2003, only that US officials and US media floated statements about how he had probably been killed by specifically directed US bombing attacks, just as they floated rumors that another enemy, Bin Laden, had been killed when they used a cruise missile in Afghanistan to assassinate some random and innocent tall man, Daraz Khan, who was collecting scrap metal in February 2002. This article might be re-aimed as "US Attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein" to preserve the notable information about policies , attacks, and the bystanders who were killed, along with the rumor-mongering intended to increase public support for the administration's policies. Edison (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a war. Of course there were attempts to kill Saddam. WP:NOT#NEWS means we should not create a new article on random attempts at it, unless they are of lasting significance. A few unsuccessful bombing raids are not of lasting significance for a separate article. Some much shorter mentions of those attempts already exist in numerous articles. The most that would be reasonable is to expand on the mention of those attempts in other articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My main arguments are below. But the Thirty Years War was a war. Of course there were battles. But this does not mean that we apply WP:NOT#NEWS to delete articles on those battles. And, both in modern wars and in the Thirty Years War, what people believed about what was happening in the war can be as relevant to the progress of the war as individual battles. PWilkinson (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The article as it stands certainly does not meet current Knowledge (XXG) standards, but is a good example of a fully acceptable Knowledge (XXG) article of eight or nine years ago, when most of it was originally written. In themselves, these are not valid reasons either for deleting or keeping the article. What matters is if the article can be edited to meet current standards - it can. Ironically, one useful resource is actually buried in the article history - until late 2006, the article contained a sizeable "External Links" section (see, for example, this version of the article, from 2004), all or almost all of which still look like reliable sources today. The article can certainly be improved - citing what can be cited from reliable sources (identified so far or still to be found), adding relevant new material from these, deleting material that can't be reliably sourced after a bit more searching, attempting to add depth to the article by searching for later critiques of the rumours and associated news management (probably but not necessarily from academic sources), possibly even (after further discussion on the article's talk page) restructuring or renaming it. But, as such improvements can be carried out, these are reasons for editing the article, not deleting it. PWilkinson (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - nine years on, this article looks basically like trivia. Yes, it's true that there were rumours that Saddam had died before he was captured; yes, those rumours received press coverage and sources can still be found. But does that make this a notable subject for an article? I'm not convinced it does. In general, 'rumours of X' is a poor basis for an article: see e.g. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks (2nd nomination). There are exceptions: we have a couple of similar articles to this one about Osama bin Laden, Location of Osama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories. But comparing this article with those two makes it obvious how little there is to say about Saddam by comparison. Given that he was only 'missing' for a period of nine months between the start of the war and his capture, rumours about his status in the meantime just don't seem to me to have any great historical importance. A summary of this article might be appropriate in the background section of Operation Red Dawn, but it doesn't need its own article. Robofish (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely unsourced amalgam of ephemeral rumors. No lasting historical import. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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. but feel free to make a mention on List of chess software. AfD doesn't really have a say on inclusion in that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Arena (chess) (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 found nothing that shows this software's notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bubba73 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, although I'm not against making a mention on List of chess software if another source can be located. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A tag was placed on this article since January 2011, but no efforts have been made to attain reliable sources since then. Although there are sources listed in the article's reference, the vast majority of them comprise of links to online message boards and non-notable online publications. In order to assert notability, an article has to receive suitable media attention, as seen for other mods such as Black Mesa Source or Sven Coop. I have searched for any publications that fulfill WP:RS but have found none. Given that the project itself is also undergoing an indefinite hiatus, the chance of it becoming notable is highly doubtful. WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I had more luck and Kotaku, Destructoid and neoseeker sources from the article look good to me. As of 24 September 2011 Interceptor Entertainment plans are to finish development (see official site) and I'm not sure that nominator possess better knowledge of development process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, if the source list is not convincing, one can try more. I just reported sources from the first page of search results. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Per sources found. Despite being "fan-made", it's getting significant third party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - As per sources found. Salvidrim! 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

References:

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 deleted. Non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Seems to be a hoax or made up Jac16888 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable handbag merchant and candidate for president. None of these sources satisfy WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Her campaign was covered by such independent sources as Examiner.com (which is apparently blocked here for spam) as well as major websites like and . It does satisfy WP:N. Additionally, the link in the article provides coverage of her before she ran for president, though the handbag link alone would not indicate notabilit. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep She is the official nominee of a notable (albeit obscure) political party. There is a longstanding implicit consensus that such a distinction makes one notable. See WP:Outcomes#Politicians: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." Presidential nominees are largely regarded as leaders at the national level. Also, there are three unique independent sources cited in the article which contain non-trivial coverage of Briscoe.--JayJasper (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable as nominee and standard-bearer of a legitimate political party.--Dwc89 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

four cites is not enough for WP:PROF, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 20:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete Article does not give any indication that this might meet WP:PROF. The "weak" is because I don't have time to search around for more sources myself, I hope and trust that the nom has done this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. The assertion that her research is "pioneering" is not backed-up by any sources. Location (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - After several searches, I have not found coverage in reliable sources. Directory listings exist, such as this listing on the Rutgers University website, but otherwise, not finding reliable sources that cover this individual. Northamerica1000 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of staff for Brookside (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 is a HUGE unsourced list of names of what are presumably mostly WP:BLPs, with little context or other information. Failing verification in published sources, it should be deleted. The significant contributors are already listed at Brookside, so that would not be a significant loss of information.  Sandstein  20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I fail to see the need to provide and article listing production credits. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming Up (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of existence or notability of the series. Article has previously been deleted twice by PROD. This version was unPRODded by original editor, with talk page comment "Please stop deleting my article." but no attempt to provide notability or sources. PamD 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination: I have rewritten the article, using Metropolitan90's useful added ELs and refs. I now believe it merits a place in the encyclopedia. PamD 08:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This appears to be a real television show that the article creator doesn't seem to have known much about. Judging from the official site and the Internet Movie Database, it appears to be an anthology series without continuing characters, so saying that Karen Gillan stars in it is misleading (she was apparently only in one episode). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any mention of this show, except user-generated content à la IMDB. – Majora4 (leave a message) 08:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Here are some: The Telegraph, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Stage, On the Box. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Show looks to meet the notability guideline, needs to be re-written with the appropriate sources, by someone who knows more about the subject, Karl 334 04:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Library Tales Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references are all press releases from the company, apart from one brief mention in a local paper. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, though that on its own isn't sufficient reason to delete. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related article, about a book (and related merchandise) from the publisher above, whose sole claim to notability per WP:Notability (books) is that it was briefly reviewed on a television chat show, and has been used to teach courses in Unity Churches in the US. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and with the same conflict of interest by the article's creator (though again, that on its own isn't sufficient reason to delete):

The Thought Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Filing Flunky (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources are not good enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Very few hits come up. Tinton5 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Worldcat shows only one book of theirs, The thought exchange -- which is held in only 6 libraries. Obviously not yet a notable publisher, and not yet a notable book either. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

BLP that lacks RS refs, and from what I can tell the subject also lacks substantial RS coverage. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Can't find anything to establish WP:N. —Ed! 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete unable to find anything to establish notability either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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 one, except the nomination, advocates deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Egrikapili Mehmed Rasim Efendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). Gsingh (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep:There are dozens 5 sources on GBS and thousands on GS about him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are only 5, and none are in English. Gsingh (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, five sources on GBS and thousands on GS. Lack of sources on English does not mean the topic is not notable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Half of the links on Google Scholar lead to forum posts and self made pages, check the first page. Someone should at least know if they are reliable or not. Gsingh (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I improved the article do you still want to delete it?DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Ottoman calligraphy has a high reputation, but because Ottoman Turkish is effectively a dead written language understood by relatively few people, reliable sources on Ottoman calligraphers are always likely to be tricky to find. As it is, the Grove encyclopedia entry that DragonTiger23 has now found is, I think, enough to establish notability. And while the other source in English that DragonTiger23 has now added is rather weaker (effectively a museum catalogue published by the museum itself, though as the author is apparently a recognised academic expert on Ottoman calligraphy, I'm provisionally inclined to regard it as reliable), the Grove article quotes several more sources (though I have not been able to check them). The article is still rather weak, but with enough potential to keep. (By the way, some advice for DragonTiger23 - if you are going to create articles on relatively obscure topics like Ottoman calligraphy, please do try to provide something more than an unreferenced short stub. Otherwise, as has happened this time, you will regularly find them in danger of deletion.) PWilkinson (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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 g11, advertising, g12, cut and pasted. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

