Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 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 May	16 May >

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 delete. MastCell 17:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Chu Chung Man

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

This is a biography with no reliable sources and no supported claims of notability. The only source is just a lineage list and notability is not inherited. My search found no reliable sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Astudent0 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am finding some information under chu chong-man (zhu songmin) , also under images and in various martial arts web sites.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete All I see are passing mentions concerning lineage--no signficant coverage or signs of notability that meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete I was not able to find reliable sources that show he is notable. There's no question he's part of a well-known lineage, but I found nothing that shows he is notable as an individual. This seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 22:13, 20 May 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 delete. Sandstein 06:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Metafictional video games

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

An article that contains no evidence of the notability of the subject. Instead, it is merely an arbitrary list of a couple of games, that is completely unsourced, and reeks of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It has been tagged for a variety of issues for a number of years now. I failed to find any reliable sources specifically about the topic, and even if some are found, it is likely that it would be simpler to delete this original article and just go from scratch. Rorshacma (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. There're plenty of sources out there to make an article on this subject (e.g. ), but none of the current material seems appropriate to keep for such an article. JulesH (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not sure if any of those sources would even cut it except 1up.com. The concept may or may not be a thing, but the article is so poor, unsourced and OR laden, and I don't see more sources coming. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, without prejudice to recreation one day, once "game within a game" becomes as notable as "story within a story". Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 17:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Valhalla (band)

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

Prod was removed by an IP and keeps getting readded, so I'm bringing this to discussion. The article has been created in several language versions and has been repeatedly deleted from at least the Spanish, Italian and Swedish Wikipedias. The concern appears to be that this musical group falls short of meeting WP:BAND. Jafeluv (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND, and result of cross-wiki-spam. --Pixi Uno (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable enough. Not signed to any record label and thus fails Band →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 08:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Clojure. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Compojure

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

I found no notability for this web framework. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Clojure. It seems to spark interest within the small Clojure community but there aren't enough searches to register on Google Trends (as there are for "Spring framework" or "CakePHP") and for example there isn't even a self-created entry on Freecode. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Merge~~ with Clojure seems like an obvious solution here. Did this occur to the nominator? --Kvng (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have to be rude? SL93 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this came off as rude. I expect AfD nominators to follow procedure and I ask questions when I suspect it has not. Did you perform step C.4 of WP:BEFORE? --Kvng (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I always follow WP:BEFORE. I still don't believe this should be merged as significance to the Clojure project hasn't been provided. Why did you suspect that I didn't? SL93 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because you cited WP:N which has to do with notability for stand-alone article. Criteria for merging a fact in an existing article is more permissive. --Kvng (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

But I think this shouldn't be merged though. It is not a major part of Clojure. SL93 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think that the actions SL93 has taken have been appropriate - it is reasonable to favor deletion in this case rather than a merge and act on that by creating an AfD nomination - but I just disagree and think that the content should be preserved as accessible to non-admins by merging into Clojure, even if it is immediately deleted from the new article, so that it's still accessible to the average editor in the history of a non-deleted article. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 01:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete~~Redirect I have added the single sentence that is the entirety of Compojure to Clojure. Compojure may now be ~~deleted~~ redirected to Clojure#Variants. --Kvng (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The next step in a cut-and-paste merge is to blank the page and redirect, so it doesn't accidentally get re-created. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 11:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that's not good form while the page is under AfD discussion here. --Kvng (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but what I'm saying is that for whoever closes this AfD, instead of carrying out "Compojure may now be deleted" as you said, they should continue with the half-completed merge steps. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hotel design

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

Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, nothing but an essay. There may be a thing here, but this isn't it. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Is the above !vote based upon a search for sources regarding the actual topic? Northamerica1000 10:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep It is our policy to improve articles about such a notable topic, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- And what makes it notable, besides you saying that it is? How do you know this can be improved? Ten Pound Hammer • 08:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Fairly clearly, Colonel Warden found a book by a Cornell University professor on the subject of hotel design. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep - For starters, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable book sources (tertiary sources):
...and the list goes on and on! Knowledge is an encyclopedia comprised of notable topics. Northamerica1000 10:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I've begun working on improving the article. Northamerica1000 11:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I applaud the efforts that have been made to clean up this article, but it remains a personal essay full of unreferenced non-trivial assertions. Indeed, the only in-article reference is for the bleeding obvious: "Hotel design is the design of hotels", whereas comments such as "Hotels are usually designed from the inside out to ensure the practical working and relationship of the parts in the most economical manner" are totally unsupported, and comments such as "hotels still commonly function to provide a welcome environment that supports the comfort of its guests, the provision or respite, rest and relaxation from the demands of a noisy and increasingly crowded society" are just fluff. As it stands, everything but the first sentence should be removed, and then the article would be speedily deleted (Knowledge:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A3). The notability of the subject was never cited in the deletion rationale; what was cited was its failure to meet the policy WP:NOT. The fact that the article still fails this over six years since creation and despite the work now of Warden and Northamerica1000 reinforces my view that it is unsalvagable. It should be deleted and restarted from scratch. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the content which I placed in the image captions. In any case, CSD#A3 states "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. ". Warden (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding User:RichardOSmith's comment above, see the section of Knowledge's editing policy Try to fix problems. This article is easily salvageable, in my opinion. It just needs more work. Northamerica1000 12:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - More copy editing and the addition of significant inline citations has been undertaken in the article. Northamerica1000 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly you've done enough to the article now to rescue it from deletion. I'm still very much convinced it would have been better to start over, but thank you for taking care of it. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Article has been improved enough to meet all WP standards. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary Wheaton

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

While not a hit piece, this is pretty close. The biography mainly consists of a discussion about him losing the Republican primary after resigning his seat due to some DUI arrests. There's no birthday, nothing about his personal life, nothing about his legislative achievements. Just the scandal followed by some gossip about the reactions of losing the primary by Wheaton and another candidate. AniMate 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and improve - it is long-standing precedent here that state legislators are per se notable, even in New Hampshire. This should be closed soon as a WP:SNOW keep, if you don't withdraw it yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I might agree if this was a biography, but its not. It's a coatrack attack page. The bulk of the article is about the election he lost, and every other bit seems to designed to make him look bad. The fact that it was just expanded boggles the mind. Rather than adding actual biographical information, you added more about the DUI arrest. For an administrator writing a BLP, you've done a horrible job here. You haven't made any attempt to make this article conform to WP:NPOV and you haven't added any biographical details. AniMate 22:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - response AniMate, I really resent that unjust accusation. Have you ever tried to research an article on a New Hampshire legislator? They elect them by the hundreds every two years, and the press comes frighteningly close to ignoring them. The guy only served four months in the legislature, and the only things he did of note were to get busted and resign, then to lose in his comeback attempt, and to diss his opposition in other folks' Facebook pages: this is what's available about him. RFD, one of the best state-legislator editors I know, was reduced to using a Letter to the Editor from the subject as a source for who the guy is and what else he has done. If I were in New Hampshire, I might be able to add more; but there is no intention of building an attack page or a coatrack. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If anybody out there has good juju with the Wayback Machine, there should be a cache somewhere out there of his official website from his brief term in the legislature; but I'll admit I don't know how to find it. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep State legislators are consider to be notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep though the article does need expanding to focus on other parts of his life and career. Valenciano (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note I expanded the article a little and some information about his business career-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep No need to get past the first sentence after the lead "former...member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives" He obviously meets notability. And, I don't see anything in the current version to indicate a violation of BLP.JoelWhy (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - He meets WP:POLITICIAN. I don't see that the article is attack piece or coatrack. Per WP:BLP, we do need reliable sourcing for controversial material, and in this case we do have that sourcing. I don't see any issue with the amount of negative material in the article. From what I can see, it does correspond with what is reported about him, so there is no issue of that material being undue weight in the article. Essentially, the negative material is self-inflicted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The article may be re-created after the event has occurred, assuming that sufficient independent, reliable sources are available and the topic otherwise fulfills notability guidelines. MastCell 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC 151

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no indication that the event it's self will have any enduring notability. Any claim to such is at best speculation for an event still three months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. Mt king 20:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Future event with no established notability. We're not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Some editors dont like UFC and I think we should do what they say. Portillo (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to 2012 in UFC events. Only a single bout appears to be announced for this event and the article contains only routine coverage of that bout. There is no prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT discussing why this event, and its single bout, is/will be notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Knowledge and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Saying UFC 151 might not happen and is a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation is baseless. This is not speculation on something that might happen years in the future, and there is no evidence of the UFC organization going defunct in the next few months. Deleting this article serves no purpose other than making it harder to recreate when further information does become available. Zeekfox (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Because a world title in a top organization is being defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep This article meets notability requirements due to having a championship belt for the largest MMA organization in the world on the line. Additionally, it's yet another of the rubber stamp AfD's being nominated by MtKing, who has clearly established himself as an anti-MMA deletionist SPA. He should be removed from this issue because his bias and unwillingness to listen to what anyone else has to say has been clearly established by now.Pull lead (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Note: This editor was unlocked from a indef block on the conduction they refrain from trolling and attacks, they were re-blocked after this edit. See here and here Mt king 21:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete For the simple fact that this is a future event that has not occurred. BearMan998 (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep; both the nomination and the only delete !vote have been withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri 15:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Open Source Routing Machine

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

~~There is no indication of this software receiving third-party coverage by reliable sources, which means that it fails WP:GNG.~~ Considering that the creator reacted to a PROD tag by stating, "bugger off I'm still writing this page you f**king pond scum robot", I am not entirely confident that improvements will be immediately forthcoming. Sandstein 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed opinion to weak keep per Anarchangel's sources; coverage is minimal but probably sufficient for notability. Sandstein 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still writing the article, FFS. Go away you deletionist busybody. What happened to good faith? People like you are ruining Knowledge. Seriously. I started this article 15 minutes ago and you're already trying to delete it. And Knowledge wonders why they're losing editors! It's because the Administrators are a bunch of useless do-nothings who won't allow for organic growth. Go ahead and delete this if you want to. If you do, I'm leaving. Congratulations. You've made Knowledge not-fun enough to crush the spirit of a free culture enthusiast. Not to violate WP:NPA, but I do not like you and think you should seriously reconsider your attitude towards this place. I think you're the problem. Miserlou (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk page, you are free to start developing articles in your user space, but as soon as they enter main space, they must comply with our inclusion rules. You can still copy your work to User:Miserlou/Open Source Routing Machine, continue working on it there, and move it back to mainspace as soon as you are certain that you understand our inclusion rules and the article complies with them. Sandstein 20:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the wording of a reaction I understand all too well, it is perhaps understandable that "I'm still writing this page" is included as part of an argument that the rude words have a bearing on the chance of completion. You'll perhaps agree, however, that is somewhat ironic. I do not agree that tagging hours-old articles, much less nominating them for deletion, is valuable or sound practice, nor do I believe that an indignant reaction to that practice is an actionable indication of the future of an article. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: No sign of notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Note: This delete !vote has been withdrawn below. —KuyaBriBri 15:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep No hits in News or Books, but two in Scholar: https://www.legato.net/download/attachments/2555944/2011_FOSSGIS_Tagungsband.pdf#page=41 discusses the subject at length, and http://andreas-hubel.de/ba/ba_V2.0.pdf#page=17 gives it a more brief treatment, although with screenshots, and the authors saw fit to discuss it before any of the other similar items in their list. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaning Keep - Per the sources provided by User:Anarchangel above. They're in German (which I'm not fluent in), but appear to cover the topic with sufficient detail to qualify as significant coverage.

Also, quite importantly, the nominator should consider refraining from nominating brand new pages for immediate deletion. The article was created on 19:41, 15 May 2012‎ (UTC), and was sent to AfD at 20:03, 15 May 2012‎ (UTC). See also WP:IMPERFECT. It's likely that this new article was found at Special:NewPages, and even if it wasn't, the advice there is stated as, ..."Don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users. Consider using Twinkle to welcome newcomers, and placing {{uw-draftfirst}} on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting;..." and ..."Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision;"...

It's very poor form to try to delete people's work while they're still working on it. Also, per the wording of the nomination, I'm unconvinced that the nominator actually performed source searching to qualify the nomination to remove this article from the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000 11:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page's advice but disagree with it (it's not a policy or guideline): deficiencies in our articles should be addressed whenever one becomes aware of them, and unprofessional reactions on the part of authors are a problem only these persons are responsible for. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to those who want to keep the article to look for sources beyond a basic Google web and news search, which I performed. Sandstein 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to be overly-technical, but WP:BURDEN refers to information within articles, and not the deletion of articles from the encyclopedia. See WP:DEL-REASON regarding reasons for deletion per Knowledge's Deletion policy. Anyway, I noticed you revised the nomination as weak keep, so I'm adding the following comment... Northamerica1000 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note – It appears that this nomination for deletion has been withdrawn, per the revision in which the nominator changed their opinion to weak keep. Northamerica1000 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but there is still an outstanding delete !vote from SL93 (talk · contribs). If that user withdraws and no one else comes forth with a delete !vote then this can be speedy kept. —KuyaBriBri 14:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I change my vote to weak keep. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 22:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Glove One

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

art project prototype, bulk of refs are blogs Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: even the ref which appears to be pcworld is a blog. Student project. Not yet encyclopedic. PamD 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, too soon. The PCWorld blog does appear official by PCW staff but it isn't enough on its own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Article is a scant couple hours old, and I got stalled in the process of sources when I found that the creator's website is blacklisted. Seriously, nominating it for deletion already is kinda jumping the gun. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural/Speedy keep - The article was nominated for deletion less than two hours after creation. Please allow time for people to improve the articles. Knowledge is about encyclopedic topics; it's not about immediate discussion for deletion right after a new article is created. Also, the delete !votes above don't discuss the availability of sources via source searching whatsoever, and appear to be based only upon sources currently in the article. Very importantly, please read in entirety WP:NRVE, which states that topic notability is based upon available sources, not those just in the articles. Also speedy keep, because no valid rationale for deletion has been stated in the nomination, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000 13:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG. For starters, see:

CNET News Article
Huffington Post article
PC World article (Appears to pass WP:NEWSBLOG)

—Northamerica1000 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, HuffPost is scarcely a RS but the CNET just about has me convinced, and yes I did look at the available sources which were and are pretty flaky. Basically this has been blogged to the brink of notability. Guess it's about keepable. The poor coverage and flash-in-the-pan nature suggests that a merge to a technology article would be the better choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep good evidence of notability presented. Too young to nominate for deletion. --Kvng (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Closed as moot, article was speedy deleted by Drmies per G3, G11. joe decker 02:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily King News

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

Nothing here indicating notability. I searched for them on Google, but there's a warning on the Google link that "This cite may harm your computer." JoelWhy (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per GNG Sarah (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete appears to fail GNG Dac04 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete and no objection to speedy. Never seen it in the UK. Never heard of it till now. Can't find anything reliable about it, and noted that the 750,000,000 ghits dwindled to 35 after the third page. Nothing reliable, most own site and Google-blocked. With Clark, you get 12. With N. Clark, you get 0. Anyone in the USA seen a printed copy? By the way, what was the original that this is copied from, 'citation needed' and all? I'd say it's been deleted before or copied from something. Also, there are a few different "Clark Publishing Company"s, but none associated with this title. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Poor copy of lede of USA Today by someone with aspirations of becoming the next William Randolph Hearst. I went to the DKN site on my phone to block spyware threats, which redirects me to a Russian spam site. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Donorcommunity

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

I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. There is a claim of notability in the article of, "It is the first SaaS company to provide multiple applications as a single solution with one database, cloud-based platform to NPOs." But I am unable to confirm the notability of that claim in any reliable sources as well. All I am able to locate is a single short Miami Herald article that makes reference to it winning the newspaper sponsored business plan competition. Appears to be too early for an article on Wiki.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete The majority of things I found press wise are just press releases. Appears to fail GNG. Sarah (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Sarah. The original version was blatant spam pasted from their website. The re-written version is far less promotional, but hasn't left much worth keeping: no assertion of notability per WP:Company; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 12:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Like nom, I was unable to find significant covereage in WP:RS to establish notability. The bulk of what I found was press releases; as such, I feel the company fails WP:CORP, and it is WP:TOOSOON for a WP article. None but shining hours (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Drake Jensen

Advanced search for:
"Drake Jensen"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Knowledge Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

The article for Drake Jensen. I have a problem with this article because this is a self-published artist who happens to be a gay country singer. The only thing of note for him is that he is a gay country singer and I feel that does not do him justice. Straight Facts about my case:

Drake is on an indie label.
Drake self-produced his albums.
Drake is not on a major record label and gets virtually no notable airplay.
Drake is not "world famous", only "world famous" to a small group of people.
Drake's major accomplished seems to be coming out gay due to a tragic event.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkoconnell (talk • contribs) 2012-05-15T15:38:46‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Self-production and being on an indie label are beside the point for any artist. Also, an artist does not have to be world-famous to be notable, and current airplay is not a requirement; the article does mention (with citation to an independent source) that one song some years ago was a favorite on CBC Radio One. WP:Notability says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I count 8 such sources for this article. I think that clinches it. Textorus (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Drake's albums were produced by a notable and well-established Nashville producer. His videos have received over 33,000 views in the past few months.

