Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 27 (Fri) September 26 (Thu) September 25 (Wed) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern.Not-Sorted

< 14 July	16 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Kosovo. The article was redirected for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

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

Pointless article. Its title refers to nothing in particular and it is not an alternative name for anything. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:00, 15 July 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 result was keep. Per WP:PROF, as outlined by the keep !voters. Jimsteele, you should only bold a !vote once.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig Bartholomew

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

Despite the WP:PEACOCK within the page, doesn't seem to fit WP:ACADEMIC Although I found publications he authored, many are from obscure presses (most from the college he teaches at) and I see little coverage of his work by others. Bottom line: When I applied the "Average Professor Test" to Bartholomew, he failed. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment The subject is Craig Bartholomew Is he a notable academic? I can't say. The wikipedia page cites many articles that he has published. A google search I did turned up a few hits from amazon books that he's written. Other reviewers may know the answer. --Artene50 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I have a feeling this nomination has been made in reaction to the peacockery present in the article, and as part of a cleanup of Redeemer University College related articles. The thing is, Bartholomew clearly passes Criterion 5 of WP:PROF, in that he holds a named chair at a "major institution of higher education". Now, this word "major" has been inserted to eliminate tiny and/or unaccredited institutions - but RUC is neither. Bartholomew is a significant figure in the field of Biblical hermeneutics. His h-index is 9, which may seem quite low, but theologians don't tend to rate as highly on that scale. St Anselm (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Redeemer University College has "50 full time" staff members. That's not "mayor" for an academic institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say that? St Anselm (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, maybe he read this:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as per StAnselm (I hope this isn't considered disruptive). Cites are reasonably good for theology to give a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Publication list is puffy and could be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
Comment I nominated the article because the bulk of the publications are WP:BLPSPS This was made clear in a previous edit by JFHjr and reverted back without reason. This was strange, as he had a point. An Amazon search isn't enough to establish notability. The peacockery just makes the article look more like a public relations statement, really, and didn't impact my decision to think it ought to be deleted. No, the long list of vanity press sources made it all suspect, and him failing the Professor Test are the reasons, WP:RESUME just makes it messy.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete due to the paucity of non-vanity press and non-self-published sources. Also note that in the General notes section of WP:PROF, it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject; I'm not seeing enough to support an article, so I'm voting delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the reference to vanity press publications. Which ones are you referring to? Surely you'd admit that he's written a lot that's not self-published. St Anselm (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:GNG by not having coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of coverage by independent third party sources: see the citations in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

Really? Could you give some exmpales? The first two pages of results on the google scholar link above contain no biographical coverage that I can see. (I'm not in the USA and sometimes see different google hits). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Citations invariably never contain biographical coverage. See WP:Prof for policy on these matters. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

Yes, for academics, the concept of notability is re-imagined as the extent to which the subject's views are assessed and promulgated. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The situation in regard to Redeemer University College may be something that sometimes has occurred with low-ranking institutions. A naive college administrator decides that the institution's profile would be improved if all its academic staff were to have entries in Knowledge and forces them to write such. This often leads to disappointment when the BLPs are deleted. However, I suggest that this BLP is one that qualifies for retention. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC).
Comment. Not only does he pass WP:PROF #5, and probably #1, but he also probably passes #8, as a former editor of the Journal of Theological Interpretation. Now, JTI was not "well established" at the time (he was the inaugural editor), but it comes from a reputable publisher, and has a significant worldcat presence. Remember: Bartholomew's field is particularly biblical hermeneutics, rather than the wider field of biblical studies. In this narrower field (which the journal represents), he is one of the foremost scholars. St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep: this is a response from an extremely limited perspective, but I've just cited one of his books (from Ashgate, a mainstream academic publisher) at Ephesus. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment StAnselm, it is not open and shut. In terms of WP:PROF read that in the General notes section of WP:PROF, it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject. He doesn't fulfill this, doesn't pass the professor test. Also, in terms of sources, you should know the answer to your question, seeing how you've started/edited the bulk of the "reputable publishers" he has been featured in. It suggests WP:COI, either that you work at RC or are affiliated with it or him. Either way, the bottom line is that yes, to answer your question, he has written a lot. But no, that in itself does not make him notable. Certainly not enough to fulfill WP:PROF Listing every publication he has to his name doesn't make a difference. Some of the sources are from presses that in themselves are questioned to be notable. Others are obscure enough not to have any secondary coverage. Moreover, for someone who has so much out there, you'd think we'd be able to find many reliable, independent sources, and there aren't any to be found. Lastly, yes, he does have a title and that is great but as other editors have pointed out per language in WP:PROF"Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability." RC is not a major institution.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. You are suggesting a COI - what, because I started the Journal of Theological Interpretation article? That seems utterly ridiculous. What's going on here? St Anselm (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What Jimsteele9999 seems to be alluding to is that you've edited a number of articles in this area. Since you have 56k edits and an apparent interest in Christianity articles I personlly don't find that surprising. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed that an interest in the area is perceived as a conflict of interest. It's a serious accusation, and a very poor argument to use in an AfD. St Anselm (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The larger issue is the question of RC as a "major institution". Since your rationale for this guy being notable is because he teaches at school X, and to fulfill the expectation of Y he must teach at X which is a major institution. As pointed out by Stuartyeates and reiterated by me, Redeemer College--with only 50 full time staff members--is not major. Only 50 full time staff members (and this may not even be all faulty) is not a major institution. The lack of reviews, awards and other independent coverage of his scholarship just reinforce a delete.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the larger issue. Because even if he fails #5, he still passes #1 and #8 of WP:PROF. And the way it works is that he only needs to pass one of those in order to be notable. The problem is, you have grossly confused reputable academic journals with vanity press publications. St Anselm (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out, to refute Jimsteele9999's point above, that WP:PROF says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" (emphasis original). St Anselm (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There seems to be a significant misunderstanding here about the nature of WP:PROF and its relationship with WP:GNG. WP:GNG is a "fall back position" - subjects who fails WP:PROF may still be notable under WP:GNG. Of course WP:PROF is a "guideline" rather than a policy, but then so is WP:GNG. Furthermore, it says that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details," so the issue of third-party coverage is not a problem here. St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to claim that the subject meets #1, #5 and #8 of WP:PROF. The evidence in the article does not appear to directly support this with independent refs (and evidence of notability must be supported by independent refs, even when routine detials are not). 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The only apparently independent working link appears to be which says nothing of his impact. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). As discussed above, a recently founded college with 50 fulltime staff does not normally qualify as 'a major institution of higher education and research.' 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. The article claims he was editor of Journal of Theological Interpretation, which does not appear (from it's article, which I've just tagged as having zero independent refs) to be a 'major well-established academic journal.' Maybe there are sources out there that I'm not aware of or can't access (I'll admit to knowing nothing about this field, I didn't trawl through archive.org and I'm in a country that regularly missing content in google for copyright reasons), but the notability does not appear to be evident in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence of notability can be discerned from Google Scholar citations - that's how WP:PROF works. In other words, we assess how much impact his work has made in his particular field. I qualified my claim about the Journal of Theological Interpretation with the caveat that it was a new journal when Bartholomew edited it. But a reputable publisher wanted to start a new journal covering a specific, burgeoning field - and they asked Bartholomew to edit it. That indicates that he is a major player in his field - which covers both the letter and the spirit of WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar hits is all it takes? According to this he has cites of 33, 32, 26 and 21. According to this I have cites of 66, 53, 33, and 33. And to be clear, I'm not, and never have been, an academic. Am I notable under WP:PROF? Never. So clearly google scholar hits are not all it takes... Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is cites, not hits, that count for WP:Prof#C1 and, as discussed on its talk page, citation rates for theology are much lower than for most other subjects. For computer science they are particularly high so you are correct in presuming that you would not rate under WP:Prof#1 in that area, although you might if you had worked in theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Comment So now that we've determined Redeemer College is not a major institution, and thus the fact Bartholomew teaches there, has a title there, doesn't fulfill WP:PROF, St. Anselm is testifying that since he was an editor of a journal for one year, he fulfills WP:PROF. First of all, if--and I mean if--Jounral of Theologial Interpretation is a "major and well-established journal" than that would matter. But we've found zero independent refs. Strange for a "major journal" (theology or otherwise). Stuartyeates demonstrates that hits (which in Google Scholar appear as citations) are not enough. For someone who, as St. Anselm attests, is "a major player" wouldn't we see more in the way of independent sources? He fails #1, #5 and #8 per Stuartyeates demonstrations, rationale and thus ought to be deleted.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we haven't established that Redeemer College is not a major institution - that's only ever been asserted. St Anselm (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- Looking at every faculty bio at , I find that he's the only member of the full-time faculty with a named chair. This eliminates for me any concerns that named chairs at RC might be less prestigious or more common than at other small schools. StAnselm and others' research suggests strongly that he may qualify not just under PROF's C5 but also under C1 and C8. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. SK1 - nominator does not propose deletion The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Capture of painted turtles

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

most of the content is in the main article. I am the main author. Page is never going to go anywhere. Was just me trying to save a few words for posterity when I had to slim a section down in the main article. Thing is also very low view. Don't even consider it a deletion. more like a merge (content is in main article). TCO (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment So why not a {{merge to}}? What arises in a merge situation is the main article painted turtle is already large and according to WP:SIZERULE a split is required. Regards, SunCreator 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per SK #1 – the nomination suggests a merge, and doesn't seem to have an adequate rationale for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. Per WP:SIZERULE, this is a reasonable split from the main Painted turtle article. Also, upon review, most of the information in this article does not appear to be in the main article. Rather, the main article seems to summarize information in this Capture of painted turtles article. Lastly, this article is well-sourced. Northamerica1000 01:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricardo Esgaio

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he will play in a fully pro league this season. This is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete all per nom, fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete all: what you and Snowman said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Possible search term/used in links — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Twitter users

AfDs for this article:

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

With the deletion of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber on Twitter, this list has outlived its usefulness.While I was one of the proponents keeping the list before, I thought it made sense for navigation when we had multiple Twitter articles (at there were at least four additional ones). Now that there is only Barack Obama and a few other less popular feeds, it is not nearly as useful. kelapstick 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians which itself likely needs a rename. I agree that as is, it is no longer useful and may get much less so in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete (and redirect to another article) - There is already a Category:Twitter accounts. There is nothing valuable about rankings and followers in this list. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You're all aborting my favorite child. I'm saddened. When I signed up for Knowledge, so many years ago, I didn't realize that this was my future--this, which is now being cut short. I hope that the tweetable title "List of notable people who have articles on Knowledge regarding their use of Twitter" continues to live somewhere as a redirect. As the creator, though, I am obviously biased, so I'll refrain from commentary. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that your request to save the redirect has fallen on deaf ears. My condolences. When will the service be held? Never mind, I will read about it on your Twitter feed. --kelapstick 07:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete I don't see how a list of twitter users could be encyclopedic.Keystoner idin (speak) 05:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Reason given in previous nomination. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. This list makes about as much sense as "List of Facebook users" or "List of Internet users". —Psychonaut (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete/redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment I just closed Talk:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians#Proposal to merge as merge List of Twitter users to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Does that mean go-to-hell-you-all-delete-voter-i-have-already-decided-that-it-be-merged-and-thus-a-redirect-be-made? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It was more like a FYI, that a merge could take place before the conclusion of this discussion. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, we have a probable conflict between the ongoing processes. Any ideas of how to resolve this? This AfD was started several days after the merge discussion was started,by someone not involved in this discussion. I fully concur with the results of that merge discussion, but isn't our normal practice that a decision on a community page has priority over local consensus on an article talk page.? Or does whichever one gets there first supersede the other? DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep/ It surprises me that so many people wanted to delete this - this article would be useful in helping people to appreciate how many celebrities, such as Stephen Fry, have - at least some stage in their careers - used Twitter. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ITSUSEFUL. And twitter use is WP:ROUTINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

TIPS China Building

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

This was a building project that was cancelled and such is not notable. I have made appropriate edits to reflect the cancellation of the project should the article not be deleted. _babylarm 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete The construction was cancelled so its not notable now unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete As Artene50 mentioned, the building project has been cancelled so it is no longer notable. I created this article when the project had not been cancelled. _babylarm 13:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Router clustering

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

A technology that is patented and used only by a single networking company, FatPipe Networks, which doesn't have an article itself and I could find no reliable sources discussing it (an article used to exist, created by the same user, but was deleted under CSD G11). The technology also doesn't appear to have had wider impact on the design of routers, based on a cursory Google Scholar search for the name, which mostly comes up with patents and unrelated uses of the term. Dcoetzee 21:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Of the two references in the article, one is to a patent that doesn't even use the word "cluster" in either the title or abstract. The other reference is to a free dictionary that defines it using almost identical text to that in Knowledge, so either it is just copied from WP or the WP text is a copy-vio. Google search turned up very little to suggest that the concept is notable. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - REsults for router clustering that I found do not appear to be related to this technology. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability found. --Kvng (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Matthew M. Urquhart

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

Article subject does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only available sources appear to be WP:SPS. Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete No reliable secondary sources, unsourced personal information. No evidence of notability. They claim to have invented some sort of levitation device, they call it mag-lev rather than anti-gravity, but it is fringe science nonetheless. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This article has problems with all of WP:GNG (where is the evidence of notability?), WP:V (where is the evidence that he actually did any of this), and WP:NPOV (this appears to be a fringe topic and as such should be counterbalanced by the mainstream view on his work; where is it?). Additionally the link left by Devil Master (talk · contribs) in the deletion rationale for a contested prod is troubling; the inconsistencies pointed out by some posters in that thread suggest that we need to be extra careful with verifiability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep.Devilmaster's link is of some bogus site which has nothing to do with the science organization and he has been on some kind of campaign to throw people's impartiality of the work the project has done in a negative way. There are resources that verify the work the 2 colleagues in the project have done in honor society publications and from college faculty. The members have been inducted into honor societies for this work and it is mentioned in print in Who's Who 2009 edition. Television shows also featured them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.110.7 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — 38.126.110.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Unsourced fringe. Bonnie Urquhart Gruenberg is another BLP that is worth a look. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
Delete and salt, for failing to meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV criteria. No proof is provided to any of the claims in the article. Even when such proof is requested, people affiliated with this person do nothing but repeat the same things ad nauseam and making accusations toward those who require the proof. In fact, a page about Project_Home_2011_(Scientific_research_project) had already been nominated for deletion last year, and the consensus was "Delete". Devil Master (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Adding to the above, WorldCat does not list his book Principals of electrostatic forces and energy transferrence. This may actually be just a pamphlet or other form of unpublished document. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