JAI - Yash Raj Film 2012 ft Shahrukh Khan Katrina Kaif Anushka Sharma (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 movie has not yet been announced. No firm news on this movie. Please consider deletion. Thanks AKS (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Abdurahim Laajaab (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 article is about an amateur footballer, that have not played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTY. He is also a futsal player with matches for Norway national futsal team but none in Olympics or World Championship, and fails WP:ATHLETE Mentoz86 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes the GNG, look at , and . PaoloNapolitano 18:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't speak Norwegian but those look to be run-of-the mill transfer reports, which fail WP:ROUTINE. GiantSnowman 18:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that it's routine - they're articles about his transfer to a big club and not routine coverage like live result updates. PaoloNapolitano 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• They're definitely "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out" - sorry. GiantSnowman 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. The sources provided are insufficient to merit keeping the article under WP:GNG. None of his appearances to date, both on the club and international level, make the article pass WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources are independent, and they are reliable. VG is the largest newspaper in Norway, TV2 is the largest TV channel in Norway, and Nettavisen is one of the major online newspapers. Why aren't they reliable and independent? PaoloNapolitano 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not the "reliable" or "independent" element of GNG that's at question here, it's the "significant coverage", which you have yet to prove. GiantSnowman 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep When several of the biggest media outlets in Norway do articles on him, particularly the first one listed by PaoloNapolitano , focusing on how Norway's top sports clubs are fighting over him, it's pretty clear to me his notable. __meco (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment When Norwegian media have written about him (his transfer), they're headlines are "Norwegian futsal-star joins VIF", "Vålerenga and Stabæk fights about a player" and "Vålerenga signs futsal-star" (The three links PaoloNapolitano posted further up on the page, translated). Wouldn't a person that was notable enough for wikipedia have it's name in a headline like that? I have googled him, to try to find out something about him except his transfer to Vålerenga, but I only find local media writing about him when he played in "their" local club, nothing from VG, Aftenposten, Dagbladet, TV2, NRK. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• He has played in Adeccoligaen (Norways second level - professional) for Skeid, Notodden and Mjøndalen - as well as one yr for Borussia Mönchengladbach.. His family name is correctly spelled Laajab. - Mr. Hill (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source which proves that? GiantSnowman 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Here is a source that states that he atleast played for Borussia Mönchengladbach II in Oberliga. Would be interesting to find out if he also actually played for their main-team, then this discussion could be closed as a keep. BTW - Adeccoligaen is not considered professional. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Never played for the senior team, per this. GiantSnowman 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mentoz86 is probably talking about this. That is 1) Not a routine report. The reports of hid transfer are not routine reports. You hvave probably not understoo what "routine report" means. A routine report is something like "Team A - Team B 1-0. Goal: Laajab, and not an article about a transfer. 2) It is reliable, it is independent, and it addresses the subject directly. Abdurahim Laajab therefore passes the GNG. PaoloNapolitano 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, I think you don't understand what "routine reporting" means - how on earth is saying Player X has transferred from Club Y to Club Z" significant coverage? Also seeing as all of this so-called coverage relates to one specific transfer, then that would fail WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Several Norwegian media have written large articles about his transfer. It is not just a name on a list. I have also updated the article with a whole new set of reliable references. PaoloNapolitano 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again, all the coverage, regardles of who wrote it, relates to just one event, and is not significant anyway. GiantSnowman 14:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Of the seven references I posted, four are not related to his transfer. How are this, this, this and this relating to his transfer? PaoloNapolitano 14:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Of the seven references currently on the article, only #3 & #4 are anything other than insignificant coverafe. GiantSnowman 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 2 and #7 are also significant coverage. By saying that these sources are significant, you admit that Ibba is notable. PaoloNapolitano 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Still not enough I'm afraid. Find a few - heck, even one - more and I'm more than happy to change my mind. GiantSnowman 14:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

PaoloNapolitano 14:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown of referencesThere are seven references on his article at the moment. #1 #5 #6 are written by big online Norwegian newspapers about his transfer to Vålerenga. #2 and #4 are written by minor local newspapers, when he played for their local club (Drammens Tidende covers Mjøndalen IF, and Romerikes Blad covers Sørumsand IF). That leaves #3 and #7, and it's up to you to decide if those two is enough to pass WP:GNG. The last link posted by PaoloNapolitano to this page, is written by rbkweb.no - a unofficial supportersite for Rosenborg BK. I guess that one is more like a WP:FANSITE then a WP:RS. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - passes WP:GNG. Article could do with an infobox and slight expansion, but looks to be notable to me. GiantSnowman 15:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep has significant media coverage in major domestic media outlets, meeting GNG. Arsenikk 10:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Solar Cookers International. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Solar Cookers World Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no indication that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. As for now, it is not referenced by any independent sources, and it doesn't seem there is significant coverage by independent sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Solar Cookers International, the notable parent organization. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems like a decent plan, and would have my support too actually. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Solar Cookers International Agreed that it should point to the parent organization. --Pmedema (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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 The 4-Hour Body. Interested editors please feel free to extract content from the page history and merge the content into other articles. Deryck C. 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Article about a health supplement. The only reference that is about the supplement is to book published by the creator of this supplement. The others are about individual ingredients of the supplement, so don't contribute to the notability of the supplement itself (we already know, for example, that garlic is notable). Searching for "pagg stack" returns forum spam, advertorials and promotional blog posts, but not independent, published sources. There are therefore no independent, secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this subject. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - None of the sources provide notability for the actual health supplement. ItsZippy 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. None of the supporting sources are independent of the subject. Google searching finds only a press release. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fork from the book. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• merge to the book. A redirect is appropriate, not a straight delete--its a reasonable search term. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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. It is possible that this movie will still gain traction if the producers do manage to make a larger name for themselves. So far this hasn't materialised though, and consensus is clear on deletion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallucination (film) (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 only reference in the article is a dead link and I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - A no-budget, unimportant film with no sources to establish notability. It is nominated for one award, but the award does not seem notable either. ItsZippy 17:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete While it seems to exist, this film has received no coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, 23:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see where this is notable. There's no coverage except for the things that the filmmaker has put out. The article says that the film is/was nominated for an award, yet doesn't give the year of when it was nominated. (I'm assuming that it was nominated back in 2008 when the film was released.) I did a search for the nomination, but the only sources that mentions the nomination are things that the director/crew has released to the internet. A search on the Queensland film site does not show that the film or director have been nominated for anything. I did notice that the Queensland NFA (which the film was supposedly nominated for) is something that people can APPLY for, so I'm a little skeptical as far as whether or not the film was actually nominated for anything or if the director merely applied to have the film judged in this competition. () I have a feeling that it was sent into the competition and might have been a finalist, but not the winner. Since last year's QNFA is already over and the winners have all been announced, it's safe to say that the film didn't win anything. In any case, it's a solid delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Additional. Here is the list of 2011's nominees: . If the film was nominated, it was in previous years and didn't win.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Found out the filmmakers... the Halimi Brothers (Ahmad and Morteza)... are apparently students at the JMC Academy and their newer film I and Nostalgia up for a Queensland New Filmmakers Award in 2011. But I can find nothing on their 2008 effort. Schmidt, 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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. causa sui (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Unreferenced BLP. Such articles should not be here, period. The IMDB is not a reliable source and does not establish notability. Stedrick (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between an unref'd BLP and someone being not-notable. This is a case of the former, not the latter. A simple Google search found this story in the New Zealand Herald, which I've added into the article. Seems to have had a substantial role in a notable TV show, so Keep. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Subject is notable, per the source found by Lugnuts. ItsZippy 17:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Page should be edited, there are plenty of sources and information about the person. PF (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per availability of reliable sources. This article needs work; more sourcing, inline citations and expansion. Also, the article at this time is no longer an unreferenced biography of a living person.