Keep I see no reason the sources in the article are not good enough for notability. Enough were published before his coming out to show that this is not a WP:BLP1E. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been presented, per WP:DEL-REASON. It's weak that the nominator states they "have a problem" with the topic from the start, which is indicative of bias about the topic, rather than presenting the discussion as should be here, about the notability of the topic per Knowledge Nobatility guidelines. To the nom, perhaps consider improving the article instead. Northamerica1000 13:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Procedural comment I considered a procedural close here, even before you suggested it. I held back at the time because I felt that two of the comments skate near the vicinity of WP:MUSICBIO (5) and (11), just close enough that I was hesitant to close this as a matter of pure procedure. I note that WP:DEL#REASON isn't limiting, I would not oppose a little more structure there. --joe decker 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Notability on Knowledge is a function of the depth and quality of reliable sources that can be added about the person. A musician does not need to be on a major label, or to have a current Top 40 hit, or to be "world famous", or to have his albums helmed by a famous producer rather than doing it himself, to be notable — while those criteria certainly bolster notability if they're met, they're not necessary conditions that must be met. We have plenty of articles, some even quite good, about musicians who meet none of them. The only strictly necessary condition that a musician has to meet to qualify for an article on here is having garnered coverage in reliable sources — and with coverage in the Ottawa Citizen, Cashbox, Capital Xtra! and the CBC, among others, that condition has most certainly been met here. And furthermore, some of those additional criteria have been met anyway — despite the deletion rationale given here, his album was actually produced by a potentially notable Nashville-based record producer, not by himself, and the article explicitly mentions and properly sources that far from garnering "virtually no notable airplay", he actually garnered airplay on over 100 radio stations in North America with the album's first single. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 18:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Daria Adamantina

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable Actress, minimal Google hits, no Google news hits, all external links are to self published sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unreferenced WP:BLP, no assertion of notability per WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the Spanish Knowledge version es:Daria Adamantina has been deleted three times yesterday and today, as a hoax. Scopecreep (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor on Portuguese WP Usuária:Daria Adamantina has been blocked for 2 days for misuse of her user page, and fr:Daria Adamantina was speedied A7 today. Scopecreep (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above. Sarah (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete this WP:BLP violation of a minor with haste. This youtube "actress" and her "film projects" are not covered by reliable sources and are found only on social networking and other non RS sites. We have no verifiability. Schmidt, 00:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete No sources, no connection to notable films. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete and salt. I was the one who nominated the previous version for speedy deletion. It should not be allowed to be re-created. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD G3. Out of Knowledge, blogs and social networks, no results were found. Francisco (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I don't think that G3 is right tag for it though being not at all notable. But still should be deleted. →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 08:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was snow keep. As this is still linked from the main page, I don't think we want the AfD banner on the top of the page. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fanny Imlay

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

It is argued (on this article's talk page) that the subject of this Featured Article, recently seen on the Main Page, is non-notable. The basis for this argument seems to be that the people commenting have not themselves heard of Fanny Imlay. Others claim that the article is "the most well written pile of boring shit that I have ever read." And so on and so forth. To dampen down the discussion on the talk page, I am taking this matter here to AfD. I am myself, incidentally, of no doubt at all that the subject of this article is notable. There is sufficient scholarly attention paid to her to make this quite clear. And that, in the end, is what matters--and all that matters. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, as nominator. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose deletion/keep article. There is a peer-reviewed, scholarly biography of this person in addition to peer-reviewed journal articles. Scholars deem this person to be notable, therefore this article easily passes WP:NOTABILITY muster. Wadewitz (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per my arguments on the talk page. Clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep a 297-page book on the subject clearly establishes notability per WP:NN Ruhrfisch _><>° 15:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:BIO and the arguments on the article's talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

All of you people obviously unfamiliar with AFD should read Knowledge:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. The outcomes here are keep and delete. "oppose" is ambiguous. It doesn't say what outcome you are opposing. Don't state things in negative form anyway. We do things straightforwardly here at AFD: Say which outcome you want, not what you "oppose". You might also read what Knowledge:Speedy keep has to say about nominating recently featured articles and Knowledge:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point. Another AFD maxim that you need to learn is Don't nominate things for deletion when you yourself don't want them deleted. Let the people who do want them deleted do the AFD nomination. Let them scratch their own itches. At the moment, you're all doing exactly the sort of disruption that we normally turf out of AFD on its ear. Featured article writers should not be making disruptive AFD nominations. We have vandals, jokers, and nitwits for that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - this may be a minor historical character but she's a well-researched and studied minor character, eminently worth an article. The debate on the talk page is ridiculous. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I agree that the debate on the talk page is ridiculous; of course it passes WP:NOTABILITY. And of course it's not boring; it provides insight about some of the issues her mother discussed regarding feminism and the education of women. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, per various comments above. Clearly notable by our standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per talk page discussion. Her notability stems from her relatives that actually did something notable, and mentioned that they had a sister/daughter/cousin or were introduced through. . . Fanny should be merged in with those relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.183.188 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep easily meets the WP:GNG--seriously, academics were writing about her over a hundred years after her death. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, per various comments above. heather walls (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, since a biography establishes notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Article clearly passes GNG. GRAPPLE X 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Unreferenced biography; could conceivably be re-created if/when suitable independent, reliable sources are available. MastCell 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikita Farions

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

Non-notable? Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This article is about a Latvian amateur boxer, and says he is a four time national champion. Currently, it is an unreferenced article about a living person. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete I think this might be the case of WP:TOO SOON. Sarah (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete This does appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. It is lacking sources that might clarify a claim to notability. Stormbay (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Center, New Mexico

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

Contested prod. No assertion that this press release collection is notable. Knowledge is not a crystal ball and announcements of someone planning to build something someday are of interest to the local chambers of commerce but should have more foundations (literally as well as metaphorically) before becomning an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Popular Mechanics and POPSCI sources are not press releases. You could try sourcing the parts of the article that are sourced to press releases to TIME, the Toronto Star, Associated Press, or WBTV instead. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no, they aren't press releases...they are somebody rewriting a press release. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - How do you determine that something is a re-written press release? Even if it were, why would Popular Science, NY Times or the Boston Globe bother picking up something that wasn't notable? --George100 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. There's plenty of independent news coverage about this now. e.g. . By the way, based on what I've read, I'm inclined to favor renaming the article to the more informative Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Appears to pass GNG. Sarah (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep It may turn out to be a scam, or vaporware, but it has enough press to be notable. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG:

Popular Science – New Mexico Building a 20-Square-Mile Empty City in Which to Test Renewable Energy
Popular Mechanics – Why Is a Tech Company Building a Ghost Town in New Mexico?
The Register – Inside the Skynet ghost town built by bunker-based boffins
The Washington Post – Mayor: New Mexico city on ‘world stage’ after being chosen as site for scientific ghost town

Also, none of these sources are press releases; they're published articles from reliable sources. —Northamerica1000 01:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep notability clearly demonstrated by refs. --Kvng (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Clearly notable. WP:CRYSTAL refers to speculation and rumor. The location has been chosen, and building is scheduled to start next month. --George100 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 18:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Eusebiu Blindu

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

Repeatedly "A7'd" article now has an assertion of notability via external refs, but still would appear to fail WP:ANYBIO and any other relevant policies. As always, more than than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

he is a very known software test blogger actually. Probably one of the top 100 testers in the world. He has a recognition from his peers. Not sure what personal official awards he has. He is known as a "puzzle guy" in his field. Michecksz (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete It appears to fail GNG in English sources. Sorry! Sarah (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep the GNG are satisfying enough. Please state the exact GNG rule that is failing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testingfan (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep, but note that the subject might be involved in the article, given this Yahoo! Answers question by a "Eusebiu". Some scrutiny is in order even if the article is kept. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete having reviewed the (lacking) sources and given the AFD vandalism and deletion of the YA question—the latter two seem to indicate bad faith. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete So a bunch of guys linking to each others blogs is what counts as reliably sourced notability these days? Why is this even being discussed? He is asking for help on Yahoo! Answers..

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtAxe5qeHZYL27X.urbFkbdy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20120515054512AAKiJhn like all notable people do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.109.214 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Weak~~Strong delete Several of the sources are self-published or utterly trivial, and none of them seems to meet the definition of significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The various SPAs trying to sabotage the AfD process, creating content forks and in general being concerned only with promoting this person in various WP articles are not exactly reassuring. --bonadea contributions talk 20:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note Repeated vandalism of this process removing Delete comments and rewriting contributions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Eusebiu_Blindu&diff=prev&oldid=492748204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.109.214 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I only just noticed and have changed by !vote from weak delete (based on reputable editors apparently !voting keep, so maybe they knew something I didn't) to strong delete (based on the fact that they actually !voted delete...) --bonadea contributions talk 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This and this is the full extent of the AfD vandalism. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per the IP. Most of the sources seem to be personal blogs or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete As per previous comment by Bonadea, several of the sources are self-published, the remainder are blogs, user submitted content or websites that do not fit the description of 'reliable, independent' news sources. Granted the guy is doing his job well, but he hasn't been widely noticed and talked about. I can't see any way this subject meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. No credible sources supporting notability or significance. Campaign to sabotage AFD page is a dead giveaway..... 71.241.200.94 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete; appears to fail the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Blindu eusebiu currently redirects to this article. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, the redirect should be deleted (per WP:CSD#G8). Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan

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

PER WP:NOTDIR Knowledge is not a list of loosely associated topics. Wiki's for articles. ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 11:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I've never really understood the value of this article, and it appears to violate WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article was originally created by a sockpuppet of the banned editor Top Gun (talk · contribs) to support his or her OR calculations of the casualties from this war, and several similar articles created by Top Gun socks have been deleted (note that this article actually started at List of rebel fatality reports in Afghanistan and appears to have suffered a copy-and-paste move which has left its history split). I think that it's time for this to go as its not encyclopedic and not useful. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The individual fatality reports belong on Wikinews, not Knowledge. I don't know if Wikinews policy allows it, but if someone thinks having a list is important, the list should be on Wikinews as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It's really just a news events list -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I was thinking there might be a way to salvage this list as a timeline of fatalities but I also think if retained it should be separated by year and expanded. There are several other articles relating to fatalities of the conflict that could be consolidated but doing so would ruffle some feathers if we included non taliban people in it. Kumioko (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Shaun Hansen

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

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Orangeroof (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Coverage at 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal is sufficient. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect—BLP1E, already mentioned at the event he's notable for. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Per above. Sarah (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: not seeing enough coverage for a standalone article. – Lionel 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - not enough coverage and thus fails WP:GNG and also not enough notable. →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Pflugerville Independent School District. MastCell 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Lane Middle School

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

Non notable middle school JoelWhy (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect- To Pflugerville Independent School District as uniquely named middle school; rated excellent, recognized by Texas Education ~~Association~~ Agency, Catch campus...all routine coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Yes, thank you. I should have indicated that this should be a redirect rather than a mere deletion.JoelWhy (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Why must all the school redirects come through AFD, when the nominator typically desires the article be replaced by a redirect to the locality or school district, rather than actual deletion? Perhaps a middle school or elementary school could be listed at Knowledge:Articles for creation/Redirects, if an editor does not wish to be bold and go ahead and make the redirect, although that page does not have discussions; it is just a page where individual editors make the decisions. Such requests might be rejected there as not being called for in any notability guideline or policy. A solution to this would be to add language to WP:ORG recommending a redirect for the typical elementary or middle school which lacks refs to demonstrate notability, to bring WP:ORG into accord with the essay WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as reflecting the consensus of the community. There was a discussion at Knowledge talk:Notability (organizations and companies) Dec 2011-Feb 2012 which discussed this issue(starting with the question of "Blue Ribbon Schools") without actually resulting in any change to the language of the guideline. Edison (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I looked back through the archives at Knowledge:Articles for creation/Redirects through Jan 2011, and there were no instances where such a redirect as this was requested, as opposed to redirects which just helped the reader get to an article about a school. Is it the wish of the community to keep devoting a ~~significant~~ (edited to add:) small proportion of the AFD space each day to the creation of redirects for elementary and middle schools, since that gives fans of any of them a chance to introduce references? I checked Knowledge:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive for April 2012 and found 15 elementary and middle schools brought to AFD, with 13 merge/redirect outcomes and 2 deletions (where it was a copyvio or there was no redirect target. I guess there aren't as many of these as it seemed, and they do not add that much to the AFD plate. Edison (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect as per Dru of Id ZachFoutre (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Struck per Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect per Dru of Id. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 18:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Degrassi: Generations – The Official 411

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

I found no significant coverage for this book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, the book isn't notable, and the article is pretty much spam advertising. PK T(alk) 12:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment The book was apparently a 25th anniversary release. I found a review, although it's perhaps not in a reliable source. -- Trevj (talk) 12:57, 8 May 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 19:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I tried to see if I could find anything, but unfortunately all I could find was one Blogcritics review. I'm not sure that the Curled Up Kids source is a reliable one, though. Even if it was, we would need more than the two reviews to show notability and they just aren't here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per everyone above. Sarah (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Luke Swindlehurst

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

PROD contested by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--sparkl_!sm 10:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge content into Preston North End W.F.C. It frustrates me that we cut ourselves off from allies/ contributors by snootily deleting their pages. The women's football taskforce is flatlining because all our best editors have been driven away by the project's biased and discriminatory notability guidelines. Luke Swindlehurst is a notable manager in English women's football, which has its own coverage in things like She Kicks and Women's Soccer Scene. As an analogy we wouldn't delete WWE wrestlers because they don't get in The Guardian or the BBC - they have their own media. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- You could always try expanding the article with the aforementioned sources to try to ascertain notability through WP:GNG. It's not only The Guardian or the BBC that are considered "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (from WP:GNG). Since the subject has never played or managed in a fully pro league he doesn't, at the moment anyway, pass WP:NFOOTBALL. But WP:GNG is a wider and more inclusive way of showing the importance of a subject, and it's possible the sources could be out there (although this hasn't been accomplished with the article in its current version). Mattythewhite (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I'm aware of the guidelines Matty. Are you pretending the sources already linked are trivial? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Having gone through the sources each appears to be routine sport coverage. The first two are profiles, the third, fourth and fifth are declarations of the subject taking up positions at clubs and the sixth is a self-published club history. None of that is sufficient for the article to pass WP:GNG. So I'm not pretending they're trivial, I'm sincerely of the belief they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      - I don't know what you mean by routine, but I think they all amount to significant coverage. Per the GNG "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Admittedly not all are secondary sources, but that is not a requirement. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 02:17, 5 May 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 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete but find better citations and references. I agree that this subject has notability in their field of women's football. dorkinglad (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.88.142 (talk)
Delete - Per Mattythewhite, I'm not seeing the multiple, independent sources providing non-routine coverage to indicate WP:GNG could be met.
Regarding the WWE comparison: there are a large number of magazines, websites, books and news sources which cover wrestling and are considered acceptable sources so the analogy does not work. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 12:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nocturnal Sunshine