The result was Keep Wily D 08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching

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

Not notable aviation incident WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There's lots of relevant contemporary commentary from news sources at a search for "careflight ditching -wikipedia". Perhaps the article should be renamed to match that, rather than (or in addition to) Pel-Air. Besides, I can't see any rationale or argument behind the "not notable" assertion. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment This Air Services Australia bulletin dated 21 June 2012 on "Minimum and Emergency Fuel" appears to be a consequence of this flight; it's scheduled to be incorporated into the relevant standards on 23 August 2012. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - key word in the above is "contemporary commentary" - no WP:PERSISTENCE. Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:AIRCRASH. Not a scheduled flight, no fatalities, no changes in procedures. Regrettable but non-notable incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - This accident led to a major review of fuel planning requirements. That review is not yet complete but it seems inevitable that notability of this accident will ultimately be demonstrated by The accident resulted in a significant change to ... national ... regulations. I have given a more detailed explanation on the Aviation Project Talk page – see my diff. Dolphin (t) 06:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then once the article achieves notability it can be recreated. As of now though, it does not meet the notability standards (be they policy, guideline, essay, or napkinwaffe) and keeping the article because "it will" ignores that Knowledge is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - (Australian) regulatory changes per Dolphin51, total hull loss per WP:AIRCRASH, plus the rareness of a successful ditching of a jet aircraft. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- There have yet to be any regulatory changes. There may be in the future, but it's not notable now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - as Dolphin51 explained this accident has started the ball rolling on significant changes in the regulations and so complies with WP:AIRCRASH, however this needs to be added to the article text! - Ahunt (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the official report is imminant... Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the ball that is rolling a WP:CRYSTAL one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual for aircrash articles to be created before the official report is published. What's the rush? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, what is the rush to delete? It's three years since the event happened, and there's no final official report. If the final report says "no big deal, continue as usual", then we have hull loss of a minor aircraft (admittedly, and dramatically, in the middle of very sparsely populated ocean). There's no hurry to delete now, and to have to reconstruct the article from scratch if were to turn out that the official report is strongly worded would be a waste of Knowledge editors time. WP:BROKE Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete as not notable, fuel planning relevant to the flight is one of the subjects being examined but I dont see any sign of a major review and if it was that important we would still not be waiting 2+ years later. At the time they said the investigation would be a few months and anything critical to safety will be brought to the attention of relevant authorities, after 2 and half years nothing has been found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep This crash has attracted lots of commentary in the Australian aviation press (which is largely still limited to hardcopy magazines, and so won't show in Google searches), as well as follow-up articles on the pilot involved. There's been quite a bit of commentary about whether the pilot was a hero or negligent (or both) and whether regulatory failures contributed to the crash. Australian Aviation's rather limited website has the following post-crash stories: CASA to audit Rex and Pel-Air, Weather, fuel planning focus for Norfolk investigation, Ditching pilot’s licence suspended? and I'm pretty sure that I've read detailed stories on this accident in the magazine itself. Crikey's aviation correspondent/blogger has also written about this accident in Crikey and covered it extensively on his blog: , , , , , , , (while these blog posts aren't useful for establishing notability, they are a taster of the kind of coverage this has received in the Australian aviation press). Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- This debate has also been covered in the general media - for instance: (about 4 months after the crash). Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was Duplicate AfD, wrong forum. See Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Independent Kosovo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Kosovo

AfDs for this article:

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

Not an alternative name for its target subject or anything. We neither have such pages for other part-recognised states nor for sovereign states. Existence of article is pointless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was Wrong forum. Anyone who wants this redirect deleted can nominate it at Knowledge:Redirects for discussion instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Kosovo

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

Not a specific title for anything, we do not have Independent Abkhazia for part-recognised states nor Independent Bhutan for fully recognised states. Not an alternative name for any entity, article's existence is pointless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Close – This is a redirect page, and should be taken to Knowledge:Redirects for discussion. Articles for deletion is the incorrect forum for this page. Northamerica1000 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. All keep !votes were socks. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lorin Morgan-Richards

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 contributors. Knowledge 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}}.

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

Authorship of a play that was performed in a Cleveland public theater seems to be the only real claim of notability (note that Enki, the name of the play, links to a Sumerian god, not this play). Some self-published music and self-published books, that's about it. OhNoitsJamie 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep Lorin Morgan-Richards is relevant as he is a recognized Welsh American who directs the largest national annual Welsh Festival in the United States. He has appeared several times on the BBC with promoting the festival. He has produced plays that have toured in Cleveland, New York City and Los Angeles. ENKI which was mentioned by the editor is one of the plays based on Zecharia Sitchin's theory of alien ancestors referring to the ancient Sumerian god that the page links to. He is also a popular author and musician having been released on Invisible Records in Chicago, and distributed by Caroline Distribution in New York. Richards has also curated several noteworthy shows including an exhibit on Deathrock pioneer Rozz Williams which received international attention in Gothic Beauty Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — 76.219.221.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I agree that Richards is relevant as he also curated the historic gathering between the Ioway Nation and Gabrielino/Tongva Nation in Feb of 2010. It marked the first time a Midwestern Native American culture gathered with a Californian Native American culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment How does your 'keep' rationale address WP:BIO, specifically requirements for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? (I.e., being mentioned here and there in a few local papers doesn't cut it). OhNoitsJamie 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Ohnoitsjamie, Sorry, but your comment is too vague, please be more specific which references you believe are poorly sourced so that they can be corrected? As the references seem to include both International and National Media from reliable secondary sources. (i.e., Lorin Morgan-Richards appeared in Civil War Times Illustrated, December 2001 for the play An Occurrence Remembered in New York City.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Article fails WP:BASIC. The only real reliable sources I'm seeing are ones that aren't about this individual, his name just happens to be mentioned briefly. That's not sufficient for an article, and doesn't show any notability. - Sudo Ghost 18:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Those brief mentions are because Richards curated the events. Without his role in many of the events, with the exception of WCE, it would not exist or have existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And that's all well and good, but it doesn't mean he's notable just because he was involved in something; even if he was essential to the event, those references are about the event, not the person. The article needs reliable sources about the person per WP:BASIC, and doesn't have any. - Sudo Ghost 22:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BASIC secondary schools that use Richards material count towards a relevant bio. Richards books are used in several secondary schools in the US with his book Me'ma and the Great Mountain for its content on Native Americans and in the US and UK for language schools (which are secondary) for the book A Welsh Alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:BASIC does not say this, not at all. Books that the individual wrote (or contributed to) do not grant notability to the individual just from the books existing. - Sudo Ghost 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep I've been a fan of Lorin Morgan Richards since ENKI toured and believe he's relevant both for his shows and books. Personally, I have donated to Knowledge in the past and will not support this site in the future if my favorite artists are deleted just because they do not have the publicity of a Justin Bieber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruinmold (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Ruinmold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment In responding to SudoGhost, Yes, it does say this as it is number 4 under WP:BK which supports my argument of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BK pertains to articles about books, not individuals. This article is about an individual, not a book. Even if the book(s) were notable, notability is not inherited, so notable books do not mean that the author is notable. - Sudo Ghost 01:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on these comments of relevance and OhnoitsJamie's own admission of his notability for the play Enki I vote it should not be deleted. If it does, the editors are not following the Knowledge's own guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep I've been directed here from a LMR fan site and am disappointed in Knowledge's editors for lack of regard for their own rules. I agree that the thread began with stating Richards is notable for ENKI and following comments have supported his relevance further.— Marilwyd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Richards has received multiple independent periodical articles and reviews which is covered as point number 3 in WP:AUTHOR for notability. He has also played a major role in co-creating, a significant well-known work in his play ENKI. He was also the subject of a feature length film documentary listed on IMDB entitled Neccessary Discomforts an Artistic Tribute to Rozz Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide these "multiple independent periodical articles"? Because they aren't in the article, and nobody has shown any yet. - Sudo Ghost 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I changed your "keep" to "comment," because you don't get to !vote twice. OhNoitsJamie 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'd be happy to supply additional periodical articles on Lorin Morgan-Richards, they are the following: Feature in The Baytown Sun, Volume 89, No. 309. Feature in French magazine - Dangereoux, April 2011 issue #6. Feature in Ambrose Bierce Project Journal, Fall 2008, Volume 4, Number 1. Feature in Macabre Cadaver Horror, Sci-Fi, & Dark Fantasy Journal, November 2009. Feature in Spanish magazine Mentenebre Magazine, Publicado 2010-05-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I was able to access a number of these, and none of them that I saw provide any significant coverage of the individual. They are mostly book reviews, not about the author. Others, such as "Cadaver Horror", are random websites, not reliable sources. None of these appear to demonstrate notability for the author per WP:BASIC. - Sudo Ghost 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Although I did get a good laugh from some of the keep !votes, I think most of these voters lack WP:BEFORE and have no understanding of inclusion criteria. Google web, news, books and scholar searches do not return any material that shows this individual is notable. I would welcome anybody who !voted "keep" to find a source that does, as I may have missed something. Saying that you're a fan of Mr. Morgan-Richards or threatening to stop donating to the Wiki will not make him notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. MisterUnit (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment The Ambrose Bierce Project Journal, Fall 2008, Volume 4, Number 1 is a scholarly journal, Mentenebre and Dangereoux

are print magazines in their respected countries. Other major US magazines already mentioned are Civil War Times Magazine and Gothic Beauty Magazine. Knowledge asks for multiple periodicals which have been given in this thread and the references on the page (I.e. Scene Magazine, Cleveland Free Times, Baytown News). Plus the documentary film and appearances on BBC. You are using bias in your interpretation by selecting only those that seem to fit your stance, ignoring the rest aforementioned. I can continue listing others to prove notability. But this should be sufficient based on Knowledge standards. There also seems to be a book by Flu Press specifically on the life of Lorin Morgan-Richards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources were about the subject, and if there "seems to be" a book about this person, can you show this? - Sudo Ghost 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Yes, see this scanned article and interview in Dangereoux Magazine http://www.hyaenagallery.com/press/dangereux6int.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruinmold (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment The book im referring to about Lorin Morgan-Richards has an ISBN of 9786137133781, Published by Flu Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment How can an artist be seen separate from his work? (i.e. A cop is still a cop if he is off duty) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilwyd (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because this article is about a person. If the book is notable, it has an article. Notability is not inherited, a person is not notable if they do not satisfy WP:BASIC, and this article does not meet that criteria. - Sudo Ghost 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Disagree with it not meeting criteria, as the book on Richards life, the journals, documentary and ENKI all support the guidelines of WP:BIO. You have asked for proof of notability which has been given sufficiently in these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

All that I can find in the 'scholarly journal' that you referenced is a review of an album by the subject.

The book seems to be a collection of Knowledge articles or something. The first sentence of the description on alibris.com says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Knowledge or other free sources online."

You're getting a bit closer with the magazine interview, but it is still not about the subject. It's about an exhibition that we was involved with. One time I was interviewed by a news reporter at a gas station while I was filling my tank. He was asking me what I thought about rising fuel prices. That interview did not make me notable. The topic of the interview, rising gas prices, was notable. Do you understand the difference?

I've seen nothing in the article's references or elsewhere on the web that would show notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can you provide links to specific sources and explain how they show the subject passes these criteria? MisterUnit (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Let me focus on one thing as we seem to be jumping around. According to WP:BIO Lorin Morgan-Richards IS the subject of an independent book put out by Flu Press, which you have seen is available, the author was not involved with the book and thus wherever its resources were derived for the book does not matter legally as it not specifically addressed as such in the Knowledge guidelines. Subject 3 states the Creative Professional must be "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film". Otherwise Knowledge will need to update this and make it more specific to what independent books are and are not exactly. As it stands based on WP:BIO, the page should stay legally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Flu Press does not produce books which are considered reliable sources. They take Knowledge articles and turn them into ebooks, which is advertised on the cover of this book. This is circular referencing and as Knowledge is not a reliable source, this book does not give any significance either, as the notability of articles must be given through reliable sources. - Sudo Ghost 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, we are discussing an Independent book on Lorin Morgan-Richards by Flu Press, not periodicals that require a reliable source based on Knowledge guidelines. Secondly, this is a printed book. I have seen one in person on a different subject. (Aside note, look at the price for these, $50 and up. No ebook costs this. Look at it at Barnes and Noble it offers free shipping - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/lorin-morgan-richards-gerd-numitor/1106239034). Thirdly, the comments you are giving are not addressed in the WP:BIO section which again only states the Creative Professional is notable if they are "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film". You can not make up rules to fit your stance. Knowledge will need to add your addendum if this is the policy, but even now the subject of this discussion is acting prior to its editing and would need to be treated with the current guidelines I've mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a book, it's a printed Knowledge article; therefore it is not a reliable source, and given that anyone can edit a Knowledge article, you also cannot claim with certainty that it is an independent source, which is the problem with citing a Knowledge article as a source. Notability is established by reliable sources, it makes no sense to say that this Knowledge article is notable because there is a Knowledge article about it, and that's essentially all that is. Also, an ebook costs whatever people charge for it, the fact that it cost $50 is irrelevant (also incorrect that no ebook costs $50, that would be cheap for some topics, which can be rather expensive even in digital format). It would be much more productive to look for actual sources for this topic, because a printed Knowledge article doesn't show notability under any circumstances, because it isn't a reliable source. - Sudo Ghost 23:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Based on the dictionary a book is "A written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers." Knowledge also talks about what constitutes a book "A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together to hinge at one side. A single sheet within a book is called a leaf, and each side of a leaf is called a page. A book produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book". Thus, accordingly, it is a book as Alibris and other sites have denoted it. It may contain Knowledge articles however it is book, and Knowledge asks for the Creative Professional to be the subject of an Independent Book. It may be a loophole of some sort but it is what is asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability doesn't have loopholes. The top of that guideline says the guideline "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one of those exceptions. This book is nothing more than a Knowledge article. It is not a reliable source, and cannot be used to show notability. - Sudo Ghost 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment The top guideline seems a catch all which is very vague and just as well could support my argument. Additionally it states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Reminder, that this discussion began with Ohnoitsjamie claiming Lorin Morgan-Richards is notable for ENKI. But wanted to question what else is notable. Seems that all the other sources, including primary, support this particular notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a catch all, a Knowledge article printed out as a book is an unreliable source. Common sense would say that this wouldn't show any notability for an article, that's circular reasoning. Also, the "claim" was that this ENKI was the most notable thing, although Ohnoitsjamie is free to correct me, but I don't think it was claimed that this is sufficiently notable, else why nominate it for deletion? There are no reliable third-party sources that have shown any notability, and short of that this article is not notable. - Sudo Ghost 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep This is an artist who's been on Knowledge for over five years. It is questionable that this now has become an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileshama (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Mileshama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

An article's age has no bearing on notability. - Sudo Ghost 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment True, the wiki article books have no relevance. However, my research for the page initially came from an independent book entitled 'Just Before the Dawn Dawneth' written by Edgar Rosolino. It focuses on the early years of Lorin Morgan-Richards, from his Amish background up through music to his first books. It was written by a professor and put out by Massachusetts Press, A Raven Above Press is selling copies of this book on Alibris, and no it is not an ebook. http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=11333563693

Note that A Raven Above Press is Lorin Morgan-Richards' own publishing company. I was looking for more information on this book and couldn't find anything else about it. Does it have an ISBN number? MisterUnit (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that book is by the individual's own publishing company, and shows no notability whatsoever. - Sudo Ghost 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The book is sold by the authors company probably for the sake of a vested interest. But the book was not made by it, that is Massachusetts Press, which I'm guessing was part of the University since a professor wrote it. So it is what it is - an independent book. Whether it holds up to your scrutiny is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The book was published by Massachusetts Free Press. There is no such thing as Massachusetts Press. MisterUnit (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a significant connection to the individual himself; it isn't an independent book, also it doesn't appear to have an ISBN number either, so it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for book either, let alone independent book. - Sudo Ghost 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 19:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Relist comment: Please remember to ensure keep votes are based in Knowledge policy. Presently, there are two valid delete votes and no valid keep votes; I am relisting this to allow discussion based in Knowledge policy to emerge, and to give extra time for valid sources to be presented. ItsZippy 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete None of the references that I looked at suggest that the subject of the article is notable, on the contrary if these are the best that people can find then he certainly isn't notable. We need multiple reliable secondary sources with substantive coverage of the person, and I've yet to see anything remotely resembling that. CodeTheorist (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Seriously, two links on google news, one to his own site, and we're debating this? Nope, fails WP:GNG, delete. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Three of the users that expressed their opinion to keep the article above have been confirmed as sockpuppets. See the relavent investigation. — Parent5446 ☯ 13:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Crowd funding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Accredited crowd funding

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO. William C. Skelley who allegedly coined the term doesn't seem to have an article either, so no target for a possible redirect. Add to that the fact that a certain William Carleton used the term in his blog already in May 2012. I can't find any reliable sources that indicate how this term is routinely being used outside of a few law and/or financial blogs. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to crowd funding. This article is kind of a mess, containing no sources and consisting primarily of a long definition of an accredited investor. What sourcing there is seems too closely tied to crowd funding in general to deserve its own article. Perhaps someone could add a section to the crowd funding article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect — per Nwlaw63. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete due to copying issue regarding http://wiki.answers.com, and replace with redirect to crowd funding per the above. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to crowd funding per Monty845. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Romanian football transfers 2007–08

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

List is wrong, inflated prices,incomplete and without references or sources Jjmihai (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - sounds like an argument that the article needs fixing, not deleting. What your basis for proposing deletion? Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Already exist a page List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season,

List of Romanian football transfers 2007–08 is a duplicate. 05:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Then simply redirect it, if it's a duplicate. And why not mention that in your case, rather than nominating it for deletion because it's wrong. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

- I don't know how to do this
Once the AfD closes, one can just replace the contents with #REDIRECT List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. If anybody wishes these restored to userspace, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (series)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no information that indicates the first two Hot Pursuit games and the latest by Criterion should be considered a sub-series of Need for Speed that is distinct enough to warrant it's own article. The information in this article overlaps that of the main Need for Speed article and should be merged together in the main article if anything. I see no reason to have this as a separate article. --MrStalker 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

--MrStalker 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I can find no evidence that these games are in any way related, other than being part of the Need for Speed series, and therefore this should be merged into the main article. Metagame (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree - The articles Need for Speed: Underground (series) and Need for Speed: Shift (series) need the same attention. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I nominate those as well. --MrStalker 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment the length of Need for Speed may support separating parts of the series into separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article it gives information about the video game. Thanks.--Mr.Irfan Nasir 11:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Unnecessary article spinout. None of the images have rationale for these pages, and references/text are simply borrowed, meaning there's no real substance that doesn't already exist in either the series or individual game articles. It was a Good faith creation, but is better suited for the Need for Speed Wikia. The core series article (Need for Speed (series)) can easily be trimmed for length, too. --Teancum (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kyun Hawa

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 16:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Sivaji (soundtrack). Valid search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Vaaji Vaaji

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. Same content can be accommodated in the parent article - Vivvt 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to the soundtrack of Sivaji: The Boss. While the song may not be notable enough to have a separate article, sources show that as the film was a landmark one, the song received a lot of attention and deserves to be redirected to the soundtrack. Secret of success (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Sivaji (soundtrack). Valid search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Balleilakka

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to the soundtrack of Sivaji: The Boss as the song is not notable enough to have a separate article. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Parineeta (2005 film). Valid search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Soona Man Ka Aangan

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Parineeta (2005 film). Valid search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Piyu Bole

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Parineeta (2005 film). Shreya Ghoshal's maybe one of the best songs which made her win awards and nominations. Could very well be a searchable term. But not notable enough for a stand-alone article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Parineeta (2005 film). Possible search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kasto Mazza

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above Yousou (report) 11:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kaisi Paheli Zindagani

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Parineeta (2005 film). Possible search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hui Main Parineeta

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Fanaa (film). Possible search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Chanda Chamke

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Fanaa (film). Possible search term — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dekho Na

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. (Such a lovely song, but still delete). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Veer-Zaara. Viable search term. Per WP:CHEAP — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeh Hum Aa Gaye Hain Kahan

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tere Liye (song)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Though it won some awards its unlikely that someone would search it this way (especially with brackets). No redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term (Per WP:CHEAP) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Main Yahan Hoon

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Though Udit Narayan was nominated for singing this song at Filmfare, i doubt anyone would search it that way. No redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to the film's soundtrack. Secret of success (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term. (Per WP:CHEAP) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hum To Bhai Jaise

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lodi (Veer-Zaara song)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term. (Per WP:CHEAP) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do Pal

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Although the song is popular & Sonu Nigam was nominated at Filmfare for singing it i doubt readers would search it by this name. Hence no redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Veer-Zaara#Music. Possible search term. Per WP:CHEAP — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Aisa Des Hai Mera

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS - Vivvt 16:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Veer-Zaara's soundtrack. A google news search gives 42 results, with many mentioning the song, but none seem to provide encyclopedic info to write an article. Secret of success (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term. Per WP:CHEAP — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaya Tere Dar Par

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Knowledge:NSONGS - Vivvt 16:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW and WP:G3 - obvious hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Vericracy

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a hoax. It's unreferenced except to other Knowledge articles. I searched on JSTOR and Google Scholar and the term isn't used. Can't find any usage in any reliable sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, as it stands, this is complete WP:SYNTH not back by any WP:RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete - there's nothing here, just WP:MADEUP / SYNTH, no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per all above. This appears to be a neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any reliable sources that mention this term - in fact, I can't even find unreliable sources that do. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per all above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn for now, still a somewhat borderline notability case. We'll see if any more sources appear over time, then I will consider relisting it again.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Last Hurrah (2009 film)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG+WP:MOVIE. Only source I was able to find was a trivial mention here. Otterathome (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep per meeting WP:NF. To the nominator... other eyes.. other google foo. Your "mention" and two minutes of looking quickly led to a full review at DVD Verdict and article in Weho News Campus Circle as well as in-deph reviews at other sites, as well as learning it received SIX Maverick Movie Award nominations... 'Best Director', 'Best Screenplay', 'Best Supporting Actor', two 'Best Supporting Actress', AND 'Best Soundtrack'. What else was missed when declaring this improvable topic as non-notable? Schmidt, 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you say which criteria of WP:MF it meets? I don't see it. Can you also provide some evidence of notability of these 'maverick' awards?--Otterathome (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:MF?... Mirrors and forks? Schmidt, 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:NF tells us ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The quickly found in-depth coverage of the topic in the independent secondary sources DVD Verdict, WeHo News, and Campus Circle meet the requisite for WP:SIGCOV. This is not Star Wars after all, and we do not demand nor expect that a minor independent film have that same world-wide coverage, just so long as we have enough. The Dances With Films, SoCal Film Festival, and Maverick Movie Awards do not have to themselves establish a notability. But as we do not limit article content to only the "most important" facts in our increasing a reader's understanding of a topic, we may include whatever verifiable information has direct bearing on the topic... and these awards are worth inclusion in the article as "recognition". This article will be kept or not, snow or not, dependent upon whether or not consensus finds the topic just notable enough for further improvement over time and with regular editing. Immediatism is not a policy. Schmidt, 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

does it meet any of Knowledge:NF#Other_evidence_of_notability? The sources you provided seem to be barely notable, being only published in California, and a random reviews website. Both awards mentioned don't even have their own articles...--Otterathome (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OEN. The "Other evidence of notability" listing at WP:NF is not a guideline requirement. It exists as a set of attributes, that if existing would encourage proper (and sometimes lacking) WP:BEFORE... and for the most part apply to films more than 5 years old. If WP:NF is met even barely through WP:GNG we do not use non-madated attributes in an attempt to dismiss a topic. And please... the WP:GNG does not state nor imply that sources have to be world-wide, just so long as long as the sources are secondary, independent, and reliable. Schmidt, 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Campuscircle seems to be a university paper that the director went to, so is not independant of subject.--Otterathome (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, but "seems to be" is something that might be said by someone who had not researched before making the statement. Campus Circle is not a student newspaper, but was a (then-small) paper started in 1990 (22 years ago) by someone trying to pay college tuition. In 1999 (13 years ago) Campus Circle went online to widen its demographic... and made greater use of print ad campaigns, online marketing, viral marketing, online editorial, its subscriber database, and street marketing. So... an enterprising individual created a product in order to make money? Wow. The folks at grand-daddy medias The New York Times or Washington Post might be aghast at such chutzpah. In 2000 (12 years ago) they began networking and sharing with such The Onion and, in extending beyond California, became Campus Circle Media (needs an article). Not surprisingly, their target demographic is readers between the ages of 18 and 34. In their growth as a news outlet, they now utilize 34 different publications (including The Onion) in 32 different markets. Not a "university paper", they have offices on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles, and a full editorial staff. Just "a university paper"? Hardly. Local only? Nope. They are themsleves considered reliable and are widely quoted and referred to across the internet. Reliable in context to what is being sourced? Definitely. If you do not believe so, I invite you to present this thread at WP:RSN. Schmidt, 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not completely convinced with the cc as a source. In the few places on WP it is mentioned, it has been rejected . describes it as a 'Non notable source, mostly paid ads' which is backed up by their own contact page . How do we know they weren't paid to do this? Your claim that is 'considered reliable and are widely quoted and referred to across the internet' is also questionable, as the links you provided seem to be referring to other Campus Circle's, not this publication itself. Most of which is talking about 'Campus Circle Tallahassee'.--Otterathome (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... so some few search results give a housing development. That does not mean the 22-year-old media Camous Circle is unacceptable simply because a 2011 housing development in Tallahassee uses a similar name. Time to refine your parameters and hone your search skills (hint: you can begin by placing a "-Tallahassee" after the words "Campus Circle"). Take this discussion to WP:RSN. We are dealing with a 22 year-old news organization, one with an editorial staff and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Meets WP:RS. And EVERY news media.. from CBS News to ABC News to Fox News to Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, supports themselves with ad revenue. Your claim that their interview of the director was paid for by the director, has absolutely no foundation. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. And by the by... THIS article was rejected because it contained 8 unreliable sources, and not because Campus Circle was number 9. The AFD for Birnkrant 616 succeeded because of 4 poor source choices (including an "about us" link) and not because the Campus Circle review was number 5. And your last example, an AFD that did NOT result in a delete, included one person's opinion about Campus Circle that did not convince anyone to toss the article. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that having ads as a revenue sources makes something unreliable. Schmidt, 22:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you're a reader, potential business partner, or someone who wants us to cover a band, we value your interest in our company. They openly offer to cover bands on request, how do you not know this can be applied to other subjects?--Otterathome (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh??? Contrary to your interpretation, that sentence DOES NOT say they will cover bands on request. It simply thanks folks interested in their company for whatever reason. But so what? A media source is allowed to acknowledge and thank those interested in the that media. And anyone, anytime, anywhere, can write to any media source and suggest that a topic be covered. A further point: we have many accepted as reliable sources for film which, on their websites, actually do tell filmmakers they might send in a screener. Again, so what? A decision to cover a topic or not, and how and in what depth a topic is covered, is subject to editorial oversite. Schmidt, 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep due to being trivially improvable, and actually improved already. Questionable nomination, IMHO. The nominator's "trivial mention" source (Variety), merely establishes Stokes' bona fides: his status as a commercially viable writer, and published director, that's all. --Lexein (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yep... and worth mentioning is how easy it was to actually begin improvements using sources the nom "could" not find. I am reminded of the wisdom of WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, WP:HANDLE and WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep with no reservations. Exceeds notability standard both general and films. Thanks, Lexein, for your latest edits. DocTree (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. His copyediting of my expansion and sourcing made it much nicer. Schmidt, 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, now I'm done. Look again. --Lexein (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Plesner (Norwegian family)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a page about a family with some members who may have been notable in and of themselves, but as a whole seems to be trying to inherit notability from association with Henrik Ibsen. So this seems like a non-notable... what... family? Organization? Don't even know how to classify it... BenTels (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep - firstly the article is properly cited, and the Ibsen connection is mentioned as just that - one interesting fact; and Ibsen is used as one of the sources which does indeed confirm the claim made; it doesn't rest on name or painting (imaged) which may have been the impression given. Secondly, the family's notability is already established by the given sources, not just the notability of one or two members, so the article is not misplaced. Thirdly, several more probably notable members are named but not given citations, so it seems certain that more RS can be found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Chiswick Chap. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep several of the sources are explicitly about the family as a group, rather than its individuals as such, clearly establishing notability. Arsenikk 11:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheikh Abu Mohammad Ameenullah

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article has no references, and though quite long, appears non-notable. Osarius Talk 11:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I'm unable to find anything in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is pretty close to a speedy, as no real notability is even claimed in the article. In essence, it says that he was a scholar, and then he became a teacher and a preacher. That's about it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Curnalia

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

Contested PROD (PROD removed by IP without comment). Insufficient grounds for notability given in the article. References do not demonstrate notability; Some do not even mention her. Nothing much in Google News, Books or Scholar either. Seems promotional. DanielRigal (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability in the article. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article contains unsourced personal information. Google turned up very little. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete I had tagged this under WP:CSD#A7 when I first saw it. This biography basically says that Ms. Curnalia is a person who went to college, got a degree, set up a private practice and did some volunteer work. Although sourced with citations, they are trivial citations, documenting a non-notable life. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Person is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.164.5 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything in google that indicates this is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.149 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete This is clearly a non-notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.164.5 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete When breaking down what was on there originally and what can actually be substantiated, there is clear evidence of non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsheads (talk • contribs)

*Speedy Delete Wikidan is correct non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.164.5 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Calyon Financial

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

nn company which may fail WP:corp prod contested Oo7565 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Newedge Group which already contains this article's information (though it could benefit from 3rd party refs). AllyD (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Calyon is on the borderline of notability, but I don't see why it really needs its own article after the merger with Newedge, particularly since it's a skeleton article which simply refers to the merger. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Calyon is a separate entity from Calyon Financial, which is the sort of confusion this article helps prevent. The article could benefit from expansion. Bchabala2 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep – The topic is meeting WP:GNG:

Meyer, Gregory (January 9, 2006). "Calyon Financial's New Electronic Strategist". Crain's Chicago Business. Retrieved July 15, 2012. (subscription required)
"Calyon Financial/Fimat agreement seen in H1 -SocGen". Reuters. February 14, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

—Northamerica1000 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep It passes GNG although not otherwise notable, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

MobiText

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

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria.". Prod was removed by the article creator (whose account name is also associated with the software firm), though after adding links to a couple of reviews. However these reviews (one describing MobiText as "yet another similar utility") fall short of the reliable sources needed to establish notability, so I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody else is going to write a entry for it, and it's not cool to kill an article days later and I spend my own personal time writing it. Then how so did CCleaner make it but MobiText doesn't? Gavin Stubbs (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete "Nobody else is going to write an entry for it" -- i.e. no one but you thinks it's notable -- is a powerful argument for deletion. As to CCleaner, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. EEng (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Notability not established, it is just yet another text editor. It doesn't need its own article. Possibly an entry could be added to List of text editors, although a worrying number of those do have their own articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete: notability is not demonstrated, no reliable sources in the wild. Problems with verifiability of the already included material make this article hopeless. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, from reliable sources. Not done in this case. --Drm310 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How many sources do I need? If you do a Google search you can find many sources for MobiText, even on the product page we have 7 or so listings to different reviews. http://www.dyniform.net/mobitext Gavin Stubbs (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Excluding download sites (not independent) and blogs (self-published), your list is empty. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Urma (band)

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

I don't see anything indicating this group passes WP:BAND. We have a blog post, a press release, a news brief that doubles as a press release and an iTunes playlist. I'm afraid that's insufficient. - Biruitorul 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 2 July 2012 (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) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull Romaniacs Hard Enduro Rallye

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

I see no reliable sources justifying an article. We have this, this and this from the event's own site; and this, this, this and this, which are essentially blog posts, and certainly do not rise to the level of "high-quality mainstream publications" demanded by WP:RS. - Biruitorul 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not even reading the newly added sources. The rally is covered by many magazines and online sites, if you type also enduro on google not only Red Bull Romaniacs. http://www.enduronews.com/events/redbullromaniacs.htm, http://www.enduro.de/index.php/jarvis-bleibt-der-held-von-rumanien-5951/, http://www.motocorse.com/news/enduro_eng/15142_Cyril_Despres_the_07_RB_Romaniacs_Rally_and_the_brand_new_2008_model_KTM_300_EXC-E.php, http://www.motoonline.com.au/2012/06/18/jarvis-wins-third-red-bull-romaniacs-event-for-husaberg/, there are the biggest in the world and you are one more who is trying to destroy the work on Knowledge. And I`ve posted only a part of the independent sources, for presentation such as concept, track, etc. it is normal to have official perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBromaniacs (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 July 2012 (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) 15:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

(Editorial staff) (February 24, 2009). "4th Red Bull Romaniacs 2007 – Day 4 – Dirt Rider Magazine". Dirt Rider Magazine. Retrieved July 15, 2012.
(Staff) (June 15, 2012). "Jarvis Leads Red Bull Romaniacs Enduro". Cycle News. Retrieved July 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Red Alert (album)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No indication of independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Nothing new in this nom that wasn't covered in the previous AfD, which resulted in keep. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Three years later and still no references. WP:NALBUMS has changed. It's not just unsourced but no references have been found as the last afd said should happen. I looked and I didn't find any good ones. Did you look? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, NALBUMS hasn't changed in any substantial way. AfD is not a call for sources. Where did you look? The album's basic details can be verified here and via the liner notes. The album was reviewed in Maximumrocknroll, Skratch, SLAMM (now San Diego CityBeat), the San Diego Reader, and The Telescope, and it was nominated for "Best Punk/Ska Album" at the 1998 San Diego Music Awards. These are all print sources, though, and would be very difficult to track down in the timespan of an AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you really believe that is not a substantial change? How about the previous three years for tracking them down? Sources look like local street press and zines. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The language has changed, but the substance hasn't. It still basically says "see WP:N". As for the length of time, WP:DEADLINE. The sources are perfectly reliable: Maximumrocknroll has a 30-year history of publication and circulation, CityBeat and the Reader are local but nonetheless reliable by WP standards. There is no requirement that an album have won or been nominated for a major award. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2012 (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) 15:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment – I added this source to the article: "AGENT 51". San Diego Reader. Retrieved July 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). Northamerica1000 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I've removed it, source = wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Doscore

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

No sources. The project is fairly young, so it is unlikely there will be extensive third party coverage soon. The account which created the article is named suspiciously similar to the main developer, which probably means someone did not read WP:COI and/or WP:MADEUP. Keφr (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed_stalk 17:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete: though selective merge to FreeDOS would be a natural choice, the lack of verifiable material makes this task impossible. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete same conclusion as Czarkoff. --Kvng (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete this material after two relists. Per WP:RELIST, a triple-relist is only appropriate in very exceptional circumstances so it's best to close this debate. As a no-consensus close following an inconclusive debate with low participation, this close is with no prejudice against speedy renomination. NAC—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Playlist (album series)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is just a list of albums in a compilation album series that is not notable in and of itself. This was previously deleted in an AfD but was deemed different enough to not qualify for G4. While some of the albums within the series may be notable enough to warrant articles, this list becomes nothing more than a directory. There is no significant third-party coverage of the series. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:27, 24 June 2012 (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} 18:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete No notability is asserted for the series as a whole. The sources are all primary or press releases. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep as creator. This series is most certainly notable IMO, and even if it is not, surely this article must stay due to the ease it provides our readers. The whole point of encyclopedias is to provide info in an organised, easy to find way. It is sooo handy to have a page that lists all of the albums in the Playlist series, so people know which articles need to be created/can read a bit about it etc...in this case, the series' inherent notability is irrelevant. What is important is that it contains many notable things and the article serves as an incredibly good way to organise this information.--Coin945 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying it's notable because it's notable, and it's notable because it's notable. Am I right? Ten Pound Hammer • 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all I'm saying that regardless of whether the article is inherently notable or not, it's existence is a great asset to Knowledge so I think the rules should be bent in this case and it should be kept - because people might see the "playlist: the very best of" all over wikipedia and not know why the hell they've all got the same title - as dumbfounded as i was for ages until i did some googling and found the info you see before you. But, I also think that it is a very notable series that had produced innumerable hit records, and there is lots of info to be found on the series on the internet. etc, etc... where you got "So you're saying it's notable because it's notable, and it's notable because it's notable. Am I right?" from.... i just don't know.... :/--Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying it's notable because WP:ITSUSEFUL. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you are wrong. This isn't actually case of WP:ITSUSEFUL ("you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Knowledge's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument.") I believe I have given sufficient explanation, but let's go a bit further. Even if it were true - that that was my argument, what can I say? I honestly believe this is a case for Knowledge:Ignore all rules. Yes the "correct" thing to do might be to delete it, but it's existence just makes everything so much easier in regards to both finding out information about this often mysterious album series, and knowing/keeping track of exactly how many of these notable albums have had articles created. I think we should wait for other editors to give their 2 cents in this case. Not trying to be that one person who thinks they're above the rules or anything, but in cases like this, I honestly think this is the best way to go. (btw, "You lose, try again." was a bit harsh, don't you think? :D)--Coin945 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete I'm with TenPoundHammer here. Compilations that satisfy WP:MUSIC in their own right deserve an article... I find it interesting how many of the compilations are for one hit wonders (Sir Mix-a-Lot, Rick Astley, etc...) Sections of the article also look like they could potentially be a copyvio. 81M (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a copyright violation... googling the "mission statement" shows it was lifted word for word. 81M (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) - Speedy delete vote is moot. Copyvio issue is fixed

You can't speedy if only part of it was copyvio. Even then, it's in the context of a quotation, not a mere copy-paste. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree.--Coin945 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: This issue has been rectified. All (questionable) copyvio had been eliminated. :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Legacy Recordings. Its clear that this is a significant part of Legacy's offerings. The information of what exactly Playlist is can easily be put there. The list of albums could be put there, categorized, trimmed or simply left out. The Steve 09:46, 1 July 2012 (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} 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 07:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Boonie Bears

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

I couldn't find reliable sources about this TV series under either the English or Chinese names, so I don't think it passes the general notability guideline. (I relied on Google Translate in my search for Chinese-language sources though, so people who speak Chinese may have more luck.) The sources in the article are either primary sources or don't cover the TV show in any detail. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There are references cited in the article. As stated in the article, this is the most popular children's cartoon in China. There are a billion people watching this programme. Knowledge is full of articles, not just on US television series, but on individual episodes and characters of US television series. Boonie Bears is definitely notable. Admittedly, Boonie Bears is not on US (or Japanese) prime-time television yet, but then Knowledge is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the world. Anyway, the Knowledge:Articles for deletion guidelines say, deletion should be a last resort; consider a {Notability} tag instead.

The reliable sources guidelines do allow the use of primary sources; that is not a problem per se. The guidelines only state that secondary sources are desirable. (It seems that all the pages on the net at the moment about Boonie Bears just recycle a few information pages from the producers; some are translations). However, any coverage of current events must use primary sources initially. Boonie Bears is still a new program, so it will take some time to get through to secondary compilations; that is no reason to delete the article.

I've added a reference to the Baidu 'wikipedia' article to Boonie Bears. This should address some notability/primary-source concerns. Also, do search using Baidu (eg ); this brings up many articles. (By the way, I think 熊出没注意 is not related to 熊出没, so ignore it). m.e. (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi m.e. It looks like you are under a few misapprehensions about how we decide whether things are notable enough to have an article on Knowledge: a lack of secondary sources about the programme is a reason to delete the article, according to the notability guidelines. You might also want to read our essay on subjects where it is too soon to have an article, our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and this short and simple guide to judging notability. If you are aware of any secondary sources about the show, either in English or Chinese (or anything else, for that matter), then that might be evidence that we could use to prove notability. Let me know if you need any clarification on any of this - I'll be happy to help. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Baike article should count as independent and significant; you can make a call as to whether it is reliable, and whether one article is enough to establish significance. Baidu Baike sees itself as the Chinese answer to Knowledge, as QQ to ICQ, Baidu to Google search, etc. But really we need someone with some knowledge of Chinese television review sites to find some independent reviews of the programme. m.e. (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Baidu Baike doesn't count as reliable, as it is user-generated. (Have a look at WP:USERGENERATED for the guideline.) I'm sure you can appreciate why we have this rule - if we didn't, anyone could create a wiki page on their own pet theory and then use that as justification to have a Knowledge article on it. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The Baidu Baike article links this news report (Google translation), which looks like it could be worth further investigation. Google Translate does not do a very good job on it, though, and I have no way of knowing whether the site would generally be viewed as reliable - could any Chinese speakers comment on its suitability? — Mr. Stradivarius 10:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

looks like they've run the producer's media release. m.e. (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In the end, I'm more interested in keeping the content somewhere rather than as a separate page, so would you consider creating a Chinese Animated Television Series (or whatever) page and moving the Boonie Bears content there (with a redirect), if Boonie Bears is not considered notable enough for its own page? m.e. (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point - a merge or a redirect might be a good solution if we can find a suitable target. In this kind of situation list articles are often used to group otherwise non-notable topics together if the notability of the group as a whole can be proven. Such a page might look like List of China Central Television programmes or List of animated China Central Television programmes. I can't see any pages like this that have been made already, but maybe you could try your hand at making one if you feel up to it. If that sounds like something you would like to do, I recommend discussing it first at WikiProject Television to see if other editors agree with your ideas, and to see how they think it would fit in with the wider topic area. (I'd drop a note at WikiProject China as well to let them know about the discussion.) You could also draft it in your userspace if you would like time to get it ready before putting it in the main article space. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:01, 3 July 2012 (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} 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 07:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Heritage Care

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

Can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article establishing the significance of the organisation, never mind its notability. Article in its current state cites only sources connected with the organisation itself. (There also seems to be a possible COI on the part of the article creator, as well as the very promotional tone of the article itself - I've tried to fix that a little.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nominator, I would have expected at least an independent third-party source. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 6 July 2012 (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} 20:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 07:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate Ultimate 1996

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

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to closer- This AfD was not listed in the deletion log, I have added it now. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:38, 1 July 2012 (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} 20:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 07:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.97.195 (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to List of UFC events: Like other early UFC event articles, this article doesn't show evidence that the coverage received by the event is in any way different from routine coverage, so it falls into what Knowledge is not as it is at best a news report, making it unsuitable for a stand alone topic. At the time the UFC was unregulated, the UFC is a promotion, not a league, and the event did not receive non-routine coverage, so I do not believe that Ultimate Ultimate 1996 in any way meets the sports notability criteria for individual games or series, and that guideline does not exempt the article from having to comply with the what Knowledge is not policy anyway. Jfgslo (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mic Check (Short Film)

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

No reliable, third-party sources have been provided to demonstrate the real-world notability of this feature, whose one weak claim to fame is that it won a prize at an obscure student film festival. PROD tag removed by creator (currently indef-blocked for spamming) with no explanation on talk page or elsewhere. More than one draft copy currently exists at WP:AfC. Super Mario Man 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It is conceivable that even a student short film screened at student film festival in San Diego might have coverage enough to be notable... but not this one. While I did make the article prettier before returning to this discussion, I could not find it being discussed in any reliable sources. Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Schmidt, 20:03, 1 July 2012 (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} 20:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser 07:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. The only argument made for deletion was quickly addressed, notability was argued on several independent bases. j⚛e decker 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuccio Ordine

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

The article is in Romanian Terraflorin (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note There is English-language content in the history, I have restored that now. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- the current biography is a copyvio of but it definitely asserts a notability far beyond GNG. There pages of cites, mostly of reviews in JSTOR and a large number of cites in Google Scholar given his linguistic and subject background. Easy pass of WP:PROF#C3 (see honors). If the article passes I'll try my best to write a non-copy-vio version of the page. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep mainly for the reasons given above, by Michael Scott Cuthbert Hairy poker monster (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2012 (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) 15:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF as well as more general guidelines, with recognition from major bodies, reviewed work, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Why does this keep getting relisted when the nominator's concern was addressed a few hours after the nomination and nobody else has supported deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please restore the English page and make it correspond to the English language. The same for the page in Romanian. All I did was make the translation from English into Romanian, that is all. --Ramonacatalinas (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexandertorte

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

Not notable enough. Although there are some sources to support existence of such food, the article claims it is traditional Latvian food, which it is not. I did a bit of research (see talk of the article) on what it is and even the name seems generic - it refers to type of dough the cake is from. The only thing seting it apart is that sources on it claim it is made with raspberry jam ~~Xil (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. As per previous talk page reply -- non-notable food product. No multiple reliable secondary sources to establish notability. The "national food" claim is unsubstantiated original research. It's just one of many cake variations. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Xil is correct, Alexandertorte is not a traditional Latvian food. Alexandertorte, or Alexanderkuchen, is a type of pastry that was common in parts of Europe where German culture was predominant prior to World War I - and the name of the pastry is still quite common in Germany under the name of Alexanderkuchen, which you must have noticed if you have ever visited a wellassorted Konditorei in Germany. The name stems from the Russian tsar, as other things also did during that era, like Alexanderplatz etc. I have no idea as to why/when the name was applied to the pastry, and do not, at the moment, have references to validate the origin and notability of the pastry. I just want to add, that even though it is not possible to Google references for this pastry, it did and does exist, and was certainly very familiar to many at the time it was given its name. /♥фĩłдωəß♥\ 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I figured something like that might be the case. It would certainly lend some notability, however none of this is said in the article - as it stands it is terribly short article, which makes those two sentences claiming it as Latvian pastry more than a half of the article being wrong. As a Latvian dessert it is not notable - hardly any modern Latvian has heard about it. Can't tell about less modern Latvians, but I got a pre-WWII cookbook, that doesn't mention it (under that name, at least) and National libary's pre-WWII press archive, which currently is down, as I remember also gave only one result. Plus there is little information, save some recipces, available on the Internet in any language. Doesn't Knowledge already have an article on it under yet a different name? I couldn't find any, but if it is German spread thing it ought to be known in several countries, might even still be popular in some ~~Xil (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a recipe in an old German recipe book, and it seems that this pastry is claimed by Estonia and Finland as well as Latvia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well, but my concern is that sole thing I've been able to find is recipces. No telling if this food is widely known somewhere or ever was. If we'd remove false claim of it being traditional Latvian food, all that would be left would be two sentences describing the food - Knowledge is not a cookbook. Anyways probaly should try to attract attention of editors from other countries too. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep Fodor says that its a Latvian speciality. Warden (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is strange, since I've hardly encountered it at all here. It's definitely not a traditional food of Latvia, although it may be popular for tourists. There are lots of books mentioning it as popular and giving basic description, but it is hardly the significant coverage GNG requires. I'm not as familiar with notability standards for food products, but it seems it should be more than just passing mentions and recipes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do you suppose a food that is not readily available can be popular with tourists? :) I rather think that it is the result of some sources spreading this rumor of "traditional Latvian food", so some guidebooks republish it rather than doing their own research. Wish Knowledge wasn't one of the sources spreading this misinformation. I don't think there is notability guideline for food. The problem here is that there might be a cake that is/was popular in Central/Northern European cuisine, however there is little information on it and article itself makes no such claim - it is on traditional Latvian dessert and there is no such traditional Latvian dessert. If you Google it's proper name in Latvian - "Aleksandra torte" turns up only 137 results, plus 88 for "Aleksandra kūka" in them you got some article on Latvian Australians learning to cook it, TV chef Mārtiņš Rītiņš teaching to cook it, one person's blog in which she claims her father used to cook it, plus one company manufactures cake with such name (though I am not sure that is the same thing). That makes it four sorces proving that some Latvians acctualy know about it, and none claim on it being traditional ~~Xil (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (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) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep – appears to meet WP:GNG per , . Also keep per WP:IAR. Northamerica1000 04:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why IAR? One of these references mentions topic passingly and the other is a cookbook - not every food in a cookbook deserves an article. There is absolutely no other coverage that would indicate that the food is notable in any way save existing, so much so that it is impossible to expand the article using verified evidence, instead of anecdotes and guesswork. BTW Wikimedia allready does have a cookbook on a different project, complete with recipce for this wonder , so no information lost, if that is a concern for somebody ~~Xil (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Notability appears to be limited to just a few recipes and cookbooks. Not quite enough, in my opinion. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alberto Coelho

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete hasn't played in either of Portugal's top leagues and thus fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

European Universities Futsal Championships

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

Restoration of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the nominator could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete - this fails WP:GNG, and is clearly not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep - a few arguments to disliking the subject depend on the assumption that Knowledge having an article on a subject means Knowledge somehow endorses the concept - this isn't the case, and the passes WP:N argument prevails. Wily D 17:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Brown people

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.

AfDs for this article:

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

As I said earlier the expression "brown people" or "brown race" is not notable and synthesized (WP:SYNTH). There is no other article for "brown people" in any other languages in Knowledge, except for Swedish, which proves that the subject of the article is globally unheard-of and nonexistent. Other than that, the article is racist, controversial, and has no scientific foundation.

There is not an exact definition for "brown people" or "brown race"; it has been used inconsistently through history to describe anything from Italians to Malaysians, South Africans, Latin Americans, Arabs, Indians or any mixed ethnicity. At several points, the article says the usage of the "brown people" was even controversial in the 19th and 20th century when racial theories, which very seldom contained the expression, were most popular. I could not verify any mention of the expression "brown people" in sources from Reference 1-21 and 23-25. The authors referenced in the article do not actually use "brown people" or "brown race" as their description of their main concept. I believe that most of the people don't hear or use the expression and that many would consider it even controversial, racial, and not notable of a Knowledge article.

Foundation of the article on the Fitzpatrick scale which claims that "brown race" is equal to skin type V is also problematic as skin type IV is also often called 'brown' and people of different skin type, depending on their tanning extent or geographical location, has been called 'brown'. The Fitzpatrick scale provides identification of the skin types based on tanning behavior (different types of skin's response to UV light), not on perceived temporal color of skin.
Even if there was an article on a type of skin of the Fritzpatrick scale, it should be called "Brown skin" not "Brown race".

Other than that, the article has multiple issues: Reference 8 is a dead link, Reference 26 points to a page where there is no article, link to Reference 29 is not working, and the article contains several entries by the Knowledge author without citations. Most of sources are of poor quality: most from explorers and linguists, and some from 19th-20th century anthropologist who use outdated, racist and pseudoscientific concepts, and Nordicist propaganda. There are no reliable sources from scientists or encyclopedias which would give credibility to the topic.

Contrary to the article, the topic ("brown people" or "brown race") bears no political, ethnic or cultural classification and is prone to reify prejudicial and racial concepts. It is not much different from unfounded concepts of Nazi ideology, like the "Aryan people" or the "Semitic race". FonsScientiae (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Controversy surrounding an article's title or subject is never a good reason to delete an article; otherwise, we'd have to delete many, many articles. Lack of use of "brown people" is also not problematic, since it is obviously a controversial, and therefore rarely-used, term. Are brown people discussed in any way at the sources? Are the sources good, and do they back up claims that reference them? Here and here, and probably in a few more places, User:Uncle G added tons of sources. I don't see a reason Uncle G would include anything but good sources, so I believe the article should stay. City Of Silver 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the deletion discussion linked above is not relevant to this article. (Note the capital "P.") There was a deletion discussion for this article here, and it resulted in a weak keep based on Uncle G's addition of sources. City Of Silver 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're not only welcome but encouraged to read and evaluate the sources that I added, and any others that you can find. After all, that's what we're supposed to be doing around here, and it would certainly raise the bar for some of the discussion below this point. I said this in the 2007 AFD discussion, too, notice. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is a recognised term for people of human skin type V and totally differant to someone termed "Black" even controversial topics like this have a right to be on Knowledge Seasider91 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the basis of the existence of the article, then we should make articles about olive people/race, light intermediate people, and very light race. Why don't we have articles on blonde people and brunette race? FonsScientiae (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as it can be sourced, BUT I hope other editors will try to fix some of the problems, particularly the use of sources that don't mention the subject of the article. I've done some myself, particularly in the Hispanic section which still needs more work. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Absolutely a topic, as demonstrated in reliable sources. We'd do well to expand our material on self-identification as brown, eg. by South Asians. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Comment My suggestion is to make articles on the skin color of humans (e.g. brown skin, white skin, black skin, olive skin) and include geographic distribution, populations and historical theories within those articles (in accordance with eye and hair color articles). Please don't make articles on generalized racial concepts which do not have worldwide relevance or scientific basis. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To avoid the appearance of duplicate votes, please remember that the nominating statement is treated as a vote and that it is not necessary to leave a separate delete comment below. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete (or drastically prune to a disambiguation page) With all due respect to Roscelese, this isn't one topic but several: a (possibly pseudo-)scientific skin color range, a position in a discredited (and definitely pseudoscientific) racial taxonomy for Malay peoples, and three positions in multiracial hierarchies: Latinos and/or South Asians in the United States, mixed White-Black people in South Africa, and an appearance based category in Brazil. To articulate my concerns (mostly raised in the previous deletion discussion):
- Unifying multiple concepts into a single article, when there is no single concept, violates WP:NOT#DICT: "The same title for different things … are found in different articles."
- The outdated, racist and pseudoscientific nature of the anthropological writings involved are best addressed on single pages about their theories (Blumenbach, Race (historical definitions), Color metaphors for race). If, and only if, these pages need to be split, then let them have their own sections.
- These "race scientists" don't use brown people as a central concept, but rather Australoid or Malayan race. Brown is an add-on descriptor, not the central concept. Using it to link to anyone who's called their collective group of people brown (and contra the article, lots of people have brown skin) to these terms stretches the page into two unrelated concepts, and (this may be what's most important to those of us writing about the racism involved) gives legitimacy to very problematic concepts.
- Knowledge:Naming conventions (identity) suggests: "Avoid outdated terms when describing people. For example, Asian is preferred over Oriental." Insofar as this article points to Pardo, Mexicans, Latinos, and Coloured, it should be a polite disambiguation, not an extensive description as if this were the name of these concepts.--Carwil (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - If the article needs improvement, improving the article would solve that issue, I'm not really seeing any case for deletion here. - Sudo Ghost 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep unfortunately. The term is notable in the past literature and although it is used inconsistently, it is generally used to refer to South Asians and SouthEast Asians and perhaps native Polynesians. Perhaps the article can be improved but it shouldn't be deleted and its not inherently wrong--just vague in our modern world. Today some people call SouthEast Asians 'yellow' for the colour of their skin. But its no reason to delete this article. --Artene50 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I have been studying US -> Brazil relations and with the terminology that Brazil uses for race Vs. US, this article is needed as it is a term that is still in-use in parts of the world. Regardless of it being a slur here in the United States, it's important that demographics collections by modern countries should not be deleted because the term is en-vogue in one part of the world. This is the same deletion request we had in Project Arctic regarding Inuit vs. Eskimo where both pages were well cited and researched. Canada and the US differed on terminology but both pages stayed intact as they both had past and present uses. BaShildy (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Is there any reason to have Brown people do anything in regards to this group in Brazil besides provide a link to Pardo?--Carwil (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete or make into dab page, not a real or notable topic and thus having it smacks of racism which damages the reputation of wikipedia. Google doesnt recognise the term except in this article. I recommend drastic pruning if this afd fails. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge is not censored, we don't ignore racism. Pretending such things don't exist would damage Knowledge's reputation, documenting it does not. I don't know what "Google doesn't recognize the term" means, but a quick glance seems to suggest the opposite (and that's ignoring the fact that Google search results don't dictate article existence). - Sudo Ghost 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about brown people as a racist term, Google just indicates what an unnotable term it is, nothing more (I agree we should not allow google to define what is a notable article though). I think the term is unnotable and having the article is racist but I am not suggesting we have an article about the term as a racist term even if we could source it. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Google doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and the term being unnotable isn't reflected by the sources in the article. "Having the article is racist" how? Even if the existence of this article was somehow racist (which sounds more like an appeal to emotion than anything), why would that determine if we keep an article or not? That runs afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. - Sudo Ghost 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)+