• Grant, Frances (January 9, 2012). "Make way for Ms Martinez". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved January 08, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)</ref>
• "Lena Cruz - Cabaret style". New Zeland Herald. Retrieved 2012-01-08.

—Northamerica1000 05:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per sources found and offered, as decent reason to improve an improvable article through regular editing. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, stubs are always welcome... specially as they encourage others to contribute. Schmidt, 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Snow Keep CallawayRox (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously you could've checked the information of any of the notable shows she has been on, and confirmed she was in fact in them. Notable career, obvious keep. Dream Focus 16:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Snow Keep Mattlore (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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 List of Fear Street books. I don't know how usefull a redirect is, but they're cheap, and who knows it might help in a search query Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Halloween Party (Fear Street) (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 Fear Street book is non-notable although the author R. L. Stine is. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - The individual book is not notable. I would suggest a redirect to Fear Street, but the title of the article would make it an unhelpful redirect (though I won't oppose a redirect). ItsZippy 17:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to List of Fear Street books. I did a search, but was only able to find one single review that would be considered reliable. There's just nothing out there that's uploaded onto the internet. This might be worth a redirect, but I kind of doubt it since I'm not so sure that this would be something that people would type into the search box on Knowledge (XXG).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Fabulous Baker Boys (band) (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 found zero significant coverage. Most sources that I found are for the notable film of the same name. This band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No notable record label, singles, albums or the like - not a notable band. ItsZippy 17:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm coming across a few listings of compilations which contain their song "Oh Boy", but I'm finding no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources for the group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC.  Gongshow  09:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Their song "Oh Boy" did chart for two weeks in the UK, reaching #34, but that's it. I can find little other coverage of even a trivial nature. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Player preferences among new and old violins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper. This article is about the publication of a scientific study that created a lot of buzz, but Knowledge (XXG) is not Wikinews. Poireau primesautier (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• strong keep (creator) from the nominator's policy : "Knowledge (XXG) should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.", this is not first hand reporting, it is significantly sourced by multiple secondary sources. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple secondary reliable sources, offering significant coverage. This subject also passes WP:EVENT as this is not trivial routine coverage. Additionally, content similar to this has already had long lasting coverage in articles such as Stradivarius, and while I have included summarized information in that article, it would be UNDUE to put the full information in that type of article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Though not all the sources are reliable, enough of them are to establish significant coverage and notability. ItsZippy 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a better title might be in order, though. I'm not sure what it would be, though. ItsZippy 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The title is the title of the study, so we could perhaps add (violin study) or something like that to the title to clarify. Since there have been several studies and experiments on this topic, an additional generic article on the topic might be good too, and that could have some sort of more sensical title. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - highly notable. Even I have heard ot this. Studies like this are finally helping to seperate the truth from the myths in this emotion-driven field, and this study, according to the sources, is one of the most important of them. Egg Centric 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep excellent article, not just a current event. Nom should reread policies. Greglocock (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - odd but neat, and well-sourced article. It's not original research, because NPR and other media outlets and secondary sources have reported on this. It's not just news, because the reporting is ongoing for more than a few months. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Kubigula (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ghits is only YouTube, social media, and other trivial mentions jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources are provided (nor can I find any) and the article seems to be very promotional in nature. ItsZippy 17:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete- Not notable in any way. Vincelord (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Notability concerns: He was the president of a couple of institutions, but where's the significant coverage in independent secondary sources as required by WP:SIGCOV? An anonymous editor removed the prod notice without addressing this concern. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:PROF, specifically "the person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". According to this source, he held the Harry B. Miller Professorship in the Charles H. Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon. Quasihuman | Talk 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Quasihuman's find regarding "named chair". Passes WP:PROF. Location (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Since the subject is a senior figure of a university, the article meets criterion five of WP:PROF. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 05:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Deryck C. 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable mall. Unreferenced. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't find non-trivial reliable source coverage for this mall. I did find passing mentions as a local landmark, but not significant enough to justify a mention in the Spryfield, Nova Scotia article. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I looked too and, like Gene93k, I couldn't find anything more than trivial mentions.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, does not pass WP:GNG. Max Semenik (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

PQ Media (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 company does not meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Whilst the reports that they produce are widely cited by media organisations, I cannot find any coverage whatsoever about the company itself. Contributors may also wish to know that the article was written by a PR firm - see WP:COIN#Qorvis. SmartSE (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as advertising so deliberately evasive that nobody can be reasonably expected to make sense of it: ... a research consultancy specializing in global media econometrics, providing data and analytics on the rapidly diverging global media industry. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A fair amount of research has been done and the consensus is that sufficient sources do not exist.--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea With Terrorists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Self-published book; appears to fail WP:NBOOK. A quick google reveals plenty of results - thanks to a cobweb of promotional content associated with the author. Difficult to have an article on this topic without promoting the author and their fringe position, since few independent/mainstream sources have paid any attention to it. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was previously PRODded by Roscelese (talk · contribs); the article's creator removed the prod tag bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic sneakily edited my comment. I have now undone that. Do not put words in my mouth. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic refactored other people's comments again; I've had to restore the comment above. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic deleted my comments again with accusations of bias. This is disruptive; stop now. If you're in a hole, the first step is to put the shovel down.bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic deleted my comments yet again; I've restored them yet again. Rahulchic, let me make this clear to you in short words: If you remove and edit other people's comments and then keep on hitting the revert button, you will get blocked from en.wikipedia. Acting like this does not help your cause. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

bobrayner Sorry for the reversions but I did that to revert your pushing my answer to your accusation (05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) down inside the discussion page to make it disappear. I wanted my answer to be near your accusation but you were not allowing it. Anyways please comment on the topic on hand (and also give others space to discuss). I have developed the article and improved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs)

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

• This article can't be deleted simply because it is on a controversial topic and enrages Islamists.

Section on Self-publication says: In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NBOOK Therefore, it is clear that self-publication is no ground for deletion of an article without any doubts on the content of the article itself.

The novel 'Tea With Terrorists' is a result of research which includes the authors' visit to 120 countries and interviewers of several terrorist groups. Though it is hated and disagreed by Islamists, it is a fine example of research which are on controversial topics. The author is a graduate of University of Southern California and an entrepreneur. The book has had wide media coverage and is still debated in circles.

Therefore it should not be deleted. Rahulchic (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not enough reason for deletion. Thanks a lot for the reviews. Here are some of my points:

1) Notability: Checkout the Amazon's page about the book http://www.amazon.com/Tea-Terrorists-Who-They-Kill/dp/0971448116. This book has received 3.3 out of 5 Stars. This book has got 67 customer reviews on Amazon's website. I hope it does tell something.

2) I agree that some people want it to be "deleted", even as most of their objections could be "worked upon" and "improved". Let us help build this page into a reliable one.

3) We have books' pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Maverick_%28book%29 which don't mention any single source! But perhaps it is not marked for deletion because it doesn't provoke anyone. This book on politics and terrorism gets a lot of eyeballs.

4) Note about author: I had written the original piece and had included a section about the author(s). Because I thought it was important for readers to know about the authors and their background, especially for this book on this controversial topic. It helps the readers to know the background of the authors so that they can understand that the authors are indeed well educated, qualified, and may be unbiased. But if we want to remove the section about authors, we are free to do that.

5)If there are more complaints, we can discuss those on the Article's Discussion page itself. Rahulchic (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Improved. Hi all, I have edited the main article and (1) removed the section about authors, (2) added more content and review on the book itself. It is looking much balanced now. Please review and if we agree, let us remove the deletion tag. If you have more suggestions, please share. Rahulchic (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't added any reliable sources, which is the reason the article is currently up for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Improved. While we want more authors to contribute articles and time to Knowledge (XXG), it is is shocking to see how some members are fighting to delete content from Knowledge (XXG)... Now that the article is improved and balanced, I hope it is alright to leave it at peace. Rahulchic (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Working to improve the article.

Hi everyone,

I have done some more improvements on the main article, each backed by credible references.

In the main body I have inserted the following:

1) The book and its analysis of Islam was criticized by Muslims. Kenyan Muslims criticized the book terming it blasphemous to their faith and compared it with Salman Rushdie's controversial Satanic Verses, and even demanded its ban. Using: BBC Monitoring international report http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10248CD172DAF91F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

2) and has claimed having spent thousands of hours studying the Koran and interviewing Muslim terrorists. Using: Time for Everyone to Denounce Radical Islam http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2681717&page=1#.TwrNBoH5v4s

Also, I have inserted in external links section links to Google Books and Bernes and Noble webpage which have many reviews and synopsis of this book. Google Books: Tea with terrorists: who they are, why they kill, what will stop them Bernes and Noble: Tea with terrorists: who they are, why they kill, what will stop them

I also protest against bobrayner who is editing my page again and again. Request bobrayner to give me and others some time. Please understand that the article is work-in-progress and frequent unnecessary conflicts should be avoided. Rahulchic (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: bobrayner, I had not edited your comment but I had made it "complete". You talked about me but didn't give full picture: when you had said that I had deleted the prod tag, I had done that only after editing and improving the article. And I thought others should also know that, hence I put that along with your comment.

Rahulchic (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Improve but Do not delete I see that some members have first marked this article for deletion and then are finding new faults into this. An article which has been there for more than 2 years! Let us improve it and make it best for readers. But there is no reason it should be deleted based on personal biases. 168.87.3.33 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This infrequently used IP probably counts as an SPA for purposes of this discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This IP also edited one of Rahulchic's comments, so I suppose it's Rahulchic trying to add a second !vote whilst logged out. Please bear in mind that this should be about policy and consensus, not about mere vote counting... bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I think you're right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. So far the sources on the page do not seem reliable. One is a link to the book's page (a primary source), there's links to non-notable blogs that review the book, there's links that only briefly and I mean briefly mention the book on a side panel, things that have been written by the author (more primary sources), and sites that just don't seem like they meet the requirements for a reliable source. The Daniel Pipes page looks good, but it mentions Winn and not Tea with Terrorists. The biggie here is that the sources must be about the book. Articles about Winn would be best mentioned on his article (which is also having problems with reliable sources, I might add). Even if Winn is found to be a notable person, notability is not automatically transferred to the book. Even the bigger NYT bestselling authors don't have an entry for every book because not every book they've written has been notable. I'll try to do a search to see what I can find, but so far the entries on the article here aren't solid enough to keep the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Additional. I'm going to remove the bits that aren't about the book itself or aren't reliable from the entry. Remember, this is an article about the BOOK. NOT about Winn. He has an entry already. This is about the book and not about the author.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Comment. I'm removing the big lengthy section that talks about the authors, where you can get their books, and where they've been interviewed. Again, this is about Tea With Terrorists, NOT the authors. This should already be on their own articles, not on the book's page. I removed all of the cruft from the article. My biggest concern with the article is that rather than discuss the book, it went into detail about the authors and the controversey that the authors have received. The only things that have actually mentioned TWT were primary sources from the authors. There is one single Bloomberg article that briefly mentions the book, but so briefly that it's really more of a trivial source at best. I'm not saying delete, but this article needs a lot of work. People have been making it more of a political soapbox for Winn than an actual encyclopedic entry about the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Make notable or delete A broad google search of the title and author came up with three more minor references. Probably not enough to make it notable enough to be covered here. Info belongs in his article. CarolMooreDC 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A brief look at the references show that they are indeed minor- very minor. The East African Standard might be a good article, but it's hidden behind a paywall and we're unable to verify whether or not the article is in-depth enough to count as a reliable source. I'm having a pretty hard time finding sources to show notability. Most of what's out there is on the websites that aren't really what Knowledge (XXG) would consider to be notable. There's enough coming up to show that Winn does indeed seem to merit an article (although the page desperately needs to be cleaned up), but not enough to show that this book merits an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Delete or redirect back to Craig Winn. I tried to find sources for this, but there's just not anything out there. There's just enough for Winn to squeak by on notability guidelines, but that notability is not transferred automatically to his writings. That the article was mostly written to be a secondary biography about the author rather than to be an encyclopedic entry for the actual book was pretty telling that this just lacks individual notability. There's brief and incidental mentions, but not enough to show the coverage needed to warrant an entry to itself. At most this should be a redirect back to the author's page. I'd say merge, but most of the info on this page is just an author bio and is already on the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Delete. All mentions in reliable sources are trivial; there simply isn't enough coverage for a WP:NBOOK pass for this self-published book. (CricketSong is the name of Winn's self-publisher - it prints only his books.) Tokyogirl makes a good point about the article itself belying the book's utter non-notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete self-published book which lacks notability, although I guess we can turn the title into a redirect to his article. I'm not happy that his article says "He has published these books through the Cricketsong Books imprint, a division of Virginia Publishers." without mentioning that Virginia Publishers is owned by The Winn Company. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. Dougweller (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have viewed the Knowledge (XXG) article on Tea_With_Terrorists and I don't understand why it is put for deletion. It is alright and has not tried blaspheme or anything in a biased manner. It also has so many references which I find missing on so many Knowledge (XXG) articles. Otherwise you will have to delete so many articles! But this one is good, keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.68.38 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This IP is also probably the article creator logged out, going by the writing/posting style and edit history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Roscelese for turning into a false detective :) It was not me.

Thanks talk I took note of this comment and tried to see some more reviews on Knowledge (XXG):

• Some samples

http://en.wikipedia.org/All_Marketers_Are_Liars => Contains Amazon.com as reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Alliance_Brand Contains no references at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/Good_to_Great Contains blogs as external links and no other ref.

http://en.wikipedia.org/The_New_New_Thing => Two liner review. No reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Fearless_Change => One line review. No reference.

Now these are not the only ones having such problem. These are only samples. But these have not been deleted. Perhaps because there has not been a fine networking like we have of "delete anti-Islamic texts" everywhere.

Btw, Bobrayner and Dougweller have edited the Knowledge (XXG) page; are they satisfied now? Some of their edits have left the article with fewer references than before - as if skies will fall if I use amazon.com link in the Wiki article.

Still waiting for Knowledge (XXG) moderators. We are not voting here for anything. We want an unbiased decision. My take is that the present shape of the article is better than 80% of book reviews available on Knowledge (XXG). Let it remain there and spend our energies in better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rahulchic (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AFD as I've asked? What we are doing here is trying to agree if this book meets our criteria for notability. We aren't voting but we are casting what we refer to as !Votes, and our arguments should be based on our policies and guidelines. It really doesn't matter for this AfD if there are other bad articles out there. I've nominated one of the books you list for deletion and removed Amazon.com from another. We don't have moderators, we have Administrators, such as me. Someone, not necessarily an Administrator, will look at the arguments after this has been open for 7 days and decide on the basis of the policy based arguments whether this should be deleted or not. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I wasted 30 minutes of my time looking for any sort of coverage beyond user reviews and blogs. Nothing. This book has had 8 or so years to achieve notability since it was first published. That's plenty long enough. If it can't become notable on its own, there is no reason for Knowledge (XXG) to help it along. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Albury Wodonga NewsWeekly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this newsweekly exists, it has not as far as I can tell attracted the substantial RS coverage needed to indicate notability. Zero refs. Tagged for that since November. Also tagged since then for lack of notability. Created by an SPA, whose user name suggests a possible COI. Epeefleche (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found nothing to show notability. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Salvio 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• once again mendy made over 100 appearences for top french league,please review sports notability criteria before tagging — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesueur878 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the quickest of Google searches would have shown that this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL, as confirmed by this (among many others). Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. He has continuously played in the French professional leagues: . – Kosm1fent 13:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep – AFD is not clean-up, and the nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000 13:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (former-admin close) Secret 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• farnolle made appearence for top french league he is notable,you need to learn notability policies before tagging — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesueur878 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the quickest of Google searches would have shown that this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL, as confirmed by this (among many others). Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. He has played in a fully professional league; satisfies WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 13:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator seems unsure about the notability, rather than advancing notions why the topic isn't notable. Northamerica1000 13:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per User:GiantSnowman. The nominator must take more care in future before proposing articles for AfD. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:NFOOTBALL. Could do with an infobox to present the player's appearances and so help demonstrate the article's claim to notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:NFOOTBALL, it would help if there were English references though. Gsingh (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW and procedural concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• petshi is notable ,he made appearence for Top French league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesueur878 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - the quickest of Google searches would have shown that this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL, as confirmed by this (among many others). Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. He has played in a fully professional league, satisfying WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 13:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator seems unsure about the topic's notability, rather than advancing notions why the topic isn't notable. Northamerica1000 13:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per User:GiantSnowman. The nominator must take more care in future before proposing articles for AfD. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:NFOOTBALL. Could do with an infobox to present the player's appearances and so help demonstrate the article's claim to notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Kubigula (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Como String Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this quartet existed, I cannot find sufficient substantial, non-passing-mention RS coverage to suggest it was notable per wp standards. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability over 3 years ago. Zero refs, and tagged for that over 3 years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• delete no evidence of significant coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