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

I came here to add a dab link to Maya Jane Coles who uses the same name but this band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, searching for sources is made difficult by Maya. If this is deleted, please replace the page with a redirect.- filelake shoe 16:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - filelake shoe 16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 17:09, 30 April 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 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but why is this getting repeatedly relisted? It seems pretty uncontroversial that the band is non-notable? e.g. nothing here, the article says the band "are relatively unknown" and "set to release an album in 2010" so no one's even maintaining it, what are you actually waiting for? Can a discussion now not be closed unless it has a certain number of comments on it or some other ridiculous nonsense criterion? I'll remember to just use PROD in future... - filelake shoe 09:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes when people don't respond to entries here at Articles for deletion, listings are re-listed in hopes of obtaining consensus. Sometimes Knowledge administrators don't actually view the links and analyze notability of the topic, and instead just base the verdict upon consensus in the discussion; while the former is preferential (topic notability analysis), sometimes time constraints prevent this, and the latter occurs (consensus per the discussion). Northamerica1000 10:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that relist was only supposed to be used in cases like where everyone votes delete due to lack of sources for the first 6 days then someone says "keep, I jsut added 100 sources" on day 7, or when the only votes are vague and contradict each other ("d nn" and "keep - useful"), not when there's no controversy whatsoever. I have noticed AfD discussions are taking longer and longer to close recently. - filelake shoe 10:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD has a large backlog at this time. Sometimes people spend more time debating topic notability rather than simply finding/adding reliable sources and improving articles, when significant coverage in reliable sources is available. I've rescued many articles that would have likely been deleted, per "consensus" in AfD discussions, because they were based upon the consensus to delete for the sake of deletion, rather than actual Notability guidelines. I've noticed this disturbing trend for quite some time now. Perhaps it's all about maintaining an impetus for deletion, rather than actual topic notability, at least in some cases. Of course, some topics don't receive enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to qualify topic notability in Knowledge, but not all of them listed in these AfD discussions are automatically non-notable per just being listed. Northamerica1000 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this band. At this time, the topic appears to fail Knowledge's General notability guideline for inclusion as a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000 10:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per GNG. Sarah (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: No notability provided after two relists. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Lack of significant coverage found in independent, reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Europanto

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

Unnotable language joke Bulwersator (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: My conclusion is exactly the same as the nominator's: a non-notable language joke of zero encyclopedic value. Google search turned up nothing indicating that the joke is significant or notable in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Other jokes and hoaxes have a place on Knowledge, such as the Spaghetti tree hoax. It was at one time notable enough to warrant expected inclusion in ISO 639-3. It has lost notability, perhaps, but so has Lingua Ignota - indeed, that language's article says "The purpose of Lingua Ignota is unknown; nor do we know who besides its creator was familiar with it." Perhaps someday the columns on the subject of Europanto will be regarded the same way the Lingua Ignota text is. And from a more personal (and less Wikipedian) perspective, Europanto is of linguistic interest when considering how speakers of European languages, when lacking a common tongue, communicate; as the BBC noted , it has "huge potential" even if not trying to be the new Esperanto. This makes it extremely interesting to those of us with linguistic backgrounds, and I would like to see it kept. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE. -- Trevj (talk) 14:12, 8 May 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 19:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Even though the language is a load of cobblers, it's quite a notable load of cobblers. (Reminds me somewhat of a conversation I heard in France between two Englishmen who both thought the other was French...) We do have articles on quite a lot of stuff that in itself is junk, but which has coverage. Peridon (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNN - Other junk does not justify this junk. BO; talk 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Notable constructed language. IJA (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG and per nominator. ThereFOUR (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - per others. ThereFOUR (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - the online sources identified by Trevj, particularly the BBC and la Republica articles, convince me this made-up language has been widely noticed. Sionk (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Notable with coverage in a variety of reliable sources over a long period of time. Coverage of hoaxes and jokes is permitted providing they have such coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Just listening to a BBC Radio 3 interview with the creator of this language (programme Night Waves - available for seven days via BBC iPlayer). Peridon (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Marani's book and newspaper column would seems to make this language noteworthy. TimDuncan (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: I came to this article after searching for it while listening to a BBC Radio 3 podcast with Diego Marani, concerning the novel he has published in Europanto. Besides that evidence of notability, the ISO code for this invented language, even though it has been revoked, argues for this historical notability of the topic. Even after Europanto no longer attracts media attention, readers of ISO documents will wonder what "Europanto" means. They should be able to find an answer in Knowledge. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

John O'Bryan

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability outside a few writing credits on Avatar: The Last Airbender. Previously deleted in 2007, re-created only 4 months later. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable small-time children's TV writer. Google search didn't turn up anything promising. Nothing worth merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 April 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 19:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sarah (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage for this writer in indepdendent reliable sources. Gongshow 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Minimal evidence of third-party reliable sources have been provided, with most later participants in the debate failing to recognise any level of significant coverage demonstrating notability or the historical significance asserted by those advocating "keep". ~ mazca 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Farseer Physics Engine

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

I found nothing to show notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete—No coverage found in reliable sources. Livit⇑/_What? 01:42, 30 April 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 19:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep - while not strongly passing WP:GNG, it might be useful for our users, such as students. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by not strongly? There is no coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Ignore all rules. This topic is a part of computing history. Also, per the article, ..."it is the most comprehensive open source physics engine available for Silverlight." Let's perhaps not be so hasty to delete historical computing topics. Does removal of this stub article actually improve the encyclopedia? Not at all. Northamerica1000 10:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh really? Can you verify what you are saying per WP:V? Even if you can verify it, Silverlight has only been around since 2007. What is so historical about that?SL93 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep Reliable sources discussing this software here: , Gastón C. Hillar. "Chapter 9. Adding Realistic Motions Using a Physics Engine". 3D Game Development with Microsoft Silverlight 3. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-847198-92-1. JulesH (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to query where exactly the editors above stating that there are no sources have looked for them. My two links turn up on the first page of search results for the article title, the book I cite on the first page of a google books search for the title. None of these were hard to find. There are also a further 6 books showing up in the google books search that appear to discuss the correct subject and are published by reputable publishers; 4 in English and 2 in other languages. Has anyone checked the content of these books prior to stating that there is no reliable coverage of this subject? JulesH (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

InfoQ only has articles written by members. I don't think that a how to video shows notability. I only came up with two book results. Also, it isn't any of your business where and how I searched. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The book that you cited has no preview. Did you read it and those other books to know for sure that this software is mentioned? If you think that I should look at print copies before nominating, that is complete nonsense. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I wonder how this AfD will be closed with a WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:IAR (released in 2007 = historical), and an unreliable source, a how to video, and books that might discuss the software. Worst of all, I'm receiving no responses. Some admins do vote counting instead of weighing the arguments. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete—No coverage found in reliable sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments: (1) By "useful", I mean useful for our core readership, high school and college students, who use Knowledge more than anyone else. They are especially likely to look for articles about software, and we might as well have such, and work to improve it. However, I am not an expert on the topic, so I acknowledge that this can't help very much. (2) By barely notable, I mean that I could not evaluate the strength of the sources, either in the external links or those discussed above by JulesH and SL93. I give articles and book sources the benefit of the doubt. (3) I am not wedded to this article, and could care less if it's kept or userfied for now. (4) I searched Google scholar for tutorials on this physics engine, and found lots of possible reliable sources. These could be added to beef up the article. Again, I wish I were more of an expert. I am something of a physics autodidact ,and graduated with a Regents diploma from The Bronx High School of Science, but make no claims yet that I am an authority on such. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of coverage in a variety of reliable sources and no demonstration of historical significance. Being as Knowledge is a reference tool, not a teaching tool, its educational value depends on quality of sourcing so this article really is not useful to high school and college students. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 02:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, being useful for students isn't a valid reason for keeping this article, nor WP:IAR is neither. No evidence of Northamerica1000 assertion that this software is "computing history", and no one countered SL93 evaluation about the reliability of the two sources that JulesH gave. Secret 03:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete, G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). The author agreed to deletion on the article's talk page. I am aware that closing an AfD in which I have commented would normally be unacceptable, but this case seems to me to be completely uncontroversial, and an IAR close seems the most straightforward way of finishing the issue. Anyone who disagrees is free to revert my closure. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Puzzles in software testing

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

Fails general notability guideline, possibly self-promotion (only sources I can find are from a single author). Evil saltine (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete At present, the article contains no more than a definition, and Knowledge is not a dictionary. Earlier versions contained a link concerning a person who has been the subject of much of the editing of the author of this article, indicating clearly that the purpose was promotion. Either way, the article comes nowhere near satisfying Knowledge's inclusion criteria. I also see no reason to think that the subject "Puzzles in software testing" is notable: there can be puzzles in any sphere of human activity, and nothing I have seen suggests that there is any particular recognition of "Puzzles in software testing" as a topic in its own right. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Broxbourne Council election, 2014

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

Disputed prod. An article which provides no information at all above that of the 2012 article for an event that's two years away with a purely speculative guess (and an unverifiable one at that) at who will be standing at that point in the future and when it will actually be held. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - This seems nothing more than a place-holder for a regular election that is likely to happen in two years time, in the wards listed, but has not been talked about in any meaningful way. Therefore fails WP:GNG and meets WP:TOOSOON. Sionk (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete -- Grossly premature. The government is encouraging a reduction the number of councillors, which will inevitably result in re-warding, so that we cannot even be sure that the wards named will be the ones for which an election will take place next time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still delete -- I was contacted on my talk page with the suggestion that as a reduction in the number of councillors had already occured. That does not howerver remove my basic objection that the article is premature. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Can't find anything beyond trivial mentions, so fails WP:GNG. And in view of potential ward changes, the current article could be grossly incorrect.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Retain - I am slightly biased as author of the article (& the other pages on Broxbournes electoral history) and I have to say that some of the objections raised above are, to some extent uninformed. Broxbourne Council was fully rewarded in 2012 by the LGBCE and accordingly the number of wards was reduced from 13 to 10 and the number of Councillors reduced from 38 to 30. It is absolutely certain that the wards named will be refought in 2014 under their current boundaries. Similarly the Councillors named in the articles table are scheduled to retire in 2014 - this is fully verifiable. Their retirement in 2014 is based on the fact they received the smallest number of votes of the the 3 winning candidates in their respective wards in the 2012 election. I consider that it is entirely appropriate to include this page at this time to indicate verifiable information regarding a future election that will take place. Richard Clemerson

In all honesty, if you're trying to state that a future election will take place, couldn't you do that with a single line in the 2012 article (that one is scheduled but the date is unknown/subject to change)? Oh, it already is.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (former-admin close) Secret 03:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions

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

The reasons for its deletion are mentioned in the proposal. This article serves no purpose as the records here are already mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/Atp_masters and http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_men's_grand_slam_tennis_champions. A fairly newly created article which serves no real purpose and is just repeating information. This is a fragment article which has no useful information than the ones already in the two mentioned articles. In fact, it is directly copying the same information in both of them. I nominate this for deletion. DBSSHASPER (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I would like to add, this article has titles count from 1990 only when the other two have the whole human tennis history with titles count. So, there is not a single reason to keep this just because some users use it.DBSSHASPER (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks. But where are we supposed to find the "two mentioned articles" in your "proposal"? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I see you have just added them.MakeSense64 (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I use this article on a regular basis. It's great to have the most important events in tennis listed right at ones fingertips to make easy comparisons year by year. Plus the two listed in the proposed deletion only list the masters 1000 events and Majors, not the olympics and year-end championships. Here we have the four Majors, the year-end championship, the nine 1000 events, and the Olympics. These are the big events in tennis since 1990 and I believe it's vital that we keep this. I know we ask editors to "be bold" but the nominator has 17 days of edits to his credit...maybe more as an anonymous editor. They could/should have asked about this at Tennis Project after the initial "Proposed Deletion" was instantly vetoed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying? there were no grand slams and big titles before 1990? Sorry not convinced. Tennis is not just mere 20 years. This article serves no purpose if it inludes only 20 years of tennis titles history.DBSSHASPER (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- This was already discussed under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_7#ATP_Grand_slams_.26_Masters_Singles_champions.Fahidka(talk) 08:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. While this article does have some overlap with section in the other two articles that nominator mentions, I do not think it warrants deletion. This list article serves as a kind of "historic timeline" since 1990, and that overview is not provided by the other two articles. "Timeline of" specialized lists are specifically mentioned here WP:STANDALONE. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it important only after 1990? Why not an article which already exists with all these timeline and titles information? This article has nothing more than already in those two articles.DBSSHASPER (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It has more than just those two articles and our readers can tell in an instant just how well players did against their peers . And it's from 1990 because the official ATP TOUR started in 1990. The ATP itself started much earlier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If the official ATP tour started in 1990, why are you keeping the Grand slams records, these certainly did not start then. This article is mixing information that should not be here. Please tell me what more does it have than the articles? I do not see any. Also, you cannot compare the atp masters 1000 to its predecessors, and the article keeps sampras and agassi, if this article is to be kept, their names have to be removed. Atp masters 1000 started in 2009, it did not exist before then! DBSSHASPER (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2012

I'll try to help you figure it out. There are wiki tennis articles and records from the entire history of tennis... from way back in 1887. The Open Era began in 1968 and there are articles that have records and such from that time period onwards. The ATP union began in 1972 and there are articles and records from that time period onwards. The ATP didn't run the tour, it was just a union, and there were several competing tours. A member of one tour didn't usually play in events of the other tour. The tours merged and drifted with no one exactly happy about things. In 1990 the ATP took over the Tour and runs it to this day. So from 1990 there are also records and articles. This particular article lists the major events played since 1990: 1) The four Majors, 2)the now called nine "masters" events, 3)the olympics, and (if you earn enough points in those prior events) you earn the right to play in 4)the year end championships. This chart encompasses these events in one easy to see place, to be able to judge how a player has done against his peers and against history. So there's a quick explanation but I hope it helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And the question remains why? ATP 1000 only began in 2009. You cannot compare atp 1000 series and its predecessors. As such, to include sampras and agassi and compare them with recent players is wrong. And sorry, masters events and the recent 1000 series are different with many events not even existing from then. So your reasoning is away from the issue.DBSSHASPER (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus, let me point out, this article is totally misleading with the table where its listing agassi, lendl, sampras etc under masters 1000 series. this series came into existence only after 2009. Plus events like hamburg masters were part of the masters in 90, but they are not in the 1000 series. This article is a total flaw.DBSSHASPER (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

They are the same events, with a name change. Do you simply hate tennis or something? We call it the US Open with champions in the 1960s too but it was really the US National Championships. We often go by the most common name today even though a tournament was named something else in the past. Whether you call something the Super 9 or, 9 Masters, or Masters 1000...there were 9 premier 2nd level events plus a championship. What's caused this burr under your saddle? I've done my best to answer you but it's looking more and more like you don't care... that you only want it gone. I can't help you there as I think it's very relevant. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of tennis. And I already can see your view and history about tennis. Hamburg is a 500 series now, why does the table include Hamburg! and NO there were more than 9 premier events then. this list also includes olympics when the title says else. Go back and check your tennis history regarding how many events there were before and what the new atp 1000 is. This discussion is useless until anyone checks tennis history. I do care a lot which is why I am clearing up that this article is flawed in every way possible. I do not wish to go on a longer discussion if no one is willing to see tennis' history, especially the masters events. The comparison table is what is the worst of this article. You cannot compare players who did not even play the same events and count their titles together. DBSSHASPER (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not reading the chart correctly then. First, Yes there were 9 events, I don't know why you'd think otherwise. heck there were 9 events even before then in the Grand Prix Championship Series. This chart is in Tournament Order for those 9 events so as to show the progress (in masters order) over the entire year. The Hamburg Masters was played till 2008 when it's order placement was filled by a new "clay court" Madrid Masters. Hamburg was downgraded and is no longer a masters event but it remains in the chart because it was Masters event #5 for many years. The renaming of the 1000 was mainly to enforce that each event is worth 1000 points now. Madrid moved to a new slot in May and as Hamburg was downgraded Shanghai was upgraded and moved to Madrid's old spot. Otherwise it's the same old same old. This chart is really masters events 1-9 no matter where they are located. I love that about it. And you can certainly compare masters events 1-9 with no trouble at all. I really have no idea why you are so confused about this. No one else has a problem. As for the title not including the olympics, I believe that was a later ok'd addition. The title was already long enough and since it was an event that only happened every 4 years it was no big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - A useful overview that is not offered elsewhere. Many articles exist with information that is also present in a group of other articles, e.g. lists of medalists such as List of Olympic medalists in athletics (men). All this information can in principle be found in the different tournament result articles. The distinguishing feature is the overview of results from different seasons and types of tournament, as well as the title count. I agree, however, that expanding the article with pre-1990 results would improve it. Gap9551 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - but agree with Fyunck(click) it needs to expand results from 1972 to date or at least as with other arguing points rename it eg: List of Tennis Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Top Tier event singles champions just a thought --Navops47 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete without prejudice. Note that the article's original content is at s:Constitution_of_India/Part_I. The current content is "Part One of the Constitution of India concerns the union and its territory.", content like this is less than even a stub, and worse than having a redlink since it fools readers into thinking there is an article when there isn't one, and I cannot in good faith keep an article in a condition like that. "Cleanup" indicates that there is tangible content to work with, in this there is none. As Uncle G noted, AFD closers cannot be expected to write an article, that responsibility falls with the editors who want an article on Knowledge. The subject is without doubt notable, and I will reiterate that writing an article with substantial will be a very welcome addition. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Part One of the Constitution of India

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

I'm not sure how to proceed here, but I'm thinking deletion on account that Knowledge is apparently not a repository for constitutional documentation. I am taking into consideration, here, the articles about the United States Constitution - the individual articles within the US Constitution do, indeed, have their own Knowledge articles, but the WP articles are far more descriptive than just a transcription of the document. To be frank, an article of that grade would be a Good Thing here, but with the current state of this article, my opinion is that it is probably best to delete and start over. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep & Alter Completely: (I am not voting keep just for the reason of being Indian or nominator not being one. I feel The Tiger is concerned that he will be sprung upon by all patriots. Hence clarifying this.) I get the nominator's concern. I agree with nominator that this is not a place to paste whole constitution as it is. That is available at Wikisource Constitution of India/Part I. But this article should not be deleted but only be cleaned to summerize the Part I, just as part 13 is done here. The topic needs to have its own space. Hence keep! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, sort of. The subject is unquestionably notable - and the US Constitution Article articles (!) give us a roadmap for how to do an article of this type correctly. In short, this is salvageable. But it does need a complete rewrite, from the ground up. If that isn't forthcoming, I'd recommend that we stub it or redirect it in the interim. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep but radically rewrite, as explained above. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Bear in mind that closing administrators are not magic article writing services. Articles don't get rewritten unless and until the people wanting them rewritten themselves do the very work that they want done. That includes AFD discussion contributors with boldfaced words. It's far better to say "I've rewritten the article, take a look." in an AFD discussion than "rewrite". Boldface isn't a magic incantation. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to an actual article being written. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an excerpt of the document to which it refers. I don't have any problem with the subject meeting notability, either directly under WP:GNG or as a structural member of Constitution of India under WP:SPINOUT. But this "article" is essentially content-free.

I don't buy the keep-and-rewrite votes; a keep is a keep, and there's no way to enforce the rewrite. There is no reason to keep a content-free page around on the hope and prayer that someone will jack up the article title and slide an actual article under it. Nothing prevents the proper article from being written whether it is kept or deleted; and keeping it merely keeps a page that does constitute an article. This "article" is merely using Knowledge as a "Mere collection of public domain or other source material such as ... laws"; see WP:NOTREPOSITORY.

There's no justification for a redirect or a stub, either. It's neither a likely search target nor any of the other bases for having a redirect; and there's nothing in it to stub to. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Move content to s:Wikisource; >DONE. Not by me, it was already there: s:Constitution of India< . Redirect current title to Constitution of India#Drafting >TO DO after the AfD<, and place a link from that article to the Wikisource article with the {{wikisource|page name on Wikisource}} tag; >DONE. Not by me, it was already there: Constitution of India#See also<.

I do not believe that Knowledge could not have been a repository of documents, dictionary definitions Wikt:Wiktionary, or quotes Wikiquote:Wikiquote (and there are probably a ton of others I do not even know about), and it most certainly SHOULD have been a place to summarize the sports and computer game experiences and give information about their details. However, this has been destined, so far, to not be, except for of course the articles that tell the tale of the double standard like Golf stroke mechanics and King's Gambit, Fischer Defense. (I should like to be quite clear that I would find the removal of such articles abhorrent, just as I did that of their unfortunate brethren; I would rather have a double standard than a wholesale slaughter)

There are a couple of things that keep an article from being recreated; the nasty pink notice at the top of the page, and its wording, that suggests to anyone who isn't bloodyminded, that it should stay deleted, and purports to mandate, without basis in WP rules, unnecessary roadblocks in the path to re-creation. And we are here at AfD to discuss the subject of the article as indicated by its title, and whether that has a possibility of becoming a good article, not the current content. In real life, of course, and contrary to WP's own rules, I might add, this translates to a likelihood of the article becoming a good article, which is why I voted Move and Redirect.

Sections of the article have been blanked by User:Lord Roem, contrary to the specific wording of the notice at the top of the page. Anarchangel (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not blank the article, I removed the material that was already on Wikisource. This article is effectively a stub, in need of expanding by someone familiar with the subject matter. Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ to Constitution of India without prejudice to someone creating a proper analytical article comparable to Article One of the United States Constitution. I don't see anything wrong with this topic, but the content of the article should neither be just a copy of the text of the Constitution's Part One (which belongs on Wikisource) nor a one-sentence stub (which isn't helpful because the same content could have been placed in Constitution of India instead of referring readers to a separate article). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why redirect? Is "Part One of the Constitution of India" a likely search term for someone who would not search on "Constitution of India" or "India Constitution"? TJRC (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Upon further consideration, delete in preference to redirection, because having a bluelink on Template:Indian Constitution TOC would imply that Knowledge has an article about this Part, and it won't if we replace this one-sentence stub with a redirect. If someone wants to improve the article during this AfD period, that would be great and I might change my recommendation, but that hasn't happened yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep as long as cleanedup as stated. Around The Globe 07:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete in its current form (a one-sentence stub), but allow recreation as an article summarizing and analyzing this part of the constitution. Sandstein 06:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. I am not taking into consideration the two "keep" opinions: that of Siloraptor, who maintains that the software's alleged popularity amounts to notability even in the absence of third-party coverage, which is at odds with our guidelines, and that of 93.139.135.238 for what I hope are obvious reasons. Sandstein 06:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mayan edms

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

This software does not appear to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete No hits on the Computerworld or InfoWorld sites, no listing at the Enterprise Open Source Directory, no hits on CMSWire.com (which is usually even willing to publish press releases with little modification), the Freecode entry for it was created little more than a year ago, and there aren't even enough people looking for information about it to register on Google Trends. Does not satisfy any notability criteria at this time, WP:USUAL. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Commercial publications pay little or no attention to non-commercial/pure free open source software. LogicalDOC and it's article (which is the basis for the one about Mayan EDMS), suffers from the same lack of recognition from Freecode: 1 month old entry, ComputerWorld: no search results, InfoWorld: 1 marginal mention in an open source awards article, Enterprise Open Source Directory: 0 votes and only 82 views. The notability standards for commercial software do not apply to free open source software. Mayan EDMS is the main DMS in use in the permits and regulations agency in the government of Puerto Rico aside from being used worldwide as proof by it's worldwide network of 3rd support providers. Article has been updated to include this last two references in support for notability. If getting an article on CMSWire.com is so easy, then it should not be taken into account to rate notability, getting software supported worldwide by commercial entities as well as being used in the public sector should have much more weight. --Siloraptor (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It may have been true ten or fifteen years ago that "commercial publications pay little or no attention to non-commercial/pure free open source software" but that is completely untrue today. Searches for Python and Django, the open source technologies that Mayan EDMS is based upon, turn up dozens of hits across Infoworld, Computerworld, and CMSWire.com, as do searches for other open source document management systems like Alfresco or Magnolia. If Mayan EDMS is having difficulty getting this kind of recognition from the IT and open source communities, Knowledge is not the place to start or cultivate such recognition. If LogicalDOC has the same notability problems its article should be deleted too. Note to other editors: Siloraptor appears to be an SPA. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

LogicalDOC got a Bossie from Infoworld in 2010. Seems legit? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly give me more cause to investigate thoroughly than anything that has turned up in defense of Mayan EDMS. I haven't taken a close look at these Bossie awards to see what significance they have, so I wouldn't offhand be ready to say that it's notability-establishing. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing and aggregating the popularity, purpose and market penetration of Open Source software vs. Free Open Source software (FOSS vs OSS), Python the language, Django a Python framework and Mayan EDMS a DMS web app. You also seems to be confusing the purpose and exposition of a CMS (what Magnolia is) a front end piece of software to publish content and manage websites hence very visible and where Open Source alternative are quite popular (Mambo, Joomla, Drupal, Mezzanine) and that of a DMS (what Alfresco is) a backend, low visibility (to users) document repository software, a market dominate by commercial enterprise players where Free Open Source (or even Open Source) alternatives are shunned and have very little chance of exposition, that's why you are not able to find mentions of Mayan EDMS or any other true Free Open Source DMS like it in commercial circulations or commercially sponsored web sites. As the recently added references to the article show, Mayan EDMS is quite popular around the world and with government agencies, that it doesn't show up in commercially driven publications or websites is no surprise and in now way indicative of its notability or assumed lack of it. The purpose of the Knowledge article is not to help it's notability as it is already quite well known, a quick Google search for: 'Mayan EDMS' or 'Django based DMS' can serve to prove this point. Deleting this article would only serve to affect Knowledge visitors looking for information on non commercial, free open source DMS software. In regards to the account, this is my first ever Knowledge account and Mayan EDMS is my first ever article, which is why it may look to you as though this is a single purpose account. I created it two days ago and have spent more time defending my first article than the time it took to be created... Whether Mayan EDMS' article gets deleted or not I don't think I would write or contribute to another Knowledge article seeing that this is what's in store for new users like myself from established but uninformed editors. --Siloraptor (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no wish to publicize personal IRL details about myself but I will say that I am by no means confused or uninformed about this field. If Mayan EDMS is so staggeringly popular among government agencies around the world then we will shortly have lots of mentions and articles in non-commercial governmental IT magazines and journals, which exist in spades, and won't have to rely on things like these blog links and Google+ links that were recently added for future articles on this product, which will doubtlessly soon be as omnipresent as sliced bread. (In seriousness, if the product fulfills all of the promises made, it will be successful and will become mainstream and this will all be moot in the future.) And yes, someone who wants to create articles on Knowledge should expect to spend more time researching and documenting with reliable sources their assertions than it takes to type up those assertions, that's kind of a thing with encyclopedias. Once you get into the significance of a work coming from it being ideologically "pure" and "true", I'm sorry but you are beyond the pale of what Knowledge is for. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not asking you to divulge real life details, my previous argument stands on its own as presenting your erroneous conclusions: You confused Open Source with Free Open Source or Free software, you aggregated the search results of heterogeneous terms as proof of lack of notability (Python is a FOSS language, has many search hits and is notable, Mayan EDMS is FOSS web app done in Python but doesn't has that many search hits, conclusion - Mayan EDMS is not notable), mentioned an entry in Freecode of little more than a year ago as a negative argument of notability (what is the expect amount of years an entry in Freecode must age before being considered valid evidence in favor of notability?), you confused heterogeneous software and software types: "as do searches for other open source document management systems like Alfresco or Magnolia" like I explained in the previous entry, Alfresco and Magnolia are completely different kinds of software and saying they are both document management systems is like saying MS SQL server and MS Powerpoint are both database managers, you confused the purpose and meaning of what a CMS is and what a DMS is, you are applying commercial enterprise software notability criteria to a Free Open Source project, the commercial enterprise software notability criteria in itself is not reliable, consistent or properly defined and accepted (Computerworld, InfoWorld, CMSWire and a directory of enterprise open source software), you assumed that LogicalDoc and Alfresco are Free Open Source software when they are not, they are commercial software and stretching the definition they can be said to be Open Source too, but never Free Open Source therefore their notability is in now way indicative of the notability of other DMS software like Mayan EDMS. In regard on your comment about myself, I have no problem 'researching and documenting' sources, but I have to no wish either to spend time 'defending' the notability of a real addition to the pool of information that Knowledge is with counterparts that do not have a full grasp of the knowledge required for such debate, and comments like "If Mayan EDMS is so staggeringly popular among government agencies around" do not really help demonstrate the seriousness you imply you apply to the argumentative process. You have shown a general lack of knowledge about the DMS software type and industry but are still willing to debate the issue without said knowledge, this is what I was referring to with the phrase "this is what's in store for new users like myself from established but uninformed editors", you seems to imply I do not want to "spend more time researching and documenting with reliable sources their assertions than it takes to type up those assertions, that's kind of a thing with encyclopedias." you seem to lack the same thing you are commenting about myself. --Siloraptor (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, Siloraptor, to be blunt, arguing the merits of the article as it exists is not likely to help you. You need to prove to us why it is notable, with reliable sources, in such a way that it can be verified. If Mayan is all that, then don't waste your time arguing as to why it should be considered notable with a lack of evidence to support it, spend your time digging up why it's notable and bring it to us in the form we need. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Funny how you seem to have a perfectly acceptable amount of information to evaluate me and my level of knowledge while the a few sentences you can see which I've written make me too ignorant to evaluate the software in question using all the information that has been presented here and in the article. If waiting until coverage in government IT publications is available and incorporating links to it into the text you've written is too much to ask, the small amount of effort you're willing to go to in making "real additions" to Knowledge is probably not as valuable as you imagine it to be. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm posting this line so that my silence may not be confused with disrespect, but I have no desire to continue working on the article or it's defense and submit it and my user account to any action you deem appropriate. --Siloraptor (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You may misunderstand the situation a little bit: I am a more established user in that I've been working on Knowledge longer but I do not have the admin flag on my account and I am unable to do anything to your account or the article other than evaluate the claims made and comment and advance arguments based upon my own understanding of Knowledge policies, guidelines, and community practices. I'm pretty sure, if I understand the procedure properly, it's going to be some uninvolved user with the admin flag who will eventually read the arguments and evidence presented here and in the article and make a decision and take actions. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty easy to get a press release in CMSWorld. The one for LD is, indeed, a press release from a commercial interest. Mind you, press releases don't connote notability - but that Bossie seems to reel it in for LD. Also, Siloraptor, I direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the existence of one article, in and of itself, does not justify the existence of another article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Userfy for Siloraptor An additional recommendation - Siloraptor, we should copy the article to a user page under your account (though note that per convention, this shouldn't be done until the deletion discussion is concluded) so that you can continue working on a draft of it and add references to the text as Mayan EDMS becomes more mainstream, so that the material is still accessible to you if the existing article is deleted. This way, once there is enough evidence to establish notability under Knowledge policies and guidelines, it can be copied back into the main article namespace. Also, you should declare any conflict of interest you have if necessary. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As the creator of this discussion, I am not opposed to this as a solution. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Do as you must, I have no desire to continue defending this article and withhold any opposition or arguments to any action you deem appropriate. --Siloraptor (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

keep Do as you are told to do...Mayan EDMS is the only non-bloated open-source EDMS and it's hard to believe why you want to remove this entry. Otoh, I'm sure if such articles are going to be removed, we'll think twice by the end of the year whether to extend our financial support to Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.135.238 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: To add to what I have said above in case it isn't understood, there is no Knowledge guideline addressing the approach for assessing the notability of software, commercial or open source. Attempts have been made unsuccessfully because it is difficult to formulate a standard that would conform to the basic principles of independent, reliable sourcing in the somewhat mercurial software world. If anyone can articulate a standard that would enable notable FOSS to be distinguished from non-notable FOSS using sources that conform to the general Knowledge guidelines and show how Mayan EDMS falls on the "notable" side, rather than just expressing contempt for the stab I have taken at it, you will probably convince both me and others. Honestly that is a steep mountain to climb even for someone already familiar with Knowledge policies and guidelines, so really the simplest thing to do is probably to just be patient as valid sources should soon appear if Mayan EDMS is as outstanding as claimed. But by the way, making threats as the IP address above is doing is one of the most certain ways to not get what you want. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Let me say that "to not get what you want" assumption is completely wrong. I use Mayan EDMS, find it's terrific and was pissed after discovering on Mayan EDMS mailing list that the article is going to be deleted...no more, no less. So we are already happy using the free product, but you want to prevent new potential users to find out about it by removing the entry from Knowledge. If you're so enthusiastic about keeping Knowledge 'clean', I'm sure you could find much better targets than attacking legitimate and even rare open-source projects providing real value for its customers for free. Otoh, I'm too unimportant that I'd dare to say that my 'threat' has any value...just wanting to express that I do support Knowledge finding its value by being open, but, otoh, seeing deleting articles about open-source projects based on no valid reason my change my attitude to put my $s to some other open-source projects...fortunately there are many and Mayan EDMS is one of them. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.135.238 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How insignificant you see yourself in the grand scheme of things does not enter the picture. Quite simply, we are not a promotional mechanism. Please also see WP:VALINFO. Thank you for understanding. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You are as significant as any other editor, you just have to follow the same rules as everyone else and make arguments based on the same policies and guidelines. Even having the admin flag on an account does not make a user some kind of authority, it's basically just the equivalent of a gun license (maybe with a deputy sheriff's badge, since there are a handful of responsibilities that accompany it.) "Mayan EDMS is super-virtuous in a technical sense and should be advertised" just isn't a valid argument for this community and this project. It sounds like you would get the best bang for your buck by spending effort and money to encourage publications that fit Knowledge's definition of reliable, independent sources to review and report on Mayan EDMS, then you get both greater public awareness and a better basis for a Knowledge article. But if you're lucky, maybe someone else on that mailing list knows of existing sources that would be notability-establishing... if it wasn't part of the email to request that people search for them, make sure everyone knows. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Software is very notable just do a search for Mayan EDMS in the news, it appears in the front page of mayor software news outlets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.192.193 (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yodiz

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

Nothing to support this article. The references appear to be connected to the product. No second-party support at all. Further, it appears the creator may have a COI issue. Creator has the same last name as one of the principals listed in the first reference. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Can't find any coverage in major IT new sources. The references on the article aren't sufficient to prove notability - StartUpSauna appears to be funding/supporting the company. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Also looked for coverage on the company rather than the product. Empty Google News search and no press page on the company website. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to List of Strict Baptist churches. Most of the comments in this discussion seem to indicate that it's not useful to have two separate lists: one for Strict Baptist chapels, and one for Strict Baptist chapels that have been published in a particular magazine. The notability concerns of such highly specific inclusion criteria are convincing. It would be easy enough (and far more efficient and concise) to list all of these chapels in one place, with a column in the table that indicates whether or not it's a Gospel Standard chapel. -Scottywong | yak _ 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Gospel Standard Strict Baptist chapels

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a directory. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep but turn into an article (renamed as Gospel Standard Baptists) or merge to Strict Baptists. There seems to be a genuine Baptist subgroup here with distinct beliefs (e.g. a complete disavowal of evangelism), and a reasonable number of book sources. The table needs heavy trimming, though. -- 202.124.74.69 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge -- We also have List of Strict Baptist churches, which seems to cover the same ground though not as well, and to include some of the same churches. This is well constructed list article with additional details on some of the churches. A number of the churches have their own articles. I am not familiar with the intricacies of the Strict Baptists, to which the article on Gospel Standard Baptists redirects. I assume that this is one denomination using a variety of names. If there are two denominations they need to be split properly. Unfortuantely getting good articles on small denominations is often difficult. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete This fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there is no indication a list like this could meet N. Churches on this list that have WP articles already appear on List of Strict Baptist churches (which would cover a great many more churches than just those appearing on this list), but a greater merge with List of Strict Baptist churches is inappropriate because the selection criteria of such a list should be limited to WP articles per WP:LSC (because the broader list could not meet the third bullet and the second is irrelevant here). Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. It seems a shame to lose this, though I know there is little support for (or encyclopedic purpose to) listing a slew of non-notable congregations. I see that many of the churches have pictures, however, which means that this info might be presented by a gallery page at Commons. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- That couldn't hurt. Is there precedent at Commons for a directory? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - What is or isn't a "directory" mostly turns on what kind of information is present. Commons wouldn't tolerate contact information, for example, any more than Knowledge, though I don't know that any guideline on Commons uses the term "directory" to discourage that sort of thing rather than just warning against self-promotion. If you're asking whether Commons would permit a gallery page of items of which not every item is notable (i.e., every church building in a given locale with informative captions), then yes. The scope there is "educational", not the more narrow "encyclopedic"; see Commons:Scope and more specifically, Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to List of Strict Baptist churches, of which it is a content fork, pruning the list to only include notable churches. I think the photos are fine for a list of churches. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't that really be a an !vote for redirect then? All of the churches with WP articles are already listed at List of Strict Baptist churches and the lead of the Gospel Standard list is inappropriate for List of Strict Baptist churches (and is unsourced, etc.), as is the "preacher" and "notes" aspects. I suppose adding images for each church to the List of Strict Baptist churches is not the end of the world, but if the images appear on the articles themselves, why clutter the list? And wouldn't an EL to a Commons category be better? Regardless, I would support a redirect as an alternative to deletion (admittedly with the same result as deleting and then creating a new redirect), so long as there is no instruction to merge any particular part of this list with List of Strict Baptist churches. Culled of the non-notable churches and directory information, there could even be sections for Gospel Standard Strict Baptist churches and other Strict Baptist chapels at the target, if such distinctions are verifiable and not POV, etc. But all of that could happen now, regardless of what happens here. The list under discussion as currently purposed needs to go, one way or another. Novaseminary (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but turn into the article: Gospel Standard. This is a list of Strict Baptist chapels as published in that magazine. The members called themselves Gospel Standard Strict Baptists. Ouddorp (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Do you mean merge? There already is a Gospel Standard covering the magazine. The list material of this list is inappropriate there (or anywhere on WP). The minimal unsourced lead material would be fine in a section of Gospel Standard if sourced, etc., on Gospel Standard. That would make it a redirect, though, not keep. Novaseminary (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge into List of Strict Baptist churches with a redirect. Per Peterkingiron's rationale. Pol430 talk to me 18:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: What the article is now often has little relation to what it could be. And it appears to me it the basis for a valid notable article. Whether it should be merged or converted into an article on Gospel Standard Baptists, which we used to have until one editor boldly redirected it in July 2011, can continue after AfD closes.--Milowent • 13:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Keep and withdrawn by nominator; guess I was wrong about the lack of notability. I must hone my Google Fu, evidently. Again, my condolences to India for the loss. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Taruni Sachdev

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

I'm a little concerned about this one. Well, enough to bring it here, at any rate. The late Ms. Sachdev appears to be notable to a certain extent, but the only coverage I could find is of her passing in a recent plane crash in Nepal. The lack of findings tells me, then, of the one event disqualifier, and that it probably does not qualify for an article. While India has my condolences, I'm gravely concerned that the article does not merit inclusion per our notability standards.

To wit, one other article - Tharuni Sachdev - wasl also posted this evening. I requested speedy per A10 (duplicitous article).

-- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Notability is there as per this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per the evidence posted by User:Karthikndr. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. She was noted by Indian media as a child actor long before the tragic event happened. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - as above. --Racklever (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I've updated the page and added another reference. Vipinhari || talk 08:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep- Per Above.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep- Per Above -- Mohit Saini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.182.16 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - A notable topic per Knowledge's notability guidelines. Why is the nominator "gravely concerned" about this stub article? Perhaps consider finding and adding more sources to the article, and then expanding it instead. Northamerica1000 10:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsdurai (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - She is a notable child actress in Indian cinema and has acted in a major role with Amitabh Bachan in the movie "Paa". She is also a lead artist in the commercial - Rasna. She should have had a wiki page much earlier. Sad its created only now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdsubbu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think there's enough here to justify an article. Given the subject's work prior to their death, the One Event rule doesn't apply. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think this little girl has created herself a space in the child artists category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.113.175 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, obviously, and close this early. Everyking (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Snow Keep Reliable sources are in the article to support WP:Notability beyond the plane crash. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Snow keep Per above. Can be closed now, I assume. Sarah (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like snow to me. I withdraw. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. No evidence of sources which evidence notability via WP:GNG. joe decker 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Iain Johnston

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

Deleted PROD (by article author) - Fails WP:GNG test - Reality show contestants that didn't win do not automatically get an article. We have primary sources or non reliable sources in the article. No reliable refs to be found. Zanoni (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Too soon for him to have an article, especially since not enough reliable coverage was found for him. If he becomes notable in the future then the article can be recreated, but for now, it's just not time yet. Narutolovehinata5 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Nom stated my reasons for prod, so per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be just another contestant, mostly run-of-the-mill press coverage cited. If he was more important, could merge to Junior MasterChef Pinoy Edition, but I don't think we want to redirect every contestant to that page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete There is no body of work as a model or TV celebrity that gives the subject sufficient notability at the present time. The lack of reliable independent sources would seem to indicate that the article is a Too soon at best. Stormbay (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, just another TV contestant, no evidence for notability so delete, in time this could be re-listed but with more references. London456 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Waghinzoy

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

Page created with {{unreferenced|date=October 2011}}. Blatant violation of WP:VER Bulwersator (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - this doesnt mean that we are supposed to delete it. Yash t 101 09:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The coordinates in the article lead to a satellite image of a mountain ridge with no sign of any buildings, abandoned or otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 May 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 May 15. Snotbot t • c » 05:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Might exist, though the coordinates are probably wrong as Phil Bridger mentions. You won't find much searching by the Yaghnobi spelling even for places that verifiably exist, so that's probably not much help. The Russian spelling would probably be "Вагинзой", which gets a hit in a photo caption in a an article about the Yaghnob Valley in Russian travel magazine Vokrug sveta . There's also a hit on a Russian map-sharing site ; if you download the map and look in file j-42-031 in map square 40/03, there's a village listed "Вахинзой" (at least I think that's an "х", but it's hard to tell; that spelling doesn't get any further web hits). Under the English spelling "Vaginzoi", a paper claiming to be from the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences mentions a mountain by this name .

On the other hand, a student of Saifiddin Mirzozoda (the guy who wrote the dictionary that's cited in the article) put up a copy and English translation of the dictionary on his website. The placenames section is here: , and this place isn't listed. But that may simply mean his electronic version is incomplete. Eric Baer (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Ya beat me to it, Eric: yeah, a Russian spelling of it is "Вагинзой" and a Google Books search for that turns up five hits with several appearing in a list of the other Yaghnob Valley villages. Adding Вагинзой to article and a new search template above... now Google News gives us a site that offers a map of Tajikistan with Waghinzoy on it for $4. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Knowledge also functions as a Gazeteer, a geographical dictionary or directory. (See: WP:5). Northamerica1000 11:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note, it was not nominated due to problems with notability. Bulwersator (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Northamerica1000's point doesn't have to do with notability either. Your nomination reason appears to be lack of verifiability, but there isn't any such problem: all of the information in the article is of a type that can be verified and we have verified some of it. Verifiability isn't a matter of whether or not you can verify it personally, it's about whether the kind of information in an article is one that can't be verified by anyone, like some kinds of original research, scientific assertions that are untestable, or historical assertions about things that were never recorded in any manner and thus cannot be checked. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - An article topic only "fails" WP:VER if it is unverfiable, not currently unverfied. As noted above, it's a real place.--Oakshade (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN and that the article should not be deleted. Note that it would make a stronger case to explain why the subject passes the relevant guidelines, rather then just asserting that he does. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 05:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Massie

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

Not notable. For example, Gary Moore is running for this same seat, holds a same current office as Massie (Judge-Executive, for Moore: Boone County) and yet has no Knowledge page. Massie is unworthy for an entry unless he wins this primary. The only reason this page exists now is internet-savvy Paul supporters. Kyoliver80 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Snow Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2012#District 4; despite being an open seat, even the nominees are not presumed notable under current WP:Politician guidelines. Kentucky primary is May 22; if he loses the nomination, delete; readers deserve to find the election until then. Dru of Id (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Massie may not be notable as a political figure yet, but he is notable for being an MIT graduate and starting his own company, that had over $30 million of venture funding. Plenty of reputable articles about him as an inventor and CEO, -- Aronzak (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Graduating from a college and building a house is not noteworthy. There is no reason for this page to exist now; nothing currently written mandates an article on Knowledge. If he wins, recreate this page. For now, it should be removed and redirected as the user above recommended, and deleted if Massie loses. Kyoliver80 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As the nominator, your vote to redirect is already taken into account. Please disregard this vote. Gage (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment What "vote"? This is not a majority-rules affair that you guys can spam. Everyone knew going in that Gage/Mrocked/Gyroid would be here. The lack of meaningful interest in this debate proves how non-notable this page is. Anyone can read for themselves and know it's unworthy of being here. Kyoliver80 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Comment Despite your assertion, as I mentioned below, per Knowledge policy, Mr. Massie passes the criteria layed forth in WP:POLITICIAN, which states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" qualify as being notable. Massie has received significant coverage from both local as well as national sources, despite your obviously biased rejection. Gage (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep He is the Judge-Executive of Lewis County and a frontrunner in the 4th district race. Also, why didn't you make one for Gary Moore instead? --Gyroid (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Because Gary Moore isn't worthy of a page, just like Massie. Any other Kentucky Judge-Executives, who've done nothing else, have their own page? Your (unsubstantiated) front-runner claim just further shows that this page should be deleted if Massie loses. Kyoliver80 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep Thomas Massie is a notable candidate who passes WP:POLITICIAN. Gage (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per Gyroid. User:Mrocked
Keep because this person passes criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. Northamerica1000 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Going by tonight's results, it looks like he will be the nominee, and thus is heavily favored to be elected to the US House. This is reflected in reliable media sources. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep He is now the Republican nominee for the seat. Seeing that he is being described as the favorite due to the nature of the seat, I say keep. America69 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Massie is the 1995 winner of the $30,000 Lemelson–MIT Student Prize for inventors, alongside William Hewlett and David Packard.CountMacula (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Hebrew Academy

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

K-8 school only, no Blue Ribbon, nothing else that makes it special. Raymie (t • c) 03:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable local school. Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - How so? Because it doesn't possess a blue ribbon, due to it being a Kindergarten to eighth grade school, or because of nothing else that makes it "special"? Northamerica1000 14:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Change !vote to Keep. You're right, IZAK, I did a Google search in several categories and found a lot to say about the school, including the fact that it was the first in the region and continues to mark other "firsts" among the day school culture it founded in Arizona. The Curriculum section, however, needs expansion. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep for a number of reasons: 1 It is far better to improve stubs like this that are part of a larger subject and no less worthy than the stub about Tucson Hebrew Academy and many more like that, "Blue Ribbon" or not, one needs to have a good sense of the broader picture of what is significant and so far WP has very little information about the History of the Jews in Arizona. 2 I have improved the categories, it is now in Category:Jewish day schools in Arizona that's a sub-category of both Category:Jews and Judaism in Arizona and Category:Jewish day schools in the United States. 3 The establishment of such a Jewish day school in Arizona (see the many schools included in Category:Jewish day schools that are just the same as this one), quite often far from the main Jewish communities in the USA and being a significant and notable accomplishment providing a unique Jewish and Torah education, while having a "Blue Ribbon" that has nothing to do with either Jews or Judaism is utterly meaningless for such a school. 4 The founder and head Rabbi David Rebibo , , is a well-known scholar and educator and the pioneering Orthodox rabbi in Phoenix Arizona, worthy of a biographical article in his own right. 5 There are relatively very few such schools in the United States, where most Jews still prefer secular public school education. Just as no one would think of nominating for deletion the few articles in Category:Synagogues in Arizona, likewise this should be left alone and built up. 6 Removing this article would create a gap in the history of the Jews in modern Arizona that is taking a long time to build up as can be seen in the few article so far in Category:Jews and Judaism in Arizona. 7 The article is a stub and deserves the courtesy of getting some attention from Judaic and interested editors who can help improve it. WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep --Yoavd (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any additional rationale? Raymie (t • c) 04:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

not that I should but if you must .... per IZAK and notable Jewish school --Yoavd (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I find varying degrees of notability for teachers in the employ of Phoenix Hebrew Academy: David Rebibo, Harris Cooperman, and Isaac Entin. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG based on the references in the article, which is really what counts, not the awards the school has or has not won. Also even if it didn't, I find IZAK's justification sufficient to think that keeping the article would improve Knowledge. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Didn't realize I hit a gold mine here. Nomination hereby withdrawn — let's turn our attention to improving this thing. Raymie (t • c) 19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Verissa Walber

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

Fails Knowledge:Notability (people) - pastor of a non-notable church, producer of a non-notable film, writer of a non-notable book, etc. The article in a local newspaper doesn't establish notability St Anselm (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. While Ms Walber is certainly an amazing person for not only overcoming her past but using her experience to help others, there just aren't enough reliable third party sources to show that she has enough notability to meet Knowledge's notability requirements at this time. I wish her well and hope that some day she does gain that notability, but for now she doesn't.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete -- I have no idea on her merits as an author, but the lack of an article on her church Ministries of the Living Stones suggests she is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete as per nom - I can't find enough sourcing to justify a claim of notability. That said, if the pastor (or her works) come to greater prominence, and if sources confirm this, an article might end up being appropriate. We're just not there yet. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 23:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Strikeforce Challengers: Lindland vs. Casey

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

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOT policy as it is for an event without any demonstrated enduring notability. Only sources are of the routine coverage type any sports event gets. Mt king 02:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article fails WP:EVENT and consists almost completely of WP:ROUTINE sports results. In fact, there are aeveral amateur MMA fights on the card and no indication of any notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete I think Papaursa has summed things up correctly--article lacks notability and significant coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete There are no indications of notability and no significant non-routine coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails routine or something like that. Portillo (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete The article only cites non-MMA sources and a quick Google search suggests that there may not be any non-MMA sources thus is a borderline fail of WP:GNG. The article contains only routine fight results and lacks well-sourced prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT to discuss the notability of the event. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Knowledge and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 23:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Strikeforce Challengers: del Rosario vs. Mahe

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

Keep Until the MMA Project Notability discussion is resolved this one should be kept. There was a women's Bantamweight World Title match on the card after all. Also if you're going to put up a notice shouldn't you put a tag on the page any also link it to the omnibus notability page? Otherwise it basically amounts to subterfuge. Beansy (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT is policy, nothing at the MMA Project Notability discussion can change that. Mt king 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete The article consists only of the fight results, which means the article fails WP:ROUTINE. The only notable thing about this event was a woman's championship fight and I don't think that's quite enough to show this passes WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete This fight card doesn't pass WP:EVENT and the coverage fails WP:ROUTINE. The only unusual thing appears to be the women's championship fight, but the organizers considered that minor enough that it doesn't even get top billing (and the coverage of the event mentions it only briefly). Mdtemp (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails routine or something like that. Portillo (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete The article cites no non-MMA sources and a quick Google search suggests there are none, resulting in a borderline WP:GNG fail. The article contains no well-sourced prose, as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT, and contains only routine fight results. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Knowledge and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MastCell 23:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Strikeforce Challengers: Wilcox vs. Ribeiro

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article consists almost completely of WP:ROUTINE sports results. Fails WP:EVENT with a number of amateur MMA fights on the card. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete This subject fails WP:EVENT and the coverage is totally WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
delete This appears to be just another MMA fight card with no signficant bouts or non-routine coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails routine or something like that. Portillo (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Article cites no non-MMA sources and a quick Google search reveals little in the way of non-MMA sources therefore it may fail WP:GNG. The article contains no well-sourced prose, as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT, and contains only routine coverage of fight results. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep This is because Google is programmed to give the most relevant results. No matter what MMA event you search, the majority of results will come from MMA-based sources. However, if you actually check the results, there are plenty of non-MMA listings, such as articles in USAtoday, Yahoo Sports, Examiner.com, and more. So instead of deleting the article saying there are no non-MMA sources, why not improve the article by adding one? Zeekfox (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Google has nothing to do with the fact that there is nothing about this event that indicates the significant long term notability required by WP:EVENT or that the coverage is simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Knowledge and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Misha Bryan (singer)

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

Misha Bryan is currently a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) and this new article is more or less a duplicate of her X factor story. This new article looks like a classic example of WP:TOOSOON, based on tenuous speculation (an announcement on Twitter picked up by a few blogs, 2 sentences in a tabloid newspaper) about a future new album. Sionk (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Since there are no other Misha Bryans out there, the Misha Bryan redirect can be unlocked iff she assumes sufficient notability. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete She is already represented in List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). On her own, she meets none of the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. As someone else said earlier, it is just WP:TOOSOON Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete (or userfy/incubate if anyone wants it), until she releases some music. She may release a single/album soon, and it may well pass notability requirements when it's released, but equally it could be delayed, fall victim to record industry politics, be really bad, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete (no need to redirect seeing as we already have one that would match a search). No independent WP:MUSICBIO notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per everyone above, redirect will suffice -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Question - someone has created an identical page, now called Misha B (singer) and made Misha Bryan (singer) into a redirect. What happens to this AfD discussion? Does it get transferred to the article with the new name? In my opinion, whoever created the redirect deleted an AfD template so should be warned accordingly. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved - someone has nominated the new article for speedy deletion. I've reverted the changes to Misha Bryan (singer). Sionk (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandeep Salwan

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

Contested PROD. Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor. This was referenced when I started this nomination off an hib.wiki entry and a freehostia-based Winx Club encyclopedia. I'm suspicious of the reliability of the information, but whether I'm right about that or not, neither gets us to WP:GNG nor WP:ENT. joe decker 00:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Egads Joe, I'm trying to write the AfD when you swoop in and take all the money and glory. You owe me some of the proceeds. :) Only ref in the article is a website maintained by a fan. There is hardly a ref out there on Salwan other than wiki refs. Bgwhite (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Oh sure, that's why they give me the big bucks! Seriously, I can't find any reliable sourcing here, but I'd much rather see this improved than deleted if verifiability and notability can be shown. (And nevermind the glory, I'm going to be slapping myself for the mistaken PROD replacement I made on this article.) --joe decker 01:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete. Failed BLP. Searches for Sandeep Salwan and Sandīpa Salavāna in English language sources find this person only in non-rs sites. Seacrhes for संदीप सलवान give similar results. While Winx Club is notable enough, doing a fourth season voiceover Hindi-language dub for its Italian actor is not. Schmidt, 06:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any worthwhile sources for notability, either. He's only 31, so perhaps he will get there in time, but not even close now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete sadly we will have to wait until the subject has reliable sources to qualify wp:GNG-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The consensus here does not appear to have accepted that the sources provided by Floydian are sufficiently independent and reliable to confer notability. Rather the most prevalent feeling is that the album should be released first. This discussion has been online for almost four weeks, and the release is scheduled to happen fairly shortly. If and when the album is released, another evaluation of the subject against WP:NALBUMS may be made. Restoration of the content may be a possible option at that point, but the article at present is fairly short, and reviews that allow a better article to be written often become available when the album is actually released. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Banks of Eden

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and also falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. CaptainScreebo 14:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl - It is recognized as an upcoming release by possibly the top online Prog resource, Progarchives, so there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue. A quick search reveals this is the topic of several reliable sources in the Progressive Rock world.Dutch Progressive Rock Project Official Blog Power of Prog Surprisingly, this is making mainstream music news, which is nice to see for the massively underheard group.Pure Grain Audio Blabbermouth/Roadrunner Records InsideOut Music AntiMusic - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Last I checked, an album article needs far more than just independent recognition that it's going to be released to bypass WP:CRYSTAL. The fact remains that it is not yet released, so the article is indeed at issue with that policy. There's no reason not to simply create a new article once the album actually exists.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I provided six very reliable sources that provide more than just acknowledgement of a release. Many of those sources are high profile music media outlets where you would never expect to see news regarding this band. I don't see the need to delete the article solely on the basis that these exact same contents would be justifiable in about 45 days. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 05:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Quick research shows that the album will be released mid June,so why not keep the article as is and extend it (instead of adding) to make it justifiable ? Makes no sense to me to delete it now and then have to add it once more after a couple of weeks. Cdl obelix (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Floydian: I don't see even ONE source in the article, much less "six very reliable sources". And again, "It's going to be released" is the precise argument that WP: CRYSTAL was created to refute.

Cdl obelix: There's the matter of setting precedent. Knowledge becomes little more than a promotional forum if editors can just create any article they want, and say "Well, there's no point in deleting it now and recreating in a couple months" (not a couple of weeks) if it gets proposed for deletion. Also, it's a double-edged argument: if you can just re-create it in a couple months, why is deleting it such a catastrophe?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I know they're not in the article, they're in my keep reasoning. See WP:BEFORE, specifically B2, C2 and D. The bare URLS I provided can be slapped on within seconds. WP:CRYSTAL was created to avoid speculation into the future, not reliably sourced or confirmed dates that things will almost certainly happen on ("Knowledge is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Emphasis mine). That's why there are articles prepared for sports tournaments upwards of months before the event takes place. As long as we're not making up figures or facts. Also see Category:Upcoming albums (which includes such gems as 50 Cent's fifth studio album). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: just to point out to Floydian that the "bare URLs" that you wish to slap into the article are *not* reliable sources.

#1 blog
#2 forum post
#3 music fan site, initially a blog, now (they say they have) 20 writers, what credentials etc. what weight, how reliable?
#4 user-generated posts
#5 own record label blurb (so not independent coverage)
#6 press release from aforementioned record label (on another obscure music website)

So only one even qualifies for consideration, and to quote WP:NALBUM "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence" (my emphasis). And 50 Cent is not the Flower Kings and Knowledge:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CaptainScreebo 11:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The DPRP Blog is the official blog of Dutch Progressive Rock Project, which is one of the most significant internet resources for progressive rock music, which is far more obscure than mainstream pop or rock music and has far less mainstream sources, including PureGrainAudio. 5 and 6 are no good for establishing notability on those grounds, but are nonetheless reliable sources for the article to ascertain dates or facts. The rest I can concur that I did not recognize as being forum posts. I was not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a keep rationale, but rather to aid in showing Martin Illa that WP:CRYSTAL couldn't apply to an album with a known/upcoming release date since we have an entire category of albums that are just that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume that the lack of reply into those four sources means there is nothing to discredit them as reliable sources establishing at least some notability upon the subject. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Floydian, this raises the question: If you think the sources belong in the article, why haven't you added them by now? For that matter, why hasn't anyone else? If editors aren't willing to work toward getting the article up to basic WP:NALBUM standards now, when the existence of the article is on the line, then they're certainly not going to do it after a decision to keep it has been made.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was nominated pretty quickly after creation, and WP:BEFORE are the instructions for AfD. I haven't had the time and generally my efforts are focused elsewhere, but I suppose I could whip them up tomorrow if I have a chance. I'm sure within days of its actual release numerous new sources will become available. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Done - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: No sources provided that show notability after two relists. SL93 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Four reliable references are provided above. This !vote fails to address how they are not reliable nor how they do not show notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but my comment here is that Knowledge is being turned into a sort of encyclopaedic MySpace, and there are overwhelming numbers of "fanboys" defending crap (imho) articles on j-pop, video games, music etc. which do not adhere to the standards of the relevant policies, and people just go "look at all the hits", "it's on a reliable blog", "there will be coverage in the future", jesus, I loved XTC and their seminal single Making Plans for Nigel, which featured a board game and charted and doesn't have an article but redirects to the album, and now WP is just full of shite crap insignificant shit that has thousands of internet posts, ok, I know I'm railing but seriously, there are longer articles on some shit R'nB song/video than on major performers' works. I just wonder where is >WP going, seen the influx of "hey it's on the net, I think it's popular, WP should have it", I sort of give up, what is the point? CaptainScreebo 14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree wholeheartedly. I hate seeing crap on these "music" makers that publish crap on a monthly basis, but instantly chart because of who they are. I'm personally just trying to balance things out a bit by providing an article on progressive rock, which IMO is very underrepresented. Getting any publication is huge for this obscure genre. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 14:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok appreciated, honestly I have nothing against the band or their albums, I was just new page patrolling and this didn't seem to correspond to the criteria for NALBUM, the problem is that criteria are not applied systematically, there are huge articles on j-pop singles and bands which are probably longer than Led Zep. Sad (and the ultimate death of Wp as a serious source for me). Regards. CaptainScreebo 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete ASAP - Violates WP:CRYSTAL ("short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate"), WP:NALBUM ("An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence."), WP:ROUTINE ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article") and WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As shown above, numerous sources that provide an edge case to WP:GNG (which supercedes WP:NALBUM, but more or less the two say the same). WP:CRYSTAL is very clearly unapplicable as the article contains far more than product announcement information here, and the release date is sourced reliably. The only source that is routine is the one that isn't independent of the source (the blabbermouth/road runner announcement). DPRP alone (including the official blog) is probably the most expansive and reliable resources for progressive rock on wikipedia, short of dead tree biographies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:GNG is not met - the text of references 2-4 all comprise largely of an interview which is given in (primary) reference 1 - that's not substantial, non-trivial coverage. WP:CRYSTAL is clearly applicable as the article reads as a product announcement one would expect to read on a music site. I believe WP:ROUTINE applies as, once again, the sources are exactly what I would expect from music sites covering the release of a new album. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 06:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Last Res0rt

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

Source breakdown:

A personal blog, which I removed.
An article on the furry fandom which only mentions Last Res0rt for a couple sentences.
The comic itself, twice.
A 404'd interview on what does not appear to be a reliable site (it hosts webcomics itself).
The comic itself, twice, again.
A podcast with the creator.
The comic itself, twice, again, again.

None of those seem to meet the source guidelines except for the New Times SLO article, but even that only dedicates a short segment to the comic. The rest are either primary sources or unreliable publications. I was unable to find any reliable sources on the comic — only one hit on Google News. This seems to completely fail WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There are TWO newspaper articles -- you completely ignored the Technique newspaper article. Also, the New Times SLO article features the comic much more extensively than the online version of the article implies -- the print edition devotes several pages of images to the comic, including the cover art for that print edition of New Times SLO. Regardless of your opinions of online media, both newspaper articles are solid sources. Veled (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So I did. Still, the Technique article only name drops Last Res0rt for one sentence, saying that she'll be at a con. That is not extensive coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That "name drop" is still non-trivial coverage. It should also be noted that MomoCon is a large anime convention (10000+ people in attendance that year), yet Last Res0rt is the only comic (out of the many creators with comics in attendance) mentioned in the article. Veled (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that's non trivial. They only mention it in PASSING. For ONE SENTENCE in the context of something else. The article is NOT EXCLUSIVELY about the comic. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about WP:WEB that says articles used as sources on a topic must exclusively focus on that topic. It discusses what trivial coverage implies, though: "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." Stating that the creator of a specific comic presented at multiple comics panels at a convention to talk about her experiences working on said comic doesn't sound like trivial content to me. Veled (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure does to me. It tells us nothing about the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that you would be in favor of starting an article on the artist/writer of the comic, Rachel Keslensky? Your argument implies she would be notable, but the comic itself is not, despite it being her reason for being notable and discussed in said sources at all. That seems backwards to me... or at least that it would imply that both the talent behind the comic as well as the comic itself are notable. Veled (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm implying that "she was at a con" is not a notability assertation, no matter how big the con. Any derp with at least one good drawing hand can get a booth at a con. Ten Pound Hammer • 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If we were talking about an article that just happened to rattle off a list of vendors at the con, you might have a point; that's not the case here. Singling Last Res0rt out for mention, to the exclusion of multiple other comic artists at those panels and vendors with comics in attendance, is still notable. Veled (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"There is nothing about WP:WEB that says articles used as sources on a topic must exclusively focus on that topic." WP:GNG still applies and requires "significant coverage", defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Mentioning that somebody is attending an event is not "addressing the subject in detail". Dricherby (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep based on the "name drop". Ducknish (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep -- Just because some of the sources are online instead of in print doesn't make the print sources any less relevant. Veled (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not that they're online instead of in print. It's that they DON'T DEDICATE MORE THAN A DAMN SENTENCE to the context. Tell me how "Oh yeah, the person who created this comic will be at the convention" is enough to hang a WHOLE ARTICLE on. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While a single paragraph in an article certainly isn't enough to hang an article on, it is worth noting that Last Res0rt has been running nonstop for the past five years, updating every single Sunday since it began, even if it is sometimes filler. THAT is certainly worth something. Add to that the noteriety of it being singled out, by name, in a panel of three(neither of the other two comics is named), and having multiple paragraphs dedicated to the author in a separate article, and you have something a bit more substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.242.162 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"It's been up a long time" is not per se a reason to keep. I can think of several other webcomics that have been just as long-lived or longer-lived, but have flown completely under the radar. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:34, 8 May 2012(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that the Technique reference does much to establish notability per WP:GNG. It's just one sentence so I don't think that's significant coverage. The source is just a student newspaper, so it's hardly national coverage or even the professional media. In fact, it's the Georgia Tech newspaper when the author of the comic was a student at Georgia Tech, so arguably it is not even independent coverage. It is one student writing one sentence about a fellow student's comic. As for the New Times article, it's three short paragraphs in a weekly local paper with a circulation of 37,000. If this coverage was repeated in multiple local papers, that would help, but this seems to be a one-off. The point that the paper reprinted some comic strips is nice but I don't see how that is relevant to establishing notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's The Technique we're talking about here; I understand notability isn't inherited, but it's not "just a student newspaper". Also, as I previously mentioned at the top of this discussion, the New Times SLO featured the article as the cover story for that edition, and used artwork from the comic as cover art. It's quite a bit more than just the "three short paragraphs" that are readily apparent in the online version of the article. Veled (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Question Veled, are you personally acquainted with Rachel Keslensky? You both seem to be grad students at Georgia Tech with highly similar interests. A google search on Rachel Keslensky Veled suggests some further connections. I could go on.... If you have a WP:COI, at the very least you should acknowledge it before editing an article or voting in an AfD such as this one. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, someone with some sense. Logical Cowboy, you are indeed the logical one here. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the current perceived attitude to webcomic articles on Knowledge, this is a loaded question; any acknowledgement or denial to this accusation will color the conversation and distract from the merits of the discussion. Also, does this mean I get to call WP:COI on TenPoundHammer for repeatedly nominating various webcomic articles for deletion and questioning the notability of their sources? Veled (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per my comments above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Misses WP:WEB and WP:GNG by several kilometres. A few paragraphs in a single small local weekly newspaper is not the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources we are looking for. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete due to the lack of covarage about the comic. A name drop is not non trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. A brief mention (or "name dropping") in a college newspaper is not significant coverage. The palaceinthesky.com site returns a 404 for me, as do the versions on archive.org (but at any rate the domain itself looks to be a WP:SPS, not something to establish reliability on). The only reference that helps establish any real notability is the New Times article, which comes from a local alternative newspaper. This single source does not give the article's subject the notability necessary to satisfy the general notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete all this arguing and still no RS. I will also add that trying to drag the nominator into AN/I was a very good WP:Boomerang. Instead of complaining about an editor pointing out lack of sources, improve the article by adding sources. Ridernyc (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The AN/I is secondary to this discussion. 108.200.70.59 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

never even implied it wasn't random IP that seems to know a lot about how Knowledge works. Ridernyc (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I wonder if the random IP editor has a WP:COI to acknowledge. Geolocates to Atlanta, Georgia. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that the editor that created this account instantly had a very elaborate user page. So far not making a big deal because I see no evidence of a sock, but it sure seems there is more going on here. Ridernyc (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the IP user's contributions (there aren't many), you'll see that one of them, on a different page, was subsequently re-signed by a non-IP user. It looks like that person just commented without realising that they weren't signed in. Dricherby (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I was also unable to find any sources to establish notability, beyond the New Times SLO article and a reprint of it somewhere else. It's an interesting question whether the Georgia Tech newspaper counts: easy to dismiss as not independent but there are 25,000 people at GT and the newspaper of a town of 25,000 people would be accepted as a source, even though it's probably also written by and mostly about people living in the town. Dricherby (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete because name-dropping is not significant coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep San Luis Obispo County has 269,637. NewTimes has been publishing for more than 25 years in San Luis Obispo County and is the largest circulated paper in the region. The coverage they give about this webcomic is sufficient coverage in a reliable source.

Keslensky’s online comic strip Last Resort features a gaggle of aliens and anthropomorphic creatures engaged in a deadly reality show in outer space.

Keslensky’s work, as she explains, is a statement about the Autism Spectrum. “All of these creatures not only look different, but also perceive the world differently as well,” she said. Certain characters hear better than others; some see better. “All this leads to a world where what you can sense is just as important as what others can’t. The world around them has learned to adjust and accommodate for these differences primarily because they can see that they exist—if a creature has big ears, you know not to shout at them, for instance.”

“It used to be that to have a career as a furry artist you had to be an animator, a children’s book illustrator, or a comic artist,” said Keslensky. “Now we have folks who can produce original, on-demand artwork and can make good amounts of money off of that artwork alone. Being a furry artist is now much more profitable, and it’s thanks to the Internet.”

Seems like enough significant coverage to me. Finding sources for a web comic are hard, Google news archive search not indexing anywhere near everything ever published of course. Dream Focus 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles requires multiple reliable sources, not a single source. Finding sources for anything is hard when it does not meet the general notability requirements; there is no exception for this requirement because without multiple reliable sources we cannot form a neutral article with content equal to its prominence. We can't have an article based on a single reliable source and then draw the rest of the information from primary sources; multiple reliable sources ensure that the article is in fact as prominent and neutral as the content implies. This article does not meet these requirements, not because of arbitrary guidelines formed to determine if a specific type of article is notable or not, but because it fails to meet the most basic requirement for an article, and because of this cannot accurately adhere to WP:NPOV. An article that cannot follow such a core policy does not need to be on Knowledge, at least until more reliable sources can be found. - Sudo Ghost 00:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG. The New Times article is nice, but not enough to establish notability. Ish dar ian 02:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Question: In the Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Whiteboard (3rd nomination) article, it implies that the comic being available in print is part of its notability assertion. Would pointing out that Last Res0rt is also collected in print help bolster its notability enough to meet GNG? Veled (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

anyone can self publish. Unless the collection has coverage in multiple reliable sources it's meaningless. Ridernyc (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

aka WP:ITEXISTS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Being in print would only help establish the notability if it met one or more of the criteria of WP:BKCRIT and Knowledge:Notability (books)#Threshold standards. - Sudo Ghost 03:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 10:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete -- coverage of the topic found does not seem to be strong enough to show its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)
Delete -- fails GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: a lot of sources previous identified were either unreliable (self-published, affiliated with the subject), or didn't provide the necessary coverage to independently WP:verify notability (which is different from verifying its existence). It's fair to say that in previous AFDs, some people thought this article could improve as more sources were found. But after this much scrutiny, giving people more time to find appropriate sources WP:WONTWORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete While the article in New Times is decent, subjects need to have multiple reliable sources in order to pass the GNG. I'm not finding anything other than the single article, and it would appear that no one else is as well. This isn't enough on its own to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Question? why is this still open after two weeks? Ridernyc (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Because at 7 days, consensus had not yet been established. It was relisted on the 15th, so it will likely close on the 22nd. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per Rorshacma →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 09:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that although Ms. Narassiguin falls short of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, the coverage that she has received is sufficient to establish notability anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Corinne Narassiguin

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

This unelected candidate for "national, state or provincial legislature" fails notability, both per WP:GNG and per WP:POLITICIAN, as most sources are either not independant, or primary sources, including a good many mentions of her as a socialist candidate for the coming elections... as can be found for most other candidates for that matter.

Moreover, the Assembly of French Citizens Abroad (of which she is the Legal Vice-President) is nowhere near having the powers of "a national, state or provincial legislature", being an advisory body, part elected by peers, part nominated by the French government. --Azurfrog (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1: Azurfrogis an admin in the French Knowledge that is letting is personal emotions in the topic taint his judgement.

2: He keep referring to this person as Unelected Political office which is a lie since this body is headed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is the San Francisco Board of Supervisor less important than the US house of representative ? Their size differ and their members are listed there as well.

3: The article is being written and it does take time and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theochino (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Calling me "a liar" whose jugment is "tainted by personal emotions" is hardly appropriate, is it? Could we avoid straying from what is required by WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, as any other consideration is irrelevant here? --Azurfrog (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Is the San Francisco Board of Supervisor less important than the US house of representative ?" Yes, it definitely is! That is not to say that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is not important at all or not important to be covered in Knowledge, but the national legislature in any given country is sure to be more important than the governing body of its 13th-largest city. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I don't get the points made on WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN :

WP:GNG implies significant and specific coverage, which seems to be the case in some of the sources used in the article, as well as some others not used at this point, such as this, this or that.
WP:POLITICIAN states negatively "just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet ", which certainly does not imply that being an unelected candidate rules out notability.— Racconish 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. — Racconish 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Racconish 20:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, what she gets is what every candidate of one of the major parties running for French legislative election also gets, namely some local temporary coverage, rather than national and lasting coverage. --Azurfrog (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanning over three years though.— Racconish 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Quite simply, all of her claims of notability is in connection with being a politician, and she does fail WP:POLITICIAN, that's not in debate. The part of WP:GNG that I feel she fails is "in-depth" coverage. So delete, but no prejudice to recreation if she gets sufficient coverage to pass GNG, or gets elected per POLITICIAN. Addendum: she's interesting, and I like the article, so thanks, I learned something today, even if it wasn't quite enough for WP. - Jorgath (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I am a Frenchman in Boston and Corinne Narassiguin *is* a politician: she was elected in 2009 to represent French people who live on the East Coast of the United States (consular districts of Boston, New York, Washington, Atlanta and Miami) at the French Expatriates Assembly. She is the Vice-President of one of the commissions in the Assembly. She is very well known amongst French citizens in the United States. Furthermore, I disagree that she fails WP:POLITICIAN since she has been covered in independent French, Canadian and American media, including appearances on major national TV programs such as Charlie Rose (PBS) in the US or CBC in Canada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvainbruni (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

—I have !voted "keep" below but I must note that unless there is some staggeringly unlikely concidence here the above user appears to be the campaign director for Corinne Narassiguin. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Corinne Narassiguin is not only well known in the USA, as an elected politician (2009), representing French expatriates from the East Coast of the USA at the AFE (French Abroad Assembly), she's also a leading representative between the French community in Canada, and especially in Quebec, as a candidate for the first election of a French Abroad member of the French Parlement, representing the Socialist Party, from wich France's President, François Hollande, is issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charromero (talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - She appears to easily fulfill WP:BASIC with dozens of Google News hits related to political activity going back to 2008 and was recently a guest on Charlie Rose as an authority on the French Presidential election. Depth of coverage is just fine: the interview and several of the articles are exclusively about her. Election to the AFE seems entirely valid to me for notability; a couple of the members of the elected Executive Council of my state of New Hampshire are documented on Knowledge just at the state/provincial level for a polity of little more than a million citizens whereas the AFE is a national political body for France. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - The topic appears to pass WP:BASIC. (Multiple sources/articles can be used to establish topic notability.) Northamerica1000 11:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete - the problem here is a lack of context, and thus a see a question of encyclopedic value. Note that this is an encyclopedia that deals with readers at many knowledge levels, and that's true here. Basically, what I see is a lot of French knowledgeable people going, "how do you not know her?" and a lot of others going "How is she notable?" The context issue is this: Socialism in the US is very fringe in politics, and Americans abroad don't have representation at home specifically for them. Interestingly enough, this is also the first time that the North American area is even doing this representative thing. So, I'm not so sure it's not inheriting notability from the other overseas constituencies. The sources all seem to be the same sort of article over and over again as well, so there's a depth of coverage issue here as well: if all the articles say the same thing, it's really not representative of depth of coverage. Moreover, in the article, Narassiguin appears to be some sort of regional vice-president who didn't do anything for two years (her duties weren't explained), and her current platform wasn't explained. So in short, while she may be notable per GNG, there's no explanation as to why or how, and "if you knew, you'd know" is not an acceptable response to that question. There is also an issue of CRYSTAL in that there are 12 candidates for the position she's running for (10 of whom don't have articles either), and the election won't be held for another month. So she doesn't hold any major office as of yet, and won't meet POLITICIAN as an "also-ran." If the preceding issues are addressed, then I could see keeping this, but it has no encyclopedic value as it stands now. MSJapan (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you judging whether or not the article should be deleted based upon the article being well-written or well-sourced? Is that what you mean by talking about "encyclopedic value"? If so, that is not a valid reason for deletion under Knowledge policy. The deletion nominator here is making an argument based upon Knowledge's concept of notability, which is an aspect of the article's topic unrelated to the Knowledge article itself. To judge the merits of the argument you are expected to investigate the topic outside of Knowledge, which is why there are links to Google News, Books, Scholar, a JSTOR search, etc. above. It also doesn't matter "why or how" a topic is notable, just that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

Furthermore, I think that there is still continuing confusion about the facts here. Ms. Narassiguin has already been elected to the AFE - twice, actually, because the first time an opposing candidate sued to get the results of the entire election invalidated, then in the subsequent election she was successfully elected anyways. If you look at this 2011 article she is described as a conseillère of the body. Several other conseillers have their own articles, on French Knowledge.

Now she is running as a candidate for a higher position within the body, one of the "Sénateurs représentant les Français établis hors de France" who are also members of the upper chamber of the French parliament. This is somewhat analogous to the way that in the UK the chief executive Prime Minister is elected from among the legislative MPs. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Notability does not appear to be temporary.— Racconish 07:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A poll was just published today and to the question : Do you know this name ? 81% of the people said "yes" whereas Frederic Lefebvre got only 56% : http://frenchmorning.com/ny/2012/05/22/sondage-exclusif-corinne-narassiguin-ps-en-tete-du-premier-tour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.12.164 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Some of the delete !voters seem to misunderstand policy. First, the ultimate criteria for inclusion is WP:GNG. If a subject passes the General Notability Guidelines, it is irrelevant whether the subject also passes the various special notability guidelines. Absent a WP:BLP1E case, not relevant here, no further inquiry is required as to notability. The article is well source, to a large variety of reliable sources that are providing substantive coverage of the subject, thus WP:GNG is passed and the subject IS notable. The only argument for deletion is that the article needs improvement, but that is not a valid reason for deletion either. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to University of Nebraska–Lincoln. -Scottywong | prattle _ 15:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

College of Journalism and Mass Communications (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

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

"Article" has no content. If the article had content and was not just a few sentences and a long list of external links, then it could safely be merged with University of Nebraska–Lincoln Elassint 03:58, 8 Mammy 2012 (UTC)

merge since there is a little to merge. It's a merge with possibilities, because its possible that it might egrow into an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) as the sensible compromise solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 May 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_{Contributions}* 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:ORG as a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge In terms of notability and length I can't honestly see this warrants a separate article, but a merge with University of Nebraska–Lincoln would be fine. Pol430 talk to me 18:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger Lee Mendoza

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Ridgewell

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

This YouTube personality does not meet the notability criteria - there is no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources (though there are all of the social networking hits one would expect for someone trying to promote himself/become famous on the internet.) Article was created by a single-purpose editor. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I believe that this article's subject matter is notable. There are enough independent sources to deem it so (Although very little, still enough. I think.). And while work does need to be done on this article, I think that the popularity of this person’s videos and appearances on other YouTube personality's videos proves it's notability enough. Zach Winkler (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Delete - The "{{Notability}} template was added in March 2012 and the {{primarysources}} template a few weeks later. Since then, someone has replaced all the "{{Citation needed|date=April 2012}} markers with links to the subject's own YouTube videos. There is still only ONE independent secondary source cited for the entire article; notability (as defined by Knowledge) has not therefore been established.—GrahamSmith (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. One BBC piece is short of multiple sources and even that one piece is not really about him, he is just an example and the coverage about him is not that much. Notability is not inherited from other personalities. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per GrahamSmith. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Just a quick google search of tomska bbc or thomas ridgewell, etc. and you find more refs. Keep Tomska has been featured on bbc and others. Soulboost (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Note - I have tried to correct the citation replacement issue, almost all of the youtube references are gone. Zach Winkler (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Being a well known YT personality is the center of the article and this doesn't even give its importance. Though other things make it important, it is not notable for sure. →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 09:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Ledesma

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

Non-notable football (soccer) player. My attempts at WP:BEFORE show no evidence that he has ever played for a top-level team. Currently plays for a second-tier team, previously played for a junior team affiliated with a top-level team. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG - Jorgath (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as having made one appearance in the Chilean Primera División B (per Soccerway), which is a fully professional league (per WP:FPL). Mattythewhite (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw on those grounds. I saw that he'd played for them, but my eyes must've skipped over Chilean Primera División B on the WP:FPL list when I was nominating. - Jorgath (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I found one mention of this person - a match report that shows he made a substitute's appearance in one second-tier Chilean league match. It clearly fails the GNG and we simply don't have enough information to prepare a decent article at this time. Jogurney (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: I can easily just revamp this page. The Chile 2nd Division is professional and he had played in it (mind you once but that should not mean this page is deleted.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- How much can you add to the article? I found no coverage other than one match report. Jogurney (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per Jogurney ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I thought the nomination had been withdrawn? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply I did withdraw it, but I didn't feel entirely proper NAC-ing it myself, and a delete !vote came along before anyone closed it. I suppose I should make it clear, though, that my withdrawal means that I am in favor of keeping it, since he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL. - Jorgath (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I would be happy to re-nominate the article for deletion - since I don't think less than 45 minutes of play in a second-tier league is enough to be notable without a realistic chance of passing the GNG (which this article doesn't have). Jogurney (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, your delete !vote makes it so I'm perfectly happy to have the discussion remain open. I just want to make it clear to the closing admin that I'm striking the assumed delete !vote that comes with being nominator, and that I support keeping it. - Jorgath (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and Arsenalkid700 has offered to work on article to meet WP:GNG. Time should be allowed for this, and if it doesn't happen, we should review in future. Giant Snowman 09:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY, Note – I've improved the article to a certain degree. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article, but I don't believe it passes GNG (nor could it). It's possible this player will see more playing time in the future, but I think we can recreate when (if) that happens. Jogurney (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Jogurney with respect, given the fact he passes WP:NFOOTBALL & yet you still want to delete, when exactly would you like the article to be recreated if it was deleted when he starts five games, plays ten games, plays 30 games? If you have an issue with WP:NFOOTBALL leniency then fine raise that issue at WP:FOOTY but the article passes specific guidelines why have them if weren't going to abide by them. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always viewed NFOOTBALL as working together with (rather than separate from) the GNG, and I've consistently called for the deletion of articles about people who played less than 90 minutes in a pro-league if it is not possible to write an article that satisfies the GNG (such as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe). Jogurney (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While I understand - agree, even - with the principles used in the Munegabe AfD, I don't think they apply here. We do have his date of birth and basic biographical data. In the Munegabe case, the fact that we had no ability to obtain even that kind of simple data was, in my opinion, the determining factor for crossing the WP:COMMONSENSE line. That basic problem doesn't apply here. - Jorgath (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The article is improved till certain extent since nominated. It passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 09:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Although keep rationales are rather week. WP:Author 3 does require "or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of which none of the keep !voters have presented. However, there is no consensus to delete this article at this time. v/r - T P 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike Halsey

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

Subject is a tech writer whose main claim to fame seems to be his Microsoft MVP award. Some of his books have had positive reviews on Amazon.

However, there are lots of MVPs, so I don't think an MVP award can confer notability. I can't find reviews of his books outside Amazon. I can't find any other indication of notability. The references supplied are mostly very weak. A bit iffy (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Can't see any evidence that this meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Qwfp (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Also at Ghacks, apparently regarded as being important. (leads back to primary source, but at least reported elsewhere), . -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 8 May 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 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Author of multiple notable books, per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. JulesH (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you point us to the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of those books that criterion requires? Qwfp (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep provided it's cleaned-up and the links to Knowledge are removed. Subject is an author. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But most authors are not notable. According to this there appear to be several thousand tech authors in the UK. I doubt if even 1% of those would be deemed notable. Why is this one notable? -A bit iffy (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cinco de Moustache

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

Article had several non-existent links or blogs used as sources. I can't see evidence of notability () but would be happy to change my mind if disproven. Seems to be some non-notable student high jinx... WP:MADEUP comes to mind. --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Dweller (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I'm surprised this survived so long, if it was real there would surely be something on the web about it by now.TheLongTone (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Movember#Similar events, but only after gutting it to a sentence. Or less. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You think it's worthy of a redirect? --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly merge to Strange but Untrue?TheLongTone (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - it's real in the sense it exists, but is one of those made-up holidays like Festivus. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I'm not disputing if it exists, but if it is notable and therefore suitable for Knowledge. --Dweller (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom and my comments above. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bonnie Bainbridge Cohen

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

Appears to me, after a bit of research, to unfortunately fail WP:GNG. Sarah (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Bainbridge Cohen is sourced in a single, very obscure journal article. Her book was published almost 20 years ago and all editions collectively are held by only <200 institutions, which is extremely low for "self-improvement" publications. Other than those, the only sources are to her commercial website. Article is mostly WP:OR, is SPA-created, and prominently mentions her courses and DVDs on "Body-Mind Centering®", suggesting the article may have been created for promotional purposes. Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

This page was made solely to present factual information about Bainbridge Cohen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slbeach11 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Agricola44 -- the single article is a real source that should be weighed (it's not that obscure a journal), but it's not enough to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that the single article does not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources, so notability per WP's guidelines has not been established. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not impressed when the MMA fanboys come out to claim that the world cares but out of the keep arguments, only Hutcher makes a decent argument. The delete argument is that this event has received only routine coverage that any future event would receive: date, time, location, and possible match ups. The article and the sources would seem to support that argument. I see nothing of note. As far as cites go, the MMAJunkie is owned by USAToday and so we're really only talking a single reliable source: USA Today. Being the 2nd largest MMA org on earth does not mean this event will have lasting effects. Being announced on the official website of the org does not mean this still isnt a Crystal ball and therefore MtKing's argument is not "hereby" irrelevent (really, 'hereby'?). No prejudice against recreation when (and if) the event happens and receives significant coverage. v/r - T P 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Strikeforce 41

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

Contested PROD : Unsourced article on an event without a firm date, no indication that it will have anything other than the routine coverage every sporting event gets; fails WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT Mt king 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete This a future event. The article has no sources and gives no reason why this event is/will be notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete There's nothing to show this article meets the notability criteria at ]. The only source is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep you griefers need to be improving articles on Knowledge instead of snipping at those of us who are. Delete points made above are groundless:

"Unsourced", 2 cites - 1 from the biggest MMA site and one from the biggest national paper
"without a firm date", firm as per the cites you did not bother to read
WP:EVENT? Read your own cite.
1. Lasting effects? It's the 2nd largest MMA org on earth
2. Geographical scope? It's an international org with international professionals. This test is meant to eliminate your county fair from having an article
Knowledge:Future event, planned events commonly have articles

I'm bored with arguing the obvious. --Hutcher (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack aside, WP:NOT lays out WP policy on covering events, they need to demonstrate enduring notability, zero indication this event will have any. Mt king 01:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Idem. (Justinsane15 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I think it's generally a bad idea to create articles on events that haven't happened yet. However, if the event goes off as the article claims, then I think an event by a top tier organization with 3 championship fights should be notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to point this out but if the event goes off as the article claims and should be notable are speculation and policy says we don't base articles on speculation. Mt king 02:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and that's why I hate articles created before the fact. Also, I meant "would be notable" (at least in my opinion) instead of "should be notable." I was trying to give the reasoning for my vote. The closing admin can ignore my comment if he/she believes that's the correct thing to do. Certainly if the event happens without the championship fights then I'd vote to delete the article. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm undecided in terms of keep vs delete. I will note that this article lacks "well-sourced prose" as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT; in fact, half of the prose of the article is about a fight may or may not happen at this event. If the article had more prose and/or cited sources not affiliated to MMA (NOTE: the USA Today article is from MMAJunkie.com) then I might lean towards keep. Otherwise, delete. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails routine or something like that. Portillo (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Knowledge and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user --TreyGeek (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep There is no need to delete future MMA events as WP:CRYSTALBALL violations due to the fact that the information for these events often flows in gradually. We know when and where the fights will take place for sure, but all the details are not suddenly set in stone on X date. The purpose of having the page established is so that when details become confirmed, they can be added and sourced appropriately without needing to recreate the article over and over. Zeekfox (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep This event does NOT fail WP:CRYSTALBALL as it has been announced on the strikeforce.com website. Also it does NOT fail WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:EVENT, because it is not only determining a champion in a top league, it's determining 2 champions in a top league. Therefore, MtKing's claims are hereby irrelevant, and this article should be kept. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:CRYSTAL. If this event occurs and if the predicted fights go off and if multiple independent reliable sources cover it, then WP might have an article about it. But as is, delete. MMAJunkie and strikeforce.com may be in the business of promoting every upcoming event, but by policy, Knowledge is not. User:TreyGeek correctly points out the USA Today link self-identifies as a reprint from the same author and same date at MMAJ. (IMHO, this calls USA Today's reliability and independence as a sports source in question.) I'd have no objection to userfication until RS are found and applied. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferroconcrete

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

Deprodded. Claims a bunch of awards but they look to be mere trinkets. No sources found for the company at all, just trivial mentions or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The article is relevant to the worldwide design community. The awards are recognized and respected within the worldwide design community. The sources: AIGA, Communication Arts, How Magazine, Fast Company, etc. are recognized and respected throughout the worldwide design community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Frankharperwortham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Completely subjective that they're "Recognized and respected". Those are just peacock words. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Fast Company (magazine), HOW (magazine) and Communication Arts (magazine) are reliable sources but only How seems to give significant coverage (although Fast Company's Co.Design website doesn't seem to work for me, so there may be something there). The Dieline also has significant coverage but I'm less sure it's a reliable source - it's not produced by a professional publishing company though it does claim to have an editorial structure; if it's reliable then its coverage together with the other refs might establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, strongly. Another advertising agency, putting on ridiculous airs in this obviously conflicted prose: a full-service branding agency ....the company specializes in branding, strategic planning, and motion graphics, that's advertising on Knowledge. Petty trade awards from startup-watch buzzfeeds and ad-agency trade groups do not equate to significance in the wider world, and do not confer notability. Strongly suggest redirection to reinforced concrete, which is the subject that obviously should be occupying this title anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, as per conversation above, and then redirect to Reinforced concrete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly fails notability. Robert Skyhawk 03:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dazuko

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

I found no notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DeleteNothing in this article indicates any notable use of the software. The link in the article leading to the Dazuko project has not had any activity for 14 months and also indicates there is no-one maintaining the software code. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Per Gtwfan52 and Unreferenced. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry the edit summary was meant to say Delete. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete; short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Funing big cake

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

I found no significant coverage for this cake. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - obscure food. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Searches of "Funing cake" and of the Chinese name, 阜宁大糕 , do turn up a few slightly informative English-language hits in non-reliable sources (e.g. ) as well as quite a few images of the product and a ton of Google results in Chinese. Maybe a Chinese-reading editor can find something usable in there; otherwise, I'd have to concur with deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A ton of Chinese refs sounds like this could easily pas GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep ~~per WP:IAR~~ Passes WP:GNG (See my comment below). The cake has historical relevance. Better to WP:PRESERVE and improve the article. Northamerica1000 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised my !vote above, per sources in my comment below. Northamerica1000 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos. Clearly a food that is not so obscure if you have read any sources about Chinese foods. Steven Walling • talk 23:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Another reliable source found that is comprised of significant coverage about the topic:

(in Chinese) "The Funing cake was traced from the workshop black and doping a variety of low-quality additives". Chinese network news. February 1, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Along with this source below, also comprised of significant coverage of the topic from a reliable source, the topic is passing WP:GNG:

(in Chinese) "Funing County to respond to relevant issues on the Green Village Funing cake". Js.people.com.cn. Retrieved 2012-05-21.

— Northamerica1000 04:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Here I can just see some manky pics and for this a translation is necessary in order to evaluate it. These sources does not show, that article meets WP:N. Bearian might be right. -- Dewritech (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Try opening the links using Google Chrome, and then use the translator which pops up. Both articles are comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000 05:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Notability established via WP:GNG. joe decker 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

TweetBot

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

notability of app in question. No refs to support notability. Reads like a commercial. Karl 334 21:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ TweetBot is a great app...this article is terrible. Rambling that reads like an excited review from a fan rather than a neutral article about why the app is notable (along with placing the app first in Template:Twitter navbox, which I have moved back into alphabetical order). Probably not self-submitted PR as Tapbots usually takes much more time on ad copy than this. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Switch to Weak Keep Attempted a tweaked rewrite of the article, I think this can be rescued now with the added sources. Nate • (chatter) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I added refs to 4 reviews; there are more on other reputable sites. Notable through wide press coverage. Needs rewrite, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep Not all sections have been referenced, although some have been it has got better. Also slightly agreeing with Mrschimpf, and if kept it would need a bit of a re-work.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have done as such and removed most of the 'excited review' writing in an attempt to make it more neutral. Nate • (chatter) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep With the added references the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Advertising concerns, to the extent they have not already been addressed can be handle through normal editing. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and it is notable enough to have its article. →TheSpecialUser_{Contributions}* 09:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Issues raised of WP:NOTDICT, WP:V, WP:OR, and so forth were described nearly unanimously by editors participating in the discussion as not being present in the article after significant improvements had been made to it during the course of this deletion discussion. --joe decker 02:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Intermission

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

Intermission is just a dictionary term that defines a break during a performance, something already mentioned in the disambiguation page. As a result, not one source has been added to the article since its creation over 8 1/2 years ago. The second paragraph describing what people typically do during intermissions, while true based on my experience working in theater, is written almost entirely through original research and therefore, unverifiable and not appropriate for Knowledge. The third and fourth paragraphs also lack citations, reliable research, and verifiability and are completely irrelevant since breaks during sports games are usually not called "Intermissions" The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary. We've had nearly the entire life of the project to add sources, and the fact that there are still none just goes to show — this will never be more than a dicdef. There is no possible way to discuss the actual concept of an intermission in an encyclopedic fashion; it's just a break in a performance, followed by "oh, some people get snacks and drinks, go to the bathroom or smoke". Ten Pound Hammer • 00:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per major improvement in article. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - It could be saved, ~~but needs WP:TNT.~~ Bearian (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. My first reaction was to vote delete, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced something could be made of this. It seems likely that a history of intermissions could be cobbled together. This and this (slide 38) claim it originally arose due to a need to change reels, while this article discusses reasons why it went the way of the dodo. A list of films with intermissions (e.g. Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia and Fantasia) would be useful. There are DVDs of classic intermission film clips. Who can forget "Let's All Go to the Lobby"? I'll start digging around and see what I can come up with. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Clarityfiend and per the substantial improvements made to the article since it was nominated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep When I saw this AfD before, I thought there was probably scope for an article, and it's now significantly improved with some good references, going well beyond a dictionary definition. Well done. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Not written too badly and has got a sufficient amount of references. It seems fine. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY; much work has been done to the article, which I thought could not be saved. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some of it done more than a day before you made your first comment in this discussion. I've been curious about this phenomenon, which I've quietly observed happen several times at AFD, where people comment on a past state of the article rather than its state at the time that they came to the AFD discussion. (At least this time someone didn't come along saying "per The Legendary Ranger" when the nomination clearly didn't match the article, as has happened in some discussions.) Were you not shown the rewritten article when you first followed the link from this discussion? Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep despite the weird "(the 1915 landmark The Birth of a Nation could take over three hours at 16 frames per second)", written as though the film could have been shorter if only the projectionist had speeded it up. Well, yes, and a lot of other films, too, I should imagine. Anarchangel (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: article has potential and is more than a dictionary definition. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)