Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 19

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 25 (Wed) September 24 (Tue) September 23 (Mon) More...

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

< 18 May	20 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

GX Text

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

I only found Knowledge, the official website, Deviantart, and Facebook. I found no sources for this name, but I found the mentioned sources for gxplay which is the name of the website. This software is not notable. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notability, no sources. OSborn _contribs. 04:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this software by an SPA with same name as software developer as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete- fails wp:GNG we cannot have article for every software that exists -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:37, 26 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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Segregation in concrete

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

Article represents a too-technical viewpoint on one physical aspect of concrete. If not deleted, some sort of merge is definitely in order. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep - the topic has received significant coverage and analysis in reliable book and journal sources:

Civil Engineering Materials
Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete, Issue 169
Utilizing Ready Mix Concrete and Mortar
American Society of Concrete Contractors (2005). "The Contractor's Guide to Quality Concrete Construction". American Concrete Institute. p. 133. Retrieved May 19, 2012. ISBN 0870311670

Here's another source, a Master's thesis:

Optimizing Portland Cement Concrete Mix Design to Environmental and Construction Variables with the Aid of Computer Design Software

Matters regarding the technical writing within the article are better dealt with by copy editing, rather than outright removal from the encyclopedia, per Knowledge's editing policy, section WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Also, the Concrete article is quite long, and this is a reasonable content fork. Northamerica1000 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The topic is not too technical - the concept is quite basic. And even if the topic was technically difficult, deletion would not be appropriate. Warden (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Creator of article: Segregation is a fundamental behaviour as far as concrete goes, Knowledge should cover engineering too. Knowledge doesn't have articles on subjects as fundamental as vibrators or mortar, (we have mortar as used in brick masonry, but we need one more general). Perhaps if we had Continue, come up with specific issues, I would happily make the article more descriptive. I have added footnotes for terms which I felt would be uncomfortable to some. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep WP:TECHNICAL is not a reason to delete. Article is 2 days old. Give it a chance. Sheesh. --Kvng (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - per Northamerica1000. →TSU 17:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

DaBryan Blanton

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

A Sprinter. Fails WP:NTRACK... No medals at senior or junior level, no senior level wins and no world records. Only find routine coverage of track events and local coverage. No reliable, independent references that talk about him outside of the local level. Prod was contested with "2004 NCAA Indoor 60m champion; Two-time Big 12 Conference 100m champion; temporarly American Junior Record holder" Bgwhite (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Bgwhite already quoted my arguments. --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I don't see that any of the listed track accomplishments meet WP:NTRACK. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 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) 00:26, 12 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) 23:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:NTRACK - unfortunately the NCAA and conference championships don't meet that standard. GregJackP Boomer! 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

German Fetish Ball

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

Not notable: lacks multiple, independent reliable sources Greenmaven (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of coverage from multiple different independent reliable secondary sources, including: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment, OK, maybe you could add some, because all I am seeing is their own website. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:59, 12 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) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I've added a few references from somewhat more mainstream publications, and an alternate name for the event that increases the hit count. Photos from the event are apparently included in several art books that Google understandably is not allowed to show me. The statement that it is one of the biggest is supported by references, and there's broad enough coverage that I believe it meets the general notability standard. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

James L. Nelson

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

I see not indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. I would support keeping or recreating the article in the future if such notability can be demonstrated. West Eddy (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR. As a non-fiction writer, his book George Washington's secret navy : how the American revolution went to sea is in 797 libraries according to WorldCat; With fire & sword : the battle of Bunker Hill and the beginning of the American Revolution is in 551 libraries, As a fiction writer, he has 8 nov els with 600 or more library holdings. -- see the listing in We do need to find reviews, but that should be quite easy for an author of this degree of importance. Quickest way of finding a few reviews is G News: DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 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) 23:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Reviews on Chicago Tribune, Kirkus and Publishers Weekly . Cited as a historical expert by NY Times. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Seumas Next