changing to strong delete on the back of northamerica's evidence of a complete lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Delete - Per initial evidence of coverage in reliable sources: , . Perhaps other sources can be found besides search results on Google. Northamerica1000 14:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Changed !vote to delete above. Not enough to qualify for WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 06:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Here's a book mention of the topic: . Northamerica1000 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

none of the sources you provide deal with the quartet in any depth more than a line. the first source is not in-depth and makes a one line mention of the String quartet. Not to mention the newspaper serves a mere 2000 residents of Magnetic Island. The 2nd source is not in-depth and merely an event listing. The third source is again a mete 1 line mention. Your search confirms there is no in-depth coverage of this quartet. My !vote stands LibStar (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - More book mentions: , (Spanish). A Google Scholar mention: The Comic Personae of Hung Le (from Google Scholar summary: "...comedy clubs in both New York and Los Angeles. His early work in comedy began with a successful period as a joke- cracking violin player with the Como String Quartet in the late 1980s..." This source may contain more information; unfortunately, I do not have access to the entire source. Northamerica1000 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

again the first one is yet another line mention. the second one is not about this como string quartet. it uses the Spanish word como which means like. so the sentence translates to "like the String Quartet". Hung Le is a low level Australian comedian i doubt he has toured in a Spanish speaking country nor speaks Spanish. you are really clutching at straws for notability. coverage merely confirms Hung Le's participation in this quartet, nothing indepth about the quartet's history, detailed reviews, critical acclaim etc. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My !vote has changed to delete. Northamerica1000 06:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Northamerica, although you are a known keep !voter, i admire you for changing in this circumstance. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to NA -- too many editors seem to dig their heels in, once they take a position. It takes an intellectually honest editor to keep on reviewing his position, and change it if circumstances suggest that would be the right thing to do. Also -- I admire NA for always doing such thorough research.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Trivial coverage cannot count as significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Seriously Funny, Brisbane News (Australia) - August 24, 2005, Length: 923 words (Estimated printed pages: 3) and Taking refuge in comedy, Advertiser, The (Adelaide, Australia) - February 19, 1998, Length: 501 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) both mention the band, but only in the context of a former member of the band. These sources help for notability of "Hung Le" more than the band though. --LauraHale (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Curtin_University#Student_Guild. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Curtin University of Technology Student Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this student association exists, I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to suggest that it is notable by wp standards, to the extent that it should have a stand-alone article. Zero refs. Tagged for that defect for over 4 years. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This topic is as well covered under Curtin_University#Student_Guild so no need for this separate and unreferenced article. AllyD (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect per AllyD. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily sourceable with WP:RS should someone put in the time, brief section in university article not appropriate to cover detail. Rebecca (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, please provide these sources. under WP:BURDEN, anyone can challenge unsourced info. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews, 1 article in major Australian news site . hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Similar article here similar concern, no ref, google search turns up little Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• both of those karateka you want to delete are medalists at karate kumite world or european championships . french wikipedia has article on olivier beaudry and many more.just because karate is not popular doesn't mean that the top tournements of karate are not notable.karate kumite is Huge in France and beaudry and any medalists at kumite karate at either european or world karate championships is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesueur878 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - silver medal at 1999 European Championships (per this is a good claim to notability. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Per comments by users above. Seems like the article could use more citations and work, rather than deletion. Northamerica1000 14:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per User:GiantSnowman. The nominator must take more care in future before proposing articles for AfD. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment- the lack of English articles may make it difficult to create an in-depth article, it would be more useful to create an article in the French Knowledge (XXG). Gsingh (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh, no. You could just learn reading other languages. There is no requirement that references be in English. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm surprised at a weak keep, above. There are plenty of sources--see this, for instance (SIK Paris is his club). I've added this article, proving his silver medal--and Le Parisien is a reliable source, yes, even if it is in French. Also, what the Kangaroo said: priere de lire WP:DEVANT. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable with the silver medal win, although the article is in need of some expansion there's no reason for deletion.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'Keep Based on him winning the silver metal at the European Karate Championships. Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you get a 61 results in French. Anyone who speaks French can search for the French words for "silver" and "medal" as well, or the championship's name, and find coverage. The medal itself is enough to prove his notability though. Dream Focus 23:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No !votes to delete were posted. (Non-Administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. While this singer exists, I cannot find sufficient substantial RS coverage of him to meet our notability requirements. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Correction. 83 Google News hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Errata. I still get zero gbooks hits, but the zero news hits must have been without "archives" having been chosen. Looking through the hits, they seem sufficient IMHO. Tx for catching that. Nomination withdrawn.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A-B Helicopters (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I also can't find anything about it outside its own website. —Ed! 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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} 09:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• 'delete no sources, no article--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW, and the procedural concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Admin, This might not be notable. Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable, no ref, google search turns up nothingZzaffuto118 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• are you lying or did you not just google olivier beaudry there are plenty of results including videos even french wikipedia article .if beaudry is not notable then no karateka are.the man has won multiple medals at the top competition for karate the european or world championships.whats the sense of having a karateka category if a multiple medalist like beaudry isnt notable,what would be notable for karate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesueur878 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - he was European Champion in 2004, per this, so that is a good claim to notability. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator seems unsure about the topic's notability, rather than advancing notions why the topic isn't notable. Northamerica1000 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per User:GiantSnowman. The nominator must take more care in future before proposing articles for AfD. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Non-notable youth player who has yet to play in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.", and was endorsed by another editor. PROD constested by the article's creator with no reason given. Concern remains valid. – Kosm1fent 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1fent 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Without a fully pro or international cap and without significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Baron Baretzky Ricardo

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Clifford Gardens Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in multiple, unrelated, reliable sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. - Being Toowoomba's second largest shopping centre doesn't establish notability. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete coverage is limited to bomb threats and "Fluorescent orange stickers are being plastered across the windows of those who park in the bays at Clifford Gardens Shopping Centre". hardly any real indepth coverage about the centre. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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 per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Institute for Competitive Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable, not verified, appears to be an advertisement LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious spam: ....was founded to provide post-graduate professionals a solid and flexible Competitive Intelligence training program to become a certified CI-Professional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's a tough thing to kill . Even with a chainsaw. -Addams Family Values LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Contested prod. Was retagged, but I removed since you can only prod an article once. However, the reasoning still stands. "WP:NEOLOGISM; "capecodcracy" gets exactly two ghits, one of which is this article, and the other is in WP user space. Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day" Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 07:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Capecodcracy 66 hits on google half of them being about an expired domain name. -AMAPO (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete for above-mentioned reasons (unsurprisingly, since I was the guy who retagged it; sorry, I'd missed it had been previously prodded). Will note that most of those 66 ghits from the Mexican Google are actually capecodecraZy, not capecodcraCy; the US Google doesn't give the crazy term, and thus zero non-Knowledge (XXG) hits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

He is a candidate and has not been elected. Please discuss if this article should be kept on Wiki. Thanks AKS (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep – AFD is not cleanup. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator seems unsure about the topic's notability, rather than advancing notions why the topic isn't notable. Northamerica1000 14:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and lack of coverage. _matic 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not-notable businessman who decided to run for President. Location (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect (to New Hampshire Republican primary, 2012). Neutrality 06:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I, too, would be OK with redirect if he gets some votes. I assume we will know by the time this closes. Location (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Probably not a good idea per Brian Dell. Very few votes and multiple redirect targets anyway (Iowa 2008, New Hampshire 2008, New Hampshire 2012). Location (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete With 16% of polls reporting, he's tied for 22nd with several other candidates with three (3) votes out of more than 33,000 cast. Appearing on a candidate list does not mean that there should be a redirect. I ran for office in 2008 and got 2.7% of the vote and that doesn't mean there should be redirect for my name.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Insignificant contribution to the the electoral process.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable individual.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Not remotely notable. Probably a self-published page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabazap (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. No reason for deletion has been provided. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Kattoor Narayana Pillai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

AKS (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and close – AFD is not cleanup. The nomination has no text, and doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Dean Williams (Author & Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable subject, apparently known only for some obscure book. Article seems to have been written by the subject. However, makes some assertion of importance, so I thought AfD was more appropriate than CSD. Basalisk ⁄_berate 06:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - book is not just obscure, it's unpublished; the publisher website lists a June 2012 release date. If that's the most notability he has... --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per NatGertler - This article fails to assert the importance of its subject.  -- WikHead (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious delete is obvious. If an admin happens across this please just speedy close and get rid of it. Basalisk ⁄_berate 07:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing here to show notability and I'm a little suspicious of the fact that we've had so many single purpose accounts sign up just to edit this article. I don't think that they mean to do any harm, but I can't help but wonder if they're potentially sockpuppets or meatpuppets that know Williams personally. Just in case they're reading this, please be careful about adding to articles about someone you know. It's very easy for good intentions to turn bad because you're viewing things as having more notability than it actually has. Also, IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source to show notability, nor can any pages that merely list Williams' resume or acting profile. A reliable source would be an article that goes into depth and length about Williams and doesn't just briefly mention or quote him. Also, just starring in films and writing a book does not give automatic notability, no matter what company signed him. I also want to mention that pages that just go to the publisher's website or any place where the book is just listed for sale cannot be used as reliable sources showing notability either because they just show that the books exist and that Williams has wrote, which again- does not automatically give him notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Non notable album which failed to chart or win any awards, thus fails WP:NALBUM Jezhotwells (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. As with the previous AfD discussion, Superficial qualifies for notability since there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Till I Go Home (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NALBUMS even says "all articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That means it passes both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. I don't even know why this is at AfD. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. Charting or winning awards are not requirements for having an article.--Michig (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and close - Per references in the article, this topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as per previous AfD discussion; nothing's changed. Significant coverage exists in multiple independent reliable sources. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow  17:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Stars discography. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's Alchemy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable song with no references. Article does not actually provide any information about the song. No actual proof that the song exists. What a pro. (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stars discography. The song exists , but mere existence does not warrant an individual article. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. I support a redirect as the subject is a possible search term and, per WP:NSONGS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article..."  Gongshow  18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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 deleted by Smartse as "(G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Future of the Indian Navy (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 same article has been created often by the same Sockpuppets, and later deleted by an admin. Looks like this is just a repeat of past attempts by the sock.

Regarding article content, it is a poorly wrote, POV pushing and a largely copy and paste duplicate of information already given on main article. By contrast the original information on the main article is quite well wrote, well sourced and from a neutral point of view.

I suggest this article is deleted asap. Thank you for your time. Talk 03:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is a very informative one. It has been removed because user Woe90i wanted it to go. There exists an article like Future of the Royal Navy. Denying a page for the Indian Navy in a similar manner to have detailed information about the procurement and various vessels under construction is bias. Such bias must not exist in Knowledge (XXG). Correctiondetail (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The article needs expansion rather than deletion. I don't know what is this mad bias towards anything India and Indian. Such stupidity is going for a long long time. Need to stop. The article is need to be improved with lot of information on the latest procurement including the Navy's plans to induct Trimaran Stealth ships. This need to be kept updated to the latest information available. This page will also ensure that the main page of the Indian Navy is not cluttered with the long list of acquisition and construction details of ships, subs, satellites etc.Correctiondetail (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And on a lighter note, the construction and procurement plans of the Indian Navy is massive. It will take a whole page even to list those procurement, construction details. If anything need to be removed then that can be

This user (Correctiondetail) is a self admitting sockpuppet of Chanakyathegreat as I suspected. The article needs deletion for reasons I gave above. Talk 10:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for any of several reasons: recreation of previously deleted article; POV content fork of Indian Navy.  --Lambiam 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable music studio. The list of artists don't even have pages on here. Tinton5 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning toward delete per nom. There are references to the studio and its founder in local publications, but invariably these appear to be peripheral mentions in articles (some of which necessitate payment in order to view) about the musicians who record at the facilities. Needs more than that, like multiple articles about the studio. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm open to the possibility that this studio might possibly meet WP:MUSIC, but the sources cited don't really do much to verify the information in the article, and I'm not finding better ones. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that the standards required by the GNG have not been met here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Max Semenik (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Nicole van Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

1. Subject fails WP:GNG and that it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources.
2. Subject fails WP:ARTIST on each point. The artist apparently has been featured in some lower profile collections according to the claims of the article, but that does not equate to "featuring in permament collections in notable galleries". Similarly, the artist has athored books that are sold on Amazon, but I can't find any independent secondary coverage of these books.

Article doesn't establish notability, and comes across primarily as very promotional in nature. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note to busy actual editors: Before you trudge through the walls of text below, you might want to know that User:Artmaestro, who speaks about the subject in the third person, is in fact the subject herself, per her own declaration. Honestly, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? EEng (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'm adding the SPA tag to her comments below.

• THIS FROM DEE NOBLE:
• KEEP: We are new at this and not sure how to participate formally, but this sounds like an urgent situation so please forgive the lack of formality. We often use Knowledge (XXG) as a our first place to search things, and we expect to find things about the super famous and locally famous and exciting up and coming. In writing this, we hope that we not only are expressing our support for this page, but also for the notion that what is "significant" and "success" and "notability" for an artist/author differs greatly from what is "notability" for a blockbuster movie. To us, Nicole van Dam is a VERY important local artist with an impressive international presence due to her many years of licensing her fine art onto products, and we would be surprised NOT to find her on Knowledge (XXG), as would many of her collectors. For artist's, not every exhibit or major collection purchase becomes newspaper fare (or readily internet accessible). For example, her work has hung at Santa Barbara City Hall for several years (and not only are photos of her art hanging at City Hall on the artist's website Wishes.bz (under the Memory Gallery tab) but you can contact the City Hall Mayor's and Councilmen's office to confirm that, their contact info is in the article). Her art is also a significant part of a local major collection at Community Memorial Hospital, and was on display for their grand opening of their new Cancer Center Building (again, photos of this are in the Memory Gallery tab of her website, and you can contact the hospital using the information provided in the article). In addition, her work has hung continually for more than a decade, and is currently on display at no less than 5 venues in our area, and she has had MANY gallery openings (cites for Newspaper coverage is in the article),she has been written up in the Montecito Journal (cite provided in the article, with date, etc), and chronicled by the Montecito Historical Committee (contact and name of chronicler provided in the article along with contact information), and her 1978 mural at the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory is part of the Smithsonian Institution's slide show collection, which happened in 1978. She gives back to the community significantly (see the Community Service tab of her website), not only as a volunteer and donor of her art & time to worthy causes, but also teaches for Santa Barbara City College (she is listed on the college's site as a member of two departments - Art and Business/Entrepreneurship). She has authored several books (as can be seen by Google Books and Amazon), and has been invited as the artist for gallery openings to read her poetry with her art (again, cites provided in the article, including to the Ventura Star newspaper, which is the newspaper for this LARGE part of California, the Central Coast). Her art has been licensed internationally, on many products (we own many of them and can send you pictures of them; by searching her name you will find the myriad of pictures on the web (search just for her name, MANY will come up), please also search Amazon.com, if the photos on her website do not suffice). For example, if you search the results on Amazon.com for her name, not only will the many books she wrote appear, but also right now there are many glass plates made under license bearing her art, that are for sale by vendors totally unrelated to the artist. This is in addition to the other cites such as to her listing as a Harmony Ball artist provided in the article, that you can see on the web. If you search for her name and tile you can find another licensor who licenses her art and puts them on tile murals. She (her work and poetry) has been written up in collector newsletters that are international (again, cite provided with location on web for the source of the newsletter provided). One of her children's books, that she wrote and illustrated, has been licensed by the same company that does the Pixar movies for the iPhone and iPad, etc. (again, cite and link provided; an international celebrity did the narration for the digital version). Through all these products out there bearing her name (from fine art to licensed products to children's books to adult books to digital), thousands (literally) of people (some avid collectors like us, some not) own something of her creations might wish to go to Knowledge (XXG) to learn more about her. It is an onerous responsibility to say what the world does NOT have the right to read - there should be an article about this artist for someone who just purchased (or was given) something bearing her name. We believe, and perhaps reasonable minds might differ, that this artist has enough accomplishments that it is clear that she is NOTABLE and is collected not only regionally but around the world, including also the slide archive at the Smithsonian Institution. We think it would be a shame if Knowledge (XXG) took her information away. We are not sure what Knowledge (XXG)'s incentive would be to do that. Also, since we are in the midst of the holidays, I personally think it is a shame that this is coming up now, as it is a questionable time to get people's participation when they are busy with family, and I don't know how long the window is for this decision. We ask that the reviewers search the web for the artist's name, and begin to think that if so many products have been circulating for at least 10 years, how many owners and collectors there are out there of her work, many of whom are older and less likely to use the web (I know this Knowledge (XXG) process is confounding me and again I apologize if this is wrong but it is important to us!!!). It's true you won't find her (or very many living artists) mentioned in the media with the intensity as you would a blockbuster movie or Harry Potter (all of whom have well paid publicists, by the way - it's a bit naive to think such a mention is not swayed by fiscal might and connections), but such coverage as for a blockbuster movie is not the standard for a fine artist. We think most fine artists would agree that her accomplishments ARE notable accomplishments for a fine artist, and hope that this information is helpful to you all in making your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeNoble (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC) HERE IS OUR SIGNATURE (HOPE THIS WORKS!)DeeNoble (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — DeeNoble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Artmaestro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I just wanted to add for now that we're still in the holiday season so we're off for more happy holiday celebrations, so I need a little more time to address this, and I hope that is OK with everyone. In the meantime, Happy New Year everybody, and if you have time to spare, I hope you browse inside the "Tempo-Rhythm and Rhyme of the Artist" book and that you enjoy the art and poetry you find there - I cite to the Amazon listing for this book at http://www.amazon.com/Tempo-M-Nicole-van-Dam/dp/1453802118 because it allows people to actually read the inside of the book and see some some of the book's art and poetry - and please also visit http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?page_id=560 where you can also see more art and poetry. You might also get a kick out of the memory ball at http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?flagallery=memories-make-the-world-go-round because the memory ball has lots of photos of the various gallery openings (jam packed as you will see), art at City Hall, art in other collections, etc. After the holiday I'll weigh in further as needed with more formal cites to third parties, if the various citations already in the article and kindly noted in Dee Noble's response does not suffice, and if the opportunity is provided then. Again, and until then, HAPPY NEW YEAR! Artmaestro (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

— Artmaestro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. We're still celebrating New Years but I did quickly add to the article this cite http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf (this is the official City of Ventura issued periodical "State of the Arts" (this issue March-April 2011), and each artwork and poetry depicted in this particular photo of the debut of this public exhibition space is the artwork and poetry of Nicole (and in addition, the article lists Nicole as one of three artists chosen by the City of Ventura for this debut of public display space). While I will respond further once the holidays are over, I just wish to list the following for your consideration:

The following notable accomplishments indicate that this article should not be deleted:

1. The artist's work has been chosen for an important City public exhibition in Ventura, California REFERENCES FOR POINT 1: http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf (this is the official City of Ventura issued periodical "State of the Arts" (this issue March-April 2011), and each artwork and poetry depicted in this particular photo of the debut of this public exhibition space is the artwork and poetry of M. Nicole van Dam (and in addition in the article itself Nicole van Dam is listed as one of three artists chosen by the City of Ventura for this debut of public display space); this City is known as a City having many artists, so there were many artists that this City could have selected, but they selected the subject of the article.

2. The artist's work has been on ongoing public display at a different city's (Santa Barbara) City Hall (also a different county)(i.e., two different cities have recognized this artist) for approximately 5 years, and has been written up in Newspapers of that area.

REFERENCES FOR POINT 2: See, e.g., "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005 ; there are actual photos of the City Hall display at City Hall at the artist's website at http://Wishes.bz

3. The artist created a mural at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts that is part of the Smithsonian Institution slide collection .

REFERENCES FOR POINT 3: see also Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

4. The artist has a children's book she wrote and illustrated, and this children's book has been animated (for the iPhone, iPad etc products) by the same company that does the DreamWorks children's books (such as Shrek and Smurfs); it is also important to note that this animated version of Nicole's children's book was narrated by a famous BBC personality;

REFERENCES FOR POINT 4: You can see Nicole's children's book online and see excerpts of the inside of the book at either http://IncaDink.com or you can use the Look Inside feature on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Inca-Dink-Great-Houndini-Magician/dp/1453780548/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325526193&sr=8-3 ; Nicole's book was animated (for the iPhone, iPad etc products) by the same company that does the DreamWorks children's books (such as Shrek and Smurfs); it is also important to note that this animated version of Nicole's children's book was narrated by a famous BBC personality; http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inca-dink-the-great-houndini/id379216706?mt=8 (at this iTunes page click on the blue colored "More" link and you will see the credits including the artist's name as author, illustrator and narrator, as well as the well-known BBC personality listed as the narrator)

5. The artist is internationally licensed, with international collectors, and has been written up in collector newsletters

REFERENCES FOR POINT 5: An example of one the artist's many international licenses with an international collector community is the Harmony Ball Company; M. Nicole van Dam's listing as an artist for the Harmony Ball Company (as well as a brief biography) can be found at http://www.harmonyball.com/artists.asp and has been highlighted in "The Queen's Quarterly" Collector Newsletters in the years 2006-2007 (Queen's Quarterly collector newsletter found on the web at http://www.harmonykingdom.com/history/1995royalwatch.htm; examples of how licensed products are shown USING THE ARTIST'S NAME as part of the description can be seen at http://www.hermannsgifts.com/shop/productDetail.asp?pid=855 and at http://www.julesenchantinggifts.com/jar/sparrow.shtml; another example of different international license agreement and how items are sold again using the artist's name is at http://www.ebay.com/itm/Artist-Nicole-van-Dam-Venice-Gondolier-12-Glass-Tray-/220493539143 ; please also see http://www.fernsgarden.com/house/laser-engraved-524/drink-coasters-608/hummingbird-1245.aspx which shows that Nicole's name and bio is prominently placed on the reverse side of this coaster; in addition you can search either Amazon or Ebay on any given day and find products sold using the artist's name as part of the description; a different sort of license would be of M. Nicole van Dam's narration as well as illustrated children's book is with iStoryTime which can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inca-dink-the-great-houndini/id379216706?mt=8 ; see also http://artstudio.bz for images of various licensed products sold internationally. With all these works being sold using the artist's name, it is quite reasonable that people who buy (or are gifted) these products will wish to look up the artist on Knowledge (XXG) to learn more.

6. If you do a Google Books search or a search on Amazon you will find many books by this artist (new and used), and if you use the Amazon site you can use their Look Inside Feature to actually see inside the books.

REFERENCES FOR POINT 6: Search on Google Books or http://Amazon.com or http://Ebay.com or http://Google.com for the artist's name, and many listings come up at various sellers of various items bearing the artist's name, including books.