Well if you think its okay to have racist articles on wikipedia, I beg to differ. And while you are entitled to your opinion about google's results for this term again I disagree, it seems to clearly indicate what an unnotable term it is. And I ahvent seen a single ref that supports the concept. This is fairly typical of the poor quality of the refs SympatheticIsolation (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're calling it a "racist article" without any justification or explanation, and saying Google suggests it isn't notable, again without explaining why. "Racist article" is an appeal to emotion, one that effectively says WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If by "racist article" you mean an "article about racism", then that is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't remove an article on those grounds. Just because something isn't desirable does not mean that it doesn't exist. - Sudo Ghost 00:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You thinking you can define what I am saying is unhelpful so please be so kind as to desist; nobody needs you to interpret other people's comments. What is certain is that not one ref actually is about brown people, the articles are all about other concepts etc and just mention brown people in passing; this is hardly evidence that the cioncept exists at all as if it did there would be lots of refs talking about the subject as certainly happens with the concepts of white and black people. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

With no citation that "brown people" is a "political, racial, ethnic, societal, and cultural classification", as proposed by the article, then it seems racist. It also seems creepy. SudoGhost, I see that you have ties to a state that was once part of a group that sought to enslave people that were not of pure white descent. Could you confirm that there is not a conflict of interest? TekItRemark (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. Please tell me you're kidding, suspiciously "new" editor. If you're going to ask asinine questions like that, do it on your actual account, don't create a new account for it. - Sudo Ghost 02:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. You suspiciously didn't answer the question. I found this, knightriderskkkk, on a simple google search, which provides evidence for the possibility, and with you seeming to avoid a simple acknowledgement and confirmation, I'm not sure what to think. Also, with the link you sent me on my talk page, I believe using "asinine" is a pretentious personal attack. TekItRemark (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll humor you. That racists live in the same state as me is evidence of absolutely nothing. That is the most asanine observation I've ever seen someone make, and the fact that you created a separate account to say this stupidity speaks volumes. I can and will confirm that there is not a conflict of interest, and your speculation is baseless at best. - Sudo Ghost 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When someone asks whether there is a conflict of interest, politely respond that there is not, if that is the case. TekItRemark (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

- - - - Please discuss the article in question, and do not make personal insults towards each other! SudoGhost, I cannot find explanation for your actions of deleting other users' comments. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment The scholars quoted here especially Giuseppe Sergi who died in 1936 and incidentally opposed the Nordic view of race were serious scholars. Yes, their views on race are somewhat outdated today but this article should not be deleted just because the article is a tad outdated. Knowledge is not censored. --Artene50 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Giuseppe Sergi did not oppose the existence of the "Nordic race", but the supremacy of the "Nordic race". His theories about the "Mediterranean race" were created in opposition to the Nordic view of race. His degradation of the "Nordic race" and his development of the Mediterranean racial identity made him not much incorrect than Hitler. He even traced the raise of the British Empire as a consequence of Mediterranean blood in the British population. Maybe he had popularity, but in no aspect I would call him a serious scholar. FonsScientiae (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Takes Von Luschan's chromatic scale of skin colour of individuals, applies this in a dubious way to groups, and mixes in a number of unrelated self-identifications as Coloured or Pardo, falsely implying that these are somehow equivalent. Anthropology recognises no such thing as a "brown race," and the term smacks of 1930s-era racism. As the nom notes, the sources don't actually use the term "brown people." There is no actual topic here, just a WP:SYNTH of things thrown together. -- 202.124.72.209 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Facepalm: I can disagree with the nominator but at least I respect the nominator's comments but the statement by the anonymous IP who suddenly comes alive with 3 edits on July 9 makes me a tad suspicious. Yes, the term brown people is inaccurately used to describe Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Polynesians, people from Southeast Asia and I assume South America but it doesn't make it inherently racist. Just inaccurate. If a racist white person sees a SouthEast Asian they would state that this person is "yellow" (ie. a coward) rather than brown. In the end, the word brown is used as a term in the real world and, therefore wikipedia should having something on it. After all wikipedia is not censored. That is all I have to say. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment Before encountering this article I have never heard the expression "brown race" from anyone, even from a racist person. As you stated, a racist person would probably call a Southeast Asian "yellow", and not "brown". This just proves the point, that the expression is not notable and not really used in the real world.
    My real problem with this article is that it says "Brown people or brown race is a political, racial, ethnic, societal, and cultural classification" and bases the rest of the article on this assumption; nothing is true from that quotation, except that it is maybe a "racial classification" scheme used by some racist people. What do you think about changing the article's title to "brown skin", and making a section under that article which talks about the prejudicial and racial usage of the word "brown"? Or maybe a better idea is to make an article on "racist color terminology" and include "brown" section, along with "black", "white" and "yellow" there.
    But as I stated previously this article can't stay in its current form as it is synthesized, is to reify prejudice and racism, and the expression of the title is not notable. FonsScientiae (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the name of this page implies that the term "brown people" is used in an official capacity (remember, we are an encyclopedia) to refer to certain groups of people / races / ethnicities / what have you, when in fact the term is decisively informal and based on the physical appearance of the people referred to. We already have good pages for the people named by the term, so I don't think this page is necessary. dalahäst 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The name of the page implies nothing of the sort, and "official capacity" has no bearing on articles (see WP:COMMONNAME). That's no reason to delete an article. - Sudo Ghost 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For what the article used to look like, the last time that it was at AFD, see this revision. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Although it's my view that Uncle G's version linked above is clearly appropriate and should be kept, that may not persuade the closer because of the many arguments above. I think the most effective way I can persuade the closer not to delete this article is to point this out:- only a complete idiot turns a plausible search term into a redlink. Either we should revert it to the most encyclopaedic version available, such as Uncle G's, or we should turn it into a disambiguation page, or we should turn it into a redirect of some kind. The absolute last thing we want to do with this title is create a redlink that urges inexperienced users to create material in its place.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect - To black people, I don't see the need or desire to have articles on variances in skin tones to this fine detail. My skin is more of a rich brown can I have a mocha people article? Tarc (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - really - nominating an extensive 6-year old page, that easily passed a previous AFD dissussion? The person who started this, has virtually no edit history before they started this campaign. The case for deletion seems to be based on broken links? Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment User:S Marshall I agree. The best would be to turn it into a redirect to the Color terminology for race page where a section could clarify the usage of the word, or into a disambiguation page on Mexican Americans, Brazilian pardos, South African Coloreds, and any ethic group which is actually referred to as 'brown' user:Nfitz It did not "easily pass the previous AfD discussion". It was a very slight keep and imo this article is in a much worse condition than it was at the time of the first nomination. FonsScientiae (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you nominated the article for deletion, I removed your bolding of the word redirect, just to avoid any confusion. - Sudo Ghost 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep - well-used, documented, well-sourced, etc. While we have to avoid unecessary controversy, neither are we censored. This term is also used by some Brazilians and Filipinas to describe certain people, such as my fiancee'. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- "well-used, documented, well-sourced, etc." Have you actually read the nomination? As for usage, yes it is used but means different things in different context and cultures both historically and geographically (WP:SYNTH). What do you think about disambiguation/redirection to more specific terms? FonsScientiae (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Revilla

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

Not notable. Source is to a paper/chapter he wrote, not a reliable source about him. The other link is to his web site. Scholar search turns up nothing for WP:PROF. JohnBlackburne_deeds 04:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Source- I am the author of the page Fernando Revilla. The only source I can provide is the book 1 PRIMER CONGRESO INTERNACIONAL DE MATEMÁTICAS EN INGENIERÍA Y ARQUITECTURA which corresponds to the transcripts of the First International Congress of Mathematics in Civil Engineering and Architecture, section in theoretical developments of applied mathematics (Madrid 2007). There are several authors and one of them is Fernando Revilla (pp.451–454). Here appears Fernando Revilla (ref 702) as one of the authors.

Regards and thanks to all of you. Ferejim (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Support deletion: The only known published paper by this author appeared in a conference that is clearly not of international audience. The subject of the paper (pure number theory) does not correspond to the scope of the conference. Moreover the content of the paper is blatant fringe theory. Thus, far to be notable. D.Lazard (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In addition, his work appears to be on topics covered by WP:FRINGE, but because it is so obscure we will have difficulty finding mainstream sources to counter his views, causing a WP:NPOV problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Support deletion: If it is considered far to be notable, and so obscure for finding mainstream sources, I think it should be better to delete the page as soon as possible.Regards. (The author of the page: Ferejim (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC))

comment it seems we are in agreement and the creator also supports deletion, so if someone wants to invoke the snowball clause or WP:CSD#G7 this could perhaps be closed early?--JohnBlackburne_deeds 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Shibuya, Tokyo#Education. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yoyogi Seminar Bypass School

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

I Lack of notability. I cannot see that this is more than a business in the private education sector Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Shibuya, Tokyo#Education per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Milos Nikolic

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Milos Nikolic (New Zealand footballer)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

He has not played a senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, as it is no "significant coverage in reliable sources". Mentoz86 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. If someone finds more sources, please notify me and I'll be happy to reconsider. Giant Snowman 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattlore (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

George Slefendorfas

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/George Slefendorfas

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

He has not played a senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Don't see any New Zealand leagues on the fully professional list. Does anyone know what qualifies as a top level professional league there? Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
  - Comment This is where I was looking, and noticed that there are no New Zealand leagues on the list. I'm curious as to whether this means there are no top professional leagues in New Zealand, or whether the list is incomplete. I can't claim to know enough about New Zealand football to make a determination here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    - CommentNew Zealand does not a have a professional football (soccer) league.Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I can't find any "significant coverage in reliable sources", which means that the article fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly meets GNG, just look at the sources in the article, or do a quick gnews search. Examples of significant coverage: , , , , . Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - meets GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep - meeting N is usually sufficient, no arguements or evidence of unusual circumstances here. Wily D 08:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Koprivcic

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel Koprivcic

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

He has not played a fully professional league match at a club or at international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 (talk)Simione001 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, or in a cup-tie between two teams from fully professional leagues, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with articles such as . Really ... a long-standing player from a major city on a team that has played in the Club World Cup many times? You don't think they are going to meet WP:GNG? Nfitz (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- So its enough that youve scored a hat trick to get a wikipedia article? there a 6 paragraphs in that article and his only mentioned in two of them. Sorry in my opinion that's not enough to pass WP:GNG. The fact also remains that he has not played professionally at league level. Cup do not count. He has also not played a senior international for New Zealand.Simione001 (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Meets GNG, so whether or not he passes NFOOTY is irrelevant. In addition to the source Nfitz has provided, which was replicated in several other newspapers, there is also , , etc. all articles about Koprivic. In addition, he has also won the 2011 OFC Champions League Golden Ball trophy. Jenks24 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - meets GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dickinson

AfDs for this article:

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

He has not played a fully professional league match at a club or at international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 03:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, or between two fully professional teams, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with articles from several countries such as , , . Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Club World Cup is a cup competition not a league competition, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Those articles in my opinion are not enough to pass WP:GNG. Articles about him signing for Fijian club is not significant coverage. Nor is one about him signing for a New Zealand team. None of these teams are pro nor do they play in a professional league.Simione001 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly meets GNG, as shown by Nfitz's sources, which are articles that are solely devoted to Dickinson. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - meets GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattlore (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. If somebody really wants to wikisource this, they can ask for a restoration. Sandstein 06:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for treating ill or injured crew members

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

Copy and paste from a NASA paper. Knowledge is not a collection of public domain material. May belong on Wikisource. MER-C 03:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete as an obvious copy-and-paste. This is not an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not encyclopedic. — Jeraphine Gryphon 11:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Transwiki to wikisource per nom.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Send to Wikisource as above, this definitely appears to simply be a transposition of the NASA paper. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete if based on a copy & paste. The topic itself is notable. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with copypastes if it's public domain. Problem is that it's not an encyclopedic article or topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
delete there is potentially some useful data that might be included in other articles (which articles is unclear to me), but this is not an encyclopedia article (it is a research study). Nor is it evident that it could be turned into an encyclopedia article (Injuries suffered by astronauts ??) without essentially nuking it and starting from scratch anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
~~Speedy keep~~ 10 out of 10 spaceflight editors think we need more of this, zomg. Penyulap ☏ 15:56, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Where are those 10 editors? Have them enter and sign in, please. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fairly stated, you are quite right. :) We have an article which is red-linking all by itself Vs I should not state 10 editors when they haven't been asked about this. Still, it seems today is the day for making empty claims, TheRedPenOfDoom claims a conflict of interest where nothing is so much as suggested, except the empty claim itself, before it was claims of copyright , now it's unencyclopaedic and where is the substance to the claim ? Actually, I'd push to have July proclaimed empty claims month, but this is wikipedia, so it's year-round really. There is a smart, dedicated, polite editor who wants to assist filling in the huge gaping holes in spaceflight articles, and the only consensus I can see here is you think playing wack-a-mole with a newbie is the best way to build wikipedia, everyone prefers voting to helping but hey I'm good, I like a good consensus too. Heck, I'll vote along with you, see if I don't. Penyulap ☏ 05:19, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

delete no chance anyone besides me wants to continue to give the newbie tips which they then follow and apply, so lets just give up. I feel like a puppy in the middle of the night joining a chorus of barking without reason when I say "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC" "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC" "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC"..... "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC"... "DELETE" Penyulap ☏ 05:19, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to deny me my right to vote delete, even without any backing for the claim, I'll go with the even more popular argument, oft used by admins and non-admins alike, "If this many editors say it's unencyclopaedic, then it must be, mustn't it." Penyulap ☏ 05:24, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alphy Hoffman

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

Unsourced for four years, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide the in-depth coverage necessary to evidence the notability of this actor, singer, producer, director, producer and casting executive under our general notability guideline. Not a hoax, there's a few database listings for him, and an IMDB listing . j⚛e decker 00:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 15:34, 8 July 2012 (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) 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced personal information. No evidence of notabilty. No reliable secondary sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete for lack of secondary sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy procedural close per the consensus here. There are no delete !votes, and the nomination has absolutely no text qualifying this article's deletion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wayne County Courthouse (Indiana)

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

{{{text}}} Opaqueambiguity (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Procedural close. No reason given for deletion. Article looks fine. Pburka (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment. From this AfD's edit history, the nominator's rationale appears to be "not notable". The courthouse is listed on National Register of Historic Places. That means to documents to expand this article are out there to be retrieved. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What AfD edit history is that? There is only the initial edit that created the page. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary for the initial edit says "Created page with '{{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=P|tex=non-notable}} ~~~~'" • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhhh... Thanks for the reply. Unscintillating (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Procedural close Possibly a test edit? The creators of this article have not been notified. Also, please review the contribution history of this nominator. The edit to Kix seems to be a constructive edit, but is the only one in three years. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Procedural close/keep - No deletion rationale given. NRHP is a strong indicator of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm curious - while the article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion without a rationale, does mention on the NRHP automatically grant notability? I'm not arguing either way; I'd be interested in what the precedents are here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The NRHP has much higher inclusion standards than Knowledge. Just by its structure, the NRHP listings have a great amount of government research and reports (ie, "sources") which in itself demonstrates passing WP notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Even if a rationale for deletion had been included, inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places means a clear keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Norwegian Air Shuttle#Fleet. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Air Shuttle fleet

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

Useless list-only article that only contains content also available in a much better format at Norwegian Air Shuttle#Fleet :Jay8g _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC} 01:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Norwegian Air Shuttle#Fleet, which should have been WP:BOLDly done instead of AfD. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect per The Bushranger...William 10:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete by Alexf per author request (G7) -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Krishna N. Sharma

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

It's not clear what this person is supposed to be notable for. A world record? Having a forty page book acknowledgement is nothing to be proud of. All or almost all of his books are self-published, as are most of the references in this article. No verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage that I can find. He might be notable someday, but that day has not yet arrived. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

Keep. Dear User:DoriSmith Ma'am! I am new here. Since I am also a physiotherapist, I would like to inform you that this man is a very well known name in the field of Physiotherapy and I think he deserve to be notable for his 8 books. He is in Google suggestions, which I think because of the number of hits. Now don't you feel that he deserves to be on wiki. --jona 00:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Jonathan8888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Note to closing admin: Jonathan8888 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No notability apparent as indicated by reliable independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC).
Delete. Surely, given all of his incredible achievements, there ought to be dozens of books and articles about this polymath. (But there aren't.) Pburka (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. He is of course notable for his 8 books. I have read his book of PNF which is one of the only few available books on this topic. Pointing out only his world record and neglecting the honour he got(It may be because the people above may not be from the field of Physiotherapy), and the achievement of writing 8 books as not good in my view. --AbhinavPTMumbai (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — AbhinavPTMumbai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I think his rare multitasking talent and achievements are enough to keep this article. I agree with Pburka's statement that his achievements are of course incredible.--PranjalBoruah123 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — PranjalBoruah123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Your WP:SOCKPUPPET-foo is weak. You accidentally used the User:PranjalBoruah123 account to edit User:AbhinavPTMumbai's user page. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- He he. Funny mistake.--DaoMingDragon (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — DaoMingDragon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Keep~~. Cant it be kept as per WP:BASIC criteria (multiple publication)? Kindly suggest. --jona 02:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I said in the nom statement: show the verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage and sure, it could be kept as WP:BASIC. But right now, there aren't any.
- Sorry, but you only get to !vote once, and User:AbhinavPTMumbai already added your !vote, above. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Dear Dori. Thanks! The reference जिले के युवक ने बनाया बिश्व रिकार्ड is covered by Dainik Jagran News Paper. It is in hindi and contains the information regarding his achievement. Will it fit to the WP:3PARTY. --jona 02:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan8888 (talk • contribs)
    - Here's how Google translates that link:
      Muhammadabad Gohna (Mou): rich soil, a young talent who has demonstrated his mind again. The local town, a young man through a book of two - two world records by area and district has a good name.
      Dr. Krishna N. Sharma, son of the parish Kbirabad resident Dr. L. Sharma, recently published his book "That too in Hindi Songs' is through the choice of the remarkable success. "India Book of Records' and 'Unique World Records' record the two of them" in a book Aknolejd Maximum People' and 'Longest Aknolejment book "have attested to. Physician and author Dr. Krishna N. Sharma in Mumbai, medicine, music, and poetry books on Germany, the United States and India have been published by leading publications. Born on December 24, 1984 June 5 OB publication published by Dr. Sharma's last 40 pages of the book details are given about 1,579 people. The entire book is 104 pages. The past year, the American space agency NASA's international program "Face the space has been included in the. Theater and film industry, he joined the Telefilms 'eternal love' is the main role.
      A recent film 'stake in Reliance group of songs written and soon to be aired on TV channel, Big Magic "Despite this we" also will appear.
      There's several problems here, but the primary one is that there's no mention on that page where/when/by whom the original was published. Another issue is that the primary focus of the paragraph is the lengthy acknowledgement, which is less of a big deal when you realize that "OB Publications" is Sharma himself. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  - What is !vote?
    - See !vote. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  - A Link of news by The Times of India is found regarding his participation in the international programme of NASA- Face in Space. Is it notable? --jona 03:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    - In my opinion, very much no. It is reliably sourced but In order to count towards notability it must also provide nontrivial depth of coverage about the subject, and this one doesn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    - All the Times of India link says is:
      The American Space Agency NASA has sent the certificate of participation in her international programme - Face in Space - to Dr Krishna N Sharma a neuro-physiotherapist of the city. According to certificate signed by STS-133 Commander - Stew W Lindsey - his photo was flown on discovery mission from February 24-March 9 to international space station at an altitude of 220 miles above the earth and it flew at speed of more than 17,400 miles per hour as it orbited our planet, said Dr Sharma.
      Sorry, but that doesn't count as significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Hi Dori and David Eppstein. I found his work in Google Scholar and Google Books. I got three news reports on him (which is made online by the third party)- First Link of news by The Times of India is found regarding his participation in the international programme of NASA- Face in Space. The second Link of news is regarding his world records. The second Link of news is covered by Dainik Jagran News Paper. It is in Hindi and contains the information regarding all his achievements. We can get this news translated in English for wide understanding.
A scanned paper cuttings of his articles may be found here in 'The Independent' The Independent (Bangladesh). I think these materials fulfil the WP:BASIC and WP:3PARTY criteria. Isn't It? --jona 03:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've covered the Times of India and Dainik Jagran links above.
  The mlmaajtak.com link just says:
  
  Dr. Krishna N. Sharma basically from Muhammadabad Gohana, Mau, U.P., India has set two world records through his book ‘Thaat Kafi in Indian Songs‘. ‘India Book of Records‘ and ‘Unique World Records‘ have recognized his two records- ’Maximum People Acknowledged in a Book‘ and ‘Longest Book Acknowledgement‘. This book contains the names of 1579 people which is spread on 40 pages of the 104 pages book. Dr. Krishna N. Sharma, who is settled in Mumbai has written many books on Medical, Music and Literature which have been published by leading publications of Germany, USA, UK and India.
  Again, records for book acknowledgements in a self-published book don't make you notable.
  The article in The Independent appears to be by him rather than about him, so that doesn't help either.
  Google Book & Scholar would be helpful if they showed notability (e.g., large numbers of other writers citing his works), but they don't. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete If the nom already wasn't enough, the extensive activity by socks and SPA accounts is a sure sign of lack of notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. It's not a foregone conclusion that so much sock activity means that the subject is non-notable, but when the article is as full of WP:PUFFERY as this one is it becomes difficult to discern any real notability that might exist. In any case there is no evidence of passing WP:GNG or other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Full of puffery. Since he set up "O.B. Publication" most of his books are self-published. Not notable as an academic. The journal that he founded seems to have published 3 issues so far and can't be considered notable. The online community that he set up is just an online community and not particularly notable. In fact almost all of the references seem to be primary sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One more citation - Dear Dori, CodeTheorist, David Eppstein, Guillaume2303, I have posted this one also- "He has played lead role in the telefilm Amar Prem." It's link is here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1leNNanLpCs

Somehow I don't think that a short YouTube film is going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete Shame on the page creator for peddling such unmitigated garbage, compromising the objectivity of the encyclopedia, and wasting everyone's time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How to delete? I am author of this page and want to delete it. Even I posted {{subst:prod}} and {{db-g7}}, but it is still not deleted. --jona 13:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. There is well-argued support for a redirect to Tuun K'ab' Hix, and this outcome is still possible, whether as a result of bold editing or talk-page discussion. What this AfD has concluded is that Ix Ek' Naah should not become a redlink. NAC, and would our admins please note that per WP:RELIST, a triple-relist is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ix Ek' Naah

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

I could find nothing else on Google except for many other unreliable sources that just copy text from its Knowledge page. I can find no way to verify the given "Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens" source. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've verified Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. A small box on page 104 of my copy has the wife of king Tuun K'ab' Hix as Lady Ek' Naah, but that is all. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Tuun K'ab' Hix, unless further verifiable information is added during this AfD - all the information currently in the article is already in the redirect target. The one reference given in the article was identifiable with only a little trouble - while I have not been able to consult it myself, it is by two recognised experts in Mayan history and should therefore be fully reliable (I've improved the citation to make it easier for others to chase up, though there are apparently two editions of the work and I could not identify which edition had been used). PWilkinson (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Queens pass the first point of WP:POLITICIAN, as long as we can verify (as we've done here) that they existed and really were queens. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Though content is verifiable and she is indeed a Mayan queen, everything in the Ix Ek' Naah page can be found in the Tuun K'ab' Hix page. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep/merge to her hubbie article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I am Mihaela from Croatia. I have a great interest in Mayan history and culture. I wrote article about this queen. Please, can I make it better by finding more sources?--Miha (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment There are a lot of short stubs about Maya rulers and I am far from sure that there is enough material available to enlarge these articles. Practically everything we know about individual rulers comes from hieroglphic texts written by the Maya themselves, and some of these texts are extremely brief mentions upon the monuments of other rulers. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 7 July 2012 (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} 00:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Stars & Stripes (yacht). Retaining the history so that anything else that is not already in the target can be merged in Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Morrelli, Chance & Hubbart & MacLane

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

Group of people that worked together on the design of a boat. Nothing to indicate they have any notability as a group outside that one project. Already covered in Stars & Stripes (yacht) and 1988 America's Cup. noq (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This group of designers has no notability beyond that little conferred by having worked on a 1988 America's Cup yacht, which as the nominator points out is already adequately covered elsewhere. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep These men changed history. The Americas cup is the oldest trophy in modern sports. it has been going on for over 130 years and prior to this group of men, the last time the yacht type was changed was the result of a World War. Dennis Conner was faced with a challenge that was daunting and he enlisted this group to accomplish this objective. IMHO Knowledge is lacking in its coverage of The Americas Cup as well as Yachting in general, and editors should be encouraged to continue to evolve its coverage of this sport. What is interesting to ANY sailor about this group of men is the fact that the 4 were brought together to accomplish something that in fact provided the roots for what continues today. Many of these men STILL work in the program and have in fact become the creators of the boats that race the cup today.
- Catamaran sailors of the 1980's were "Hippies and Adrenaline Junkies" that sailed, in that the trade off that a cat sailor made in exchange for speed was "terminal" in so much as a Cat flips and the race is over for that boat. Monohull sailors were considered more sophisticated in so much as the boat that were sailed would take a "Knock Down" and still be able to recover and win the race. What Conner did was to combine the best of the best to create what has today become the standard in Racing the Americas Cup.
  **A Cat builder, a Yacht Designer whose family grew up racing Olympic and Americas Cup Monohulls, a wing designer and a World Class Cat sailor, this group as a group is mentioned in almost every story that is on the web about the 1998 race. It was a spectacle to say the least, I was in a boat watching the race that Summer in San Diego.
- Knowledge should encourage the development of stories that are critical events in history. To say that these men are in any way not relevant as a group then or now is simply not true, nor is it in the best interests of the development of encyclopedic content. --WPPilot 14:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask you again - you have still to answer - can you demonstrate that this group of people is WP:notable outside the context of the existing articles about the boat and the America's cup. If not, then they do not need their own page. noq (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the notablity page.

Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.

In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on
that individual
.

Nothing in WP:notable states that a group, that has been clearly defined by history as a group, in media globally does not qualify for a Wiki page. While I agree that these men perhaps do not need as the notability guidlines provides, a page for each person as the guidelines states "we should generally avoid having a biographical article" but you have assumed that this group should be treated as a Biographical artical, on a individual.

You upon review of your own logs have a clear history of posting delete tags on everything you seem to find. You have continued to push this issue and you have created a page that will allow other members of Knowledge to comment and decide, as per the terms of Knowledge. You are clearly not a sailor, nor do you have any experence according to your own member logs at anything other then posting the removal tag on any new story that seems pop up.]

The best I can guess is that your claim that these men are not notable unless the group as a group did something outside of changing the way the most famous race on earth is raced, and designing the 2 yachts and wings that did it. You are treating this as if it is a biographical article on a individual, yet it is NOT. Removing this and merging the data would only serve to censor the facts from the public at large. Perhaps you should go back to reverting edits that are in need of being reverted and, I would suggest that you allow the public to decide what to do with this story. I as a sailor and a contributor to Wiki for 4 years now personally feel that you are being ridiculous by attacking this story.--WPPilot 01:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have highlighted above a passage you copied here. Grouping those individuals together by a list of names and then writing mini articles about each individual seems to be an attempt to bypass that. WP:1E should be taken into account here, any notability is only in the context of that one event and is already covered in the pertinent articles. noq (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Surely Noq does not understand the article. Their notability is linked to the yacht, which is notable. There are also sufficient reliable sources which verifies their notability as the "design team". As far as this article is concerned, they should not be viewed as independent people but as a team, which I believed one of the editors in this messy AfD (where some don't bother to sign their names properly and keeping to protocol i.e. : keep, delete, comment, indent, etc.) already mentioned they are a group. They should not be viewed individually. In deed in some of the the sources, they are referred to as the the "design team". As regards to the notability of this article, I see no problem whatsoever and have no idea why it was put on AfD. A proper check would have verified notability. It begs the question what checks were done before this article was put on AfD. Now, there may be an argument for renaming but that is another issue. As far as notability is concerned, I see no problem whatsoever.Tamsier (talk)

Comment I understand the article perfectly, again I ask - apart from the one event which is already covered, what are these group of men notable for. Bear in mind that notability is not inherited. Reading the article it rehashes what is in other articles and now gives a brief bio of the individuals. Nothing substantial about the group as a group that is not already covered. noq (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

""Observation"" Noq has a long history of doing patrol work, and from this users log that seems to be the only function that this user has been able to provide. Noq should allow the Wiki community to decide and perhaps Noq can find some other stories to delete as Noq CLEARLY is not being rational with regard to this issue.WPPilot (talk)

At Noq - Your understanding of the article is debatable but if you insist. Further, articles are deleted based on Wiki's deletion policy, not your personal preference. It is irrelevant how many events these people are notable for. What is relevant is that, they are notable for an event (or something) and the article reflects this. If we are to go by your preference, there will be few articles in Knowledge. If you don't like it, you are at liberty to voice your opinion about the relevant policy in the appropriate page. The reason why you will continue to have problems with my opinion is that, I do not subscribe to your drive-by tagging, which are in many cases, unjustifiable. Again, as regards to the notability of this article, I see no problem with it. Just because some parts of this article are covered in other articles is no ground for deletion. This article is notable on its own merit. At present, I have not been convinced otherwise.Tamsier (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a group of people, those people as a group did one notable thing that is already covered in other articles. Remove the duplication and what is left is a group of biographies of four individuals with primary source references. The notability is with the boat not this arbitrary group of people involved in the design of the boat. What is covered in the sources is better covered in the context of the boat - there does not appear to be any notability of these people outside that context. noq (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This event is significant and the people's role in it is significant per WP:1E. Further, we generally put articles through AfD for notability and RS/V reasons. The article is notable and there are sufficient reliable sources that establish notability which is all I am interested in per Wiki policy. I don't know what the problem is. Tamsier (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORK also seems relevant. The event is significant and the role in it is also significant granted. But it is already covered. What does having another article with the same content but without the context add? that one event is covered, so why create a second article to re-iterate it? If it is so significant where is John Marshall in the title? He is at least as well covered in the one reference that this whole thing is based on. noq (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am making a report with regard to noq upon the fringe theories noticeboard for "POV pushing"--WPPilot 04:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Morrelli.2C_Chance_.26_Hubbart_.26_MacLane

@ Noq - You seem to be shopping for policies in order to delete this article. Your first issue was notability, which is generally what determines whether an article put up for AfD should be deleted. Notability was established per RS as well as the notability of the event. You then moved on to other inapplicable policies and now WP:FORK. Yet, you provided no justification for your claim other than a sweeping statement : "WP:FORK also seems relevant". Really! How? Articles put up for AfD are generally deleted if they are none notable and sourced with RS. This article is notable and I will not be made to go around in circle. I therefore respectfully exit this discussion and perhaps other editors may step in to bring some sense to this discussion.Tamsier (talk) 11:15, 6 July 201

please read the nomination again Group of people that worked together on the design of a boat. Nothing to indicate they have any notability as a group outside that one project. Already covered in Stars & Stripes (yacht) and 1988 America's Cup. Highlights one event, and content fork as already covered in two existing articles. The first commenter on this debate did not seem to have any problem understanding that and this comment on the fringe theory noticeboard seems to understand it also. noq (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely at a loss to understand why WPPilot initiated a report at the fringe theories noticeboard, but it's good to see that it's being given the short shrift it deserves. What's puzzling me just as much though is this: if these four men are notable beyond having worked on a boat together in 1988, then why do none of them have their own articles? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply. Sometimes small groups are notable as a group, rather than individually, so the article is about the group. See, for example, Wright Brothers. Wilbur & Orville Wright are certainly notable individually, but the article covers both of them. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this group, who only briefly worked together on one project, can in any way be compared to the Wright Brothers. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - As above.Tamsier (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only one !vote each, please.
Delete (I'd say redirect to a more appropriate article, but it's extremely doubtful anyone would search for this specific string of names with the one comma and two ampersands) There is simply nothing to show that this group of names together have any notability separate from the boat and/or race, which are already covered at Stars & Stripes (yacht) and 1988 America's Cup. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:FORK both apply here quite strongly: this article makes no attempt to describe any other notable event they may have been involved in (one event), and it's acting as yet another article on the same topic already included elsewhere (fork). These men as a group fail WP:GNG, it is the boat and event that are notable. Arguments above seem to either just assert notability without any attempt to cite policy or attempt to prevail through character assassination on the nominator. We should be commending noq for patrolling pages and taking the time to make sure articles comply with our policies, not attacking him for it.DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Don't see that the person commented here, but on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard we had another commenter saying: "This is not our bailiwick. It's obvious to me that the article on the four designers should be rolled into the article on the boat, but I see nothing about it that has anything to do with fringe theories. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)". I think that editor's comment should also be weighed in this AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Stars & Stripes (yacht). This is an article about the building of the boat. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what there is to merge that is not already covered in that article. noq (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

CommentPerhaps you should read the story, nothing regarding the real ID's of these people is in ANY story on Wiki. Perhaps you chould point out the location of the content that this story has, such as the Names of these people and backgrounds of each one? On every location it is only refered to as a group using the last names to create the name of a group.--WPPilot 18:47, 9 July 2012 (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} 00:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete At first I thought this was a law firm. It seems to be just four people hired to do a job. Their identity as a group does not seem to be notable, at least from the sources provided. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete. This is just a "where are they now" follow up to the Stars & Stripes (yacht) article. Note that User:WPPilot's behaviour in this debate is not helping his cause. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - My word! This article is relisted again? There was sufficient discussion in the first even in the second for those that contributed. This discussion should have been closed as non-consensus rather than being relisted. In my opinion, I think this is contrary to the spirit of Wiki. It should not have been relisted no matter what views one may hold about the editor.Tamsier (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only one !vote each, please. Pburka (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment That was your third !vote on this one debate. As Pburka pointed out, you should limit yourself to one. Only you and the article creator have argued for it be kept, several others have argued the other way. The debate has continued and I have no problem with the discussion being extended although I would not agree with your no-consensus conclusion. noq (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment My apologies if I violate voting policy. I have seen more experienced editors and admins done the same in a relist including yourself noq, hence the reason I revoted when it was relisted. Also noq, if you believed I breached voting policy, why didn't you say so in the second vote until now when it was raised by Pburka? Anyway, if I violate voting policy my apologies. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Thank you Pburka for striking them out.Tamsier (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ regardless of what one person thinks of my edit or posture it would be foolish to remove data that clearly defines a group that contributed to history. Merge perhaps but frankly speaking it is contrary to the spirit of Wiki to simply delete information that is a valuable part of history.--WPPilot 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only one !vote each, please. Pburka (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Stars & Stripes (yacht): For two reasons:
1. The design team fails the notability criteria as a group -- they designed this one boat together, they are not a team or company or anything that designs boats in general. Their group notability is part of the notability of the boat they built and cannot realistically be seen as a separate topic. Which you can also see in the article (sort of a combobulation of four biographies and a bit about the boat, rather than actually being about the group).
2. The article in fact is already part of Stars & Stripes (yacht). If you look at what is in the article apart form the biographical data, you cannot really read it without also reading Stars & Stripes (yacht). If this article were a piece of software, I'd say that the Law of Demeter applies in that the information in the article in fact wants to live in the Stars & Stripes (yacht) article rather than in this one. -- BenTels (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment What would you suggest can be merged that is not already in the yacht article? noq (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say, a little more detail about the people on the design team (enough to show that they were not a design bureau, because they sound like it in the yacht article). Some detailing of the role played by Scaled Composites and some details on the boat design. -- BenTels (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

LALR parser generator

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

Contains duplicate information. All information presented is included in the LALR parser article except for the BNF reference. One could be informed about what a LALR parser generator is by looking at LALR parser and Parser generator articles.
In a previous merge discussion for LALR parser and this article it was mentioned that this article could contain information about the process of generating the algorithm. In its current form the article doesn't go down into that, instead it is just a general presentation of the LALR algorithm. I do not object to having an article about the generation process but this in its current form is not such an article. We can make a deletion with a note about what the article should be about. Nxavar (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep per past merge discussion at Talk:LALR_parser#Merger_proposal

These are not the same thing. One is a tool used to make the other. Both are notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge to LALR parser. I disagree with nom that it would add nothing. It adds the whole discussion of actual software that really exists to generate LALR parsers. That the initial merge might need additional work or lack depth is entirely fixable. I recommend pasting the whole LALR parser generator article text into the LALR Parser article, in between LALR parser#Generating LALR parsers and LALR parser#Advantages and letting the community go to work on making it better. Msnicki (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Either Keep (per the past merge discussion at Talk:LALR_parser#Merger_proposal) or Merge and redirect to LALR parser (per Msnicki). Although conceptually distinct, there is an obvious relationship – that's why the article LALR parser has a section Generating LALR parsers, and a combined article will still have a very manageable length. In any case, do not delete; this is clearly notable and at the very least a plausible search term. --Lambiam 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Concerning the merge proposal I think that we should keep just the introductory paragraph since the rest is already mentioned. Concerning the notability remark, making this article a subsection of the LALR parser as Lambian suggested means that this would be still a WP topic. Take a look also at the LR parser and LL parser articles; Looks like unified articles are something acceptable for parsers. Nxavar (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: these are two separate but related entities.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (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} 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Even the nominator says "I do not object to having an article about the generation process" and every other comment was opposed to deletion, and yet it's been relisted twice without explanation. WP:SK ground 1, surely?—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Even though the article could stand beefing up (e.g. adding a description of the generation algorithm), working from first principles there is plenty of room for separate articles on LALR parsing and LALR parser generation. -- BenTels (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep and consider merging with Parser generator and/or LALR parser. —Ruud 11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Well written, informative, encyclopedic. I could ask for a few more references, but that's a quibble. I'm not sure how this got to be proposed for deletion. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Priyanath Mukhopadhyay

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

Unfortunately, seems to fail WP:BIO, lacks GHits. Zujua (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a well referenced article. A fighter pilot dying in action is a significant and noteworthy person. Moreover the person was a Commanding Officer of a fighter squadron. No need to delete, but the article can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitencontractor (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Upmerge to 5 Squadron IAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2012 (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} 00:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. While tragic, deaths in training accidents are not inherently notable. Aside from the one article announcing his death I can find nothing in reliable sources which might indicate notability. Pburka (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies....William 11:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Except the times of India article, the remaining three references are database entries, which do not establish notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Summarize & Merge, The subject of the biography article does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:SOLDIER. That being said, although the list does not presently exist, if the subject is as the article says, a fighter ace, the content in the article can be summarized and the name be put into a list regarding Indian Air Force fighter aces. Otherwise, the merged content can be merged into the 5 Squadron IAF as suggested by Buckshot06.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the article No. 5 Squadron IAF. User Buckshot06 has already merged a summary of this article in it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great. So do you think the best course of action would be to redirect there if a consensus is reached? Zujua (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I said only what the user did, I didn't supported it. The only mention in newspapers is that when the airplane crashed, the pilot was identified as Priyanath. In my opinion, that is too little notability for a redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted that the page seems to have had significant additions to it since I nominated it for deletion, however much of the material seems to be unsourced, and IMO doesn't really seem to change much in terms of its failure of WP:BIO, WP:SOLDIER, and the others mentioned. But in any case, those that have voted to delete should take note and decide if this new info changes their opinion. Zujua (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Chinese Democracy. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There Was A Time (Guns N' Roses song)

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

Probably fails WP:MUS, unsourced, would need to be wikified. Proposing deletion for now unless sources can be found/notability established. Zujua (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NSONG, it wasn't a single and I can't find any independent sources to indicate notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect is a better solution, as noted below.Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2012 (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} 00:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Chinese Democracy, surely.—S Marshall T/C 01:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

David Lehr

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC, no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. Cntras (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Article about an unsigned musician that only makes claims to a small handful of non-notable self-published recordings. -- WikHead (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Legitimate claims with real sources. The page DOES meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO (See Awards) 4:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.74.57 (talk)
- Comment - The Ernie Ball award mentioned in the blog reference appears to be something that travels from city to city and awarded locally in multiple regions. If it's a local award, it probably won't carry much weight here. -- WikHead (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment - The Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands is a national contest for the entire tour, not just each city that the tour goes to. It is judged by professional producers and musicians. It is in no way a local contest. David Lehr's award was a spot at one specific city, but he very well could have been awarded to play in multiple cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.190.214 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    - Reply - But he wasn't. -- WikHead (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      - Comment - Doesn't matter. This is quoted from WP:MUSICBIO, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.74.57 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
        Comment - it's a bit misleading to say that David Lehr won the "Official Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands", when the subject was actually the Indianapolis winner of the 'Acoustic Basement' contest. From what I gather, there were multiple bands selected from individual states. -Cntras (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - The article is about an unsigned musician who seems to have achieved a lot with his music. The articles is in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO and has properly cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.190.214 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2012 (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} 00:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Self-published references. Music is also self-published. Award is minor. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Book
"Amar Prem - Telefilm". Retrieved July 14, 2012.