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

Director of a few, utterly unnotable films. Zero Google News or Google Books hits (other than a few false positives). General ghits are primary or to WP, directory listings, or otherwise trivial. Fails WP:N. It was de-PROD'd some time back, otherwise I would have gone that route. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 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) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - There is absolutely no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. The only source in the article is a dead link and in any case, it appears to be a directory/database. The only real claim to notability is that his film Iced Lolly was "a film that made history by becoming the first all-digital feature film when it was projected straight from a computer server before an audience of 600 in Adelaide on 15 March 2003". But that claim is unsubstantiated with an sources, nor was I able to find any. Additionally, it is unclear what the claim of "first all-digital feature film" really means. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Libby Roderick

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

Contested proposed deletion. The person contesting it stated they are "probably notable" based on what looks to me like two extremely weak sources, see the talk page for links to those, such as they are. One is a review of a book she edited and the other is ~~basically a blank page with her name on it~~ I originally looked at that with my iPad, which doesn't do flash video. Turns out it is a video of her speaking. In the first two minutes or so if you actually watch it, Ms. Roderick comments on why she is using a microphone to speak to such a small group in a small room, so how the conclusion was reached that these links indicate notability is a bit hard to understand. Looks more to me like "probably not particularly notable" if that's all we can come up with. My own search didn't find much in the way of actual useful reliable sources either. There may be a case for her song " How Could Anyone" being notable unto itself, but It seems the song is more welll known than the person who wrote it. The label releasing all her recordings appears to be a niche lable with very limited distribution. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 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 03:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep iTunes sells songs from 3 of her albums (28 songs total), which were put out by Turtle Island Records. I believe that makes her notable per WP:MUSBIO: Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels. NJ Wine (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, are you saying that the mere presence of the releases on iTunes indicates that the record label qualifies as "one of the more important indie labels"? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The subject may be notable for something (perhaps for music and perhaps not), but having her music available on iTunes is not going to affect her notability either way. One would have to establish that Turtle Island Records was an important indie label to qualify her under the criterion cited by User:NJ Wine. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 19 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) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

*Delete. Aside from their own website, there's little to be found regarding "Turtle Island Records". It appears to be a mom-and-pop-shop rather any sort of "label". The fact that nobody has been able to find sources beyond Roderick's own website and her myspace page (both of which seem to exist to sell her recordings) speaks strongly to non-notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

Keep per Whpq's findings...bravo. Agricola44 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Delete. Contesting the PROD was fine because there is an assertion of notability, but Turtle Island Records does not seem like an actual publishing label and getting onto iTunes is not a criteria of quality/notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- thanks Whpq -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Note that several reliable sources have been added to the article that establish this topic's notability. Northamerica1000 18:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Having one's songs available on iTunes absolutely does not establish notability, nor do I think that Turtle Island Records qualifies as a major indie label. However, Roderick has received coverage in newspapers all across the USA" Corvallis Gazette-Times, Worcester Telegram-Gazette, Sun Journal, Anchorage Daily News, Idaho Spokesman-Review, and the absolute clincher for me, LA Times. Maine Today also confirms that she was filmed for a segment on Anderson Cooper 360°. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG per: , , , , (subscription required), (subscription required). Northamerica1000 18:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenna Marbles

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

non-notable Youtube artist who has not received any significant secondary coverage. All secondary sources in the article give trivial coverage, and no significant sources can be found. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Weak Delete~~ Google News shows that there is international coverage over a couple of years but it all seems to stem from a WP:1E single event, the Youtube video mentioned in the article in question and her comments about it, and the nominator is correct that coverage is shallow. Not notable at this time but substantial coverage for some additional reason could easily push her over the edge to fulfill notability standards. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Delete — As per nom, but without prejuidice if she becomes notable. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I see from a cursory Google News search a variety of coverage from both English and non-English sources, originating from 2010 (e.g., ) and earlier, and continuing through 2012. More recent articles include , , , , , , , and . That multiple videos she has made have garnered individual coverage, coupled with the fact that she is (from what I can tell) one of the top ten most subscribed YouTubers (and possibly the most subscribed female?) indicates that she is notable to me. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Retracting my previous "Weak Delete" !vote because the evidence ƒETCH COMMS presents includes articles that focus in-depth on Mourey herself instead of just mentioning her and the one original fame-inspiring video. Hence, she satisfies WP:BASIC at least, if not WP:CREATIVE too. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep as per fetchcomms - also to mention that although secondary, the ABC news source is not a "trivial mention". Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Sufficient coverage provided for GNG (although is she really a Sports Counselor!?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Most of youtube personality articles get A7ed but not in this case. There are notable results in google and also, the article passes WP:GNG →TSU 17:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Gallagher (sax)