7. Several independent news articles and references from several periodicals (including government issued material) referring to the artist and supporting the assertions in the article are cited in the Article (in addition to those listed in this protest), so there are outside sources appropriate to an artist. I think it is also important to note that not everything covering an artist career is readily available on the internet, especially if the events occurred before the internet became widely used. Not all archives are up to date, for example. However, the artist's website does provide photos of openings, exhibits, news coverage, etc., in two different formats, at http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?flagallery=memories-make-the-world-go-round#/2 (this might be a bit dizzying so the second one that follows might be a better source for this purpose)and at http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?page_id=257 Again, I will supplement this response if needed, thank you for the opportunity.

REFERENCES FOR ITEM 7: http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 ; Ventura County Star "What's Happening at Local Galleries and Museums" Friday February 4 2011 and Friday February 18, 2011, etc.; "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005; "Santa Barbara NewsPress" Jan 29, 2006; http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf; Santa Barbara County Arts Commission site at http://www.sbartscommission.org/exhibitions/galleries.html (official government site listing the Santa Barbara City Hall gallery and listing and providing a link to M. Nicole van Dam); please see also “Santa Barbara Independent” newspaper http://www.independent.com/search/?query=nicole+van+dam&x=0&y=0; see also October 2005 and November 2004 articles in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal covering Nicole’s artist receptions at the Art for Living Gallery, respectively, in the Santa Ynez Valley, California (http://www.syvjournal.com/ (includes also a photograph of the artist); see also Scene & Heard in Santa Barbara February 9, 2006 and AOL Reporter March 2006; see also January 2006 Santa Barbara Associates Newsletter "An Interview with M. Nicole van Dam" (http://www.santabarbaraassociates.org/newsletter.html shows current site of that organization); and more references will be provided after the holiday or as requested by this review board.

I hope that this will be helpful all around. I do have more than this to add to protest the deletion of the page, so thank you for this bit of extra time while we celebrate New Years, and again, all the best to all of you!

Please let me know how we might improve this page or what additional information you might wish, in addition to the various changes we've made since the issue arose December 28. Artmaestro (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised Again21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wow...TLDR, anyone? Anyway, I'm neutral here, but the article was pretty obviously written by a handful of people connected to the artist. Erpert 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I also am a frequent Knowledge (XXG) user but don't do editing. I was given one of the artist's glass plates as a present - it came with a card having her name - I looked her up and out of curiousity came to this page. I want to weigh in, for what it is worth, to say that if 2 different cities have recognized this artist, shouldn't Knowledge (XXG)? If the artist is reading this - I love the plate! Make more!66.10.94.35 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — 66.10.94.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I removed plagiarized material, redundant material, press release material, material unsupported by its references, the wordy and repeated references that were arguments for keeping the article rather than references (references are sources, not arguments), and advertisements for the van Dam's merchandise. It is somewhat readable now.

TLDR, above, apparently stands for "Too Long, Didn't Read." I suspect they mean both the article on van Dam (way too long and the references were unreadable) and your post above, but maybe they don't. I do. Pseudofusulina (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was only referring to the post above (and the ones below, lol). Erpert 11:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• KEEP: References provided by artmaestro (especially artmaestro nos. 1,2,3,5 and 7 above)(however verbose) show article satisfies several elements of both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST by indicating government collections as well as corporate/hospital collections and public exhibition. These assertions appear evidenced by government created websites and regional newspapers. Furthermore, WP:DP states at top of page state that all deletions are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think a fulcrum issue for some editors in this instance might be that licensing history, however extensive and regardless if evidenced by the article, is not specifially clearly addressed in WP:ARTIST (or other) guidelines in the WP:DP. I believe national/international licensing history should expressly be part of the WP:ARTIST or other guidelines, because such extensive licensing (as indicated by the references in artmaestro number 5 above) provides the artist ongoing national (and in this case international) coverage. Licensing history also evidences that independent 3rd party manufacturers feel an artist notable enough to use the artist's name on articles that manufacturer develops and manufactures, which is a financial and reputation risk to the manufacturer. For example, any product development requires a manufacturer to expend resources making molds, prototypes, etc. Simply stated, a manufacturer must find the artist notable to pay money to use the artist's name and art on their products, so therefore significant licensing history in and of itself should be support of notability. Also at least one gallery (note - this gallery is associated with the school at which the subject of the article is a professor) refers to this artist in a list of artists as being nationally recognized. While in some instances this might be of questionable import (given the affiliation of the artist with the school), in this instance such recognition by the artist's peers might be especially meaningful because this particular school itself Santa Barbara City College was in 2011 the only school in California to be named as one of the ten finalist community colleges in the nation by the Aspen Institute's College Excellence Program.. I also find the animated children's book project that was created using an established talent and animator helpful to the article's case - see artmaestro no. 4 above. All artmaestro's points above show a consistent track record and history of national, peer and manufacturer recognition, and even if one does not agree that the standard of WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG is precisely met here (I think the standards of each are satisfied weel enough here), nonetheless a solid argument can be made that "common sense" as noted in the WP:DP could be used to support keeping the article, because licensing simply is not yet expressly addressed in the WP:DP. If there is doubt, this is an article that should NOT be deleted.208.127.109.195 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 208.127.109.195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• DELETE -- BLP There do not appear to be non-self generated sources about this artist. The community college expends more effort on her teaching of entrepreneur classes than on her art. Her notability as a licensed artist should come from a reliable source, not the simple assertion.

The sources in the article are general links to websites, links to the artist's own websites and sales of products, or the gallery listing that is simply a link to a mention of her as an "Ojai artist." None of these establish notability under wikipedia guidelines.

As this is a BLP and it does not establish the subject's notability, I think it should be deleted. If reliable third-party sources, stating the artist's notability, are found, the article can be recreated. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • In response to the prior post, I would like to add that a person could reasonably disagree with Pseudofulina's assessment: For example, http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 does show support of this well-known school for the artist AS an artist. Moreover, the official City of Ventura government site http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf not only lists the artist as an artist but shows the artist's artwork and poetry on display at an important new pubic venue for that City. Similarly, the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission site at http://www.sbartscommission.org/exhibitions/galleries.html is an official government site listing the Santa Barbara City Hall venue (the artist's art for several years has been hanging in the City and Councilmen's offices at that City Hall) and this goverment site provides a link to the artist's website. Also, I am sorry to have included the links to products in the Article to the extent they muddied the issue - please know that all links to products were intended to show national coverage by virtue of licensing, which also establishes national recognition and hence notability, as well as allow people to peer inside books to enjoy some free content, but I can appreciate why these links might be misunderstood. I therefore respect and defer to Pseudofulina's elimination of the product references from the article. However, the product references showing many manufacturers have licensed the artist's artwork should not be entirely disregarded from this discussion of notability, etc. because of the national coverage the licenses provide at tradeshows, etc. Ironically, much of the concern here seems to be that the article is solely promotional - this is ironic because my intuition is that people are more likely to visit Wikipeda and see the article AFTER they have made a purchase than before making a purchase. As an adjunct to that thought, any traffic that does not go to Knowledge (XXG) in search of information on the artist will inevitably go to the artist's own website at http://Wishes.bz, so at least arguably an artist with an extensive website might benefit from NOT having an article on Knowledge (XXG), which diverts traffic. In any event, please also know that I will respect whatever decision is handed down, and trust that the correct decision will be made. I think I have done all I can, and actually another commentator above who voted Keep expressed any argument to be made in wiki-speak far better than I am able to do. Thank you all very much for your generosity of time and spirited work on behalf of WIkipedia, and for those that gave me guidance, thank you as well Artmaestro (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your first link lists her name, but says nothing about her other than she is faculty at a community college. The second link says she is from Ojai and part of a single group installation, but also says nothing about her. The third link only mentions her name, then hyperlinks to a product sales page. Just repeating in response.

I don't see what an artist benefiting from not having a wikipedia article has to do with notability.

This article does not meet guidelines for BLPs on wikipedia because it fails to provide reliable and neutral references about the notability of the subject. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)