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

Non-notable musician. No references that discuss the subject. No evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO standards: no chart success, no awards, no major labels releases etc. Tassedethe (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Based on the musician's credits it seems I've at least heard some of his work, but I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources for him; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow 06:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Very little by way of reliable sources to show he is notable.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - he might would have helped in few albums but it is not enough to establish notability + it is hard to get R.refs for this. →TSU 01:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete- Fails WP:MUSICBIO-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark S. Dutton

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

Not notable. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - not notable enough. Bubba73 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete — Would almost speedy it for being a list of participation in chess functions and not much more (A1 or A3). Has no claim of notability. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No evidence provided of coverage in reliable sources — and by and large, this article is just a list of events he's participated in, meaning that it's dancing right on the edge of being a résumé. Additionally, it's also worth noting that the article was originally created by User:DuttonChess, meaning that there's an extremely high likelihood of WP:COI. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ane look at the first version of the article. It is likely that later editor RookKnightRook is the same person. Bubba73

Comment Compare the article to this website. (A copyright violation.) Bubba73 17:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Not notable, per lack of coverage in reliable sources. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Eve Lora

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

Puff piece on an actress lacking multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks Coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Many sources are used to try make her look more notable but the sourcing is mainly imdb, youtube, blogs, shop, passing mentions and sources that don't mention her. Nothing better found. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage to establish notability. As written, the article is essentially spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete — Formatting reveals nature of article, delete as per nom. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. Once you remove the blogs, youtube videos, and linkedin pages you have nothing. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Taichi Symbology

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

Honestly, I see no notability right now. I want a community discussion on this, not a PROD. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect. I think it's referring to Taijitu. If that's the case any suitable information could be merged if not already there, although there are no references here. The title seems like a plausible redirect — Frankie (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Taijitu. It seems a plausible search term, but the current contents look like personal reflections on Wuji. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cappai de Bas

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

Declined {{db-hoax}}. Not an obvious hoax, but I can find absolutely no sources, so there are verifiability issues. RunningOnBrains 07:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are actually many sources (books) about the House of Bas who were Judges (Giudici, meaning Kings) of Arborea: but no connection with Cappai. But first and foremost, they did not get nobility titles during the middle age:

"prince of Arborea" does not exist (the concept of prince maybe, but surely not the title);
"count of Villasalto" was granted only in 1681 to Joseph Zatrillas and has been used by that family until they got extinct - source (among others): Dionigi Scano, La nobiltà sarda (1942) (Sardinian nobility), appendix to Donna Francesca Zatrillas, marchesa di Laconi e di Siete Fuentes - ISBN 84-9789-069-8;
"marquis of Muravera" has never been granted - source (among others): Francesco Floris, Feudi e feudatari di Sardegna (Fiefs and feudal lords of Sardinia), Cagliari, 1996;
"marquis of Villarios" has been first granted in 1647 to Francisco Amat (being an "upgrading" of his previous tile, count of Villanova del Rio: meaning that the title was entirely new) and his descendants have been officially using it since. I already demanded that the use of this title be deleted from an article in the Italian wiki.

According to F. Floris and S. Serra, Storia della nobiltà in Sardegna (History of nobility in Sardinia, 1986), a Capay family actually got a grant of kight and Noble, but only in 1617 and absolutely no fiefs (p. 205).

Several others books and documents state the same facts. That is why I ask for the deletion of false content. Thank you. --Vadsf (talk) 00:53, 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) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears as none is interested in such a false article... :)--Vadsf (talk) 14:04, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Any material, especially if it triggers questions, should be sourced. The author is not active, and since there are reasonable doubts, the article should be deleted by the end of the week provided no sources have been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - The veracity of the article has been questioned and no reliable sources have been produced to prove accuracy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Blatant copyvio; no reason to keep Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

List of features removed in Windows 8

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

Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO. Note that it has been deleted and restored already; I don't know why. The victim is a former Wikipedian who has emailed me to complain.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep with leave to speedy renominate. Technically not an SK1 candidate because the nominator did provide a rationale but a very poor one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

John MacTavish

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

It's been left like that for a couple of years now... nobody is even fixing it Godzilladude123 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Close - The user sent it to PROD and AfD. Only the former is necessary (for now). Salvidrim! 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I oppose the proposed deletion because it's not clear to me what the problem with this article (about a videogame character) is, nor does the nomination here explain it. If there is a problem with the article that requires deletion, that needs to be explained further. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Nominator puts forth no rationale for deletion. Salvidrim! 20:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - A valid argument for deletion hasn't been advanced in the nomination. See also WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000 03:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - No rationale given and is non-obvious. -Rushyo 10:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I know the user didn't give a reason, but look the tags at the top, and the sources at the bottom. There's not a single third party source used, and it's all in-universe plot summary. I haven't looked for any sources, and I'm unfamiliar with this character so I can't say off the top of my head if it should be deleted, or just cleaned up, but it's pretty clear to see what the issue is here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's try clean-up before ditching it. There's at least one independent RS. I'm not saying it would easily pass notability guidelines. Salvidrim! 16:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- - I'm fine with that, I just felt we should discuss the article more than the nominator's shortcomings... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Niaz Ali Khan

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

Non-notable or a hoax DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I marked it as G3. False interwikis, no sources, false statements (for instance, it says he is the heir since 2007, whereas the real heir, Ahmad Shah Khan, is alive).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Following sourcing and edits; disregarding LuciferWildCat's opinion as nonsense. Sandstein 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Arseus

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

Article appears to be promotional material for a non-notable healthcare supply company in Europe. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete — Non-notable company (A7). Tagged accordingly. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep and improve - The topic has received a great deal of ongoing press coverage, and as such appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The article would benefit from improvement. Arseus has also acquired many companies. Per the Reuters profile for the company (link here):

“ ”

Arseus NV is a Belgium-based company that provides products and services for professionals and institutions active in the healthcare sector in Europe, South America and the United States. Its activities are subdivided into four divisions: Fagron is a supplier of pharmaceutical preparations for pharmacists according to pharmacists’ specifications. The division also sells pharmaceutical compounds to hospitals and specialized industries, semi finished products and cosmetics products under the Fagron brand. Arseus Dental provides specialist dentists’ supplies such as dental x-rays, intra-oral sensors and cameras to dentists and dental experts. Arseus Medical supplies hygienic, diagnostical and care supplies to doctors, nursing homes and hospitals. Corilus supplies dedicated integrated software applications to the healthcare industry for purposes such as client administration or handling medical files and medical test results, among others.

Here's some preliminary sources from some cursory searches: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

—Northamerica1000 03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've begun making some improvements to the article. It's a company that has over 2,000 employees and distributes its products and services on three continents. It's notability is inherent in the press coverage it has received, along with the size and range of the company. Northamerica1000 04:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per improvements and sources made/found by Northamerica1000. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete We can't just have articles here on Knowledge based on the sources. And when people nominate them for deletion before researching if there are sources we should just hack it off like a gangrened leg. Why improve when we can slice and dice right?LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment meant to be sarcastic? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Note - The above !vote appears to be sarcasm, and it doesn't discuss the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 16:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per recent improvements. Company has received significant coverage in WP:RS and thus satisifies WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. As a side note, would like to see the additional references utilized as inline citations at some point in the future if possible. None but shining hours (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Umair Asif

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

No indication of WP:notability. Possible autobiography. Sources given are either not about him or not WP:reliable sources.

There appear to be copies also at: User:Umairforever Knowledge:Articles for creation/UMAIR ASIF Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/UMAIR ASIF

Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Clearly this is a vanity bio. The citations are nothing of substance – directory entries, self-portraits, self-authored blog posts. --Ohconfucius 18:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Having gone through those so-called refs, I conclude this is a personal puffery exercise.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Not at all neutral and it is a COI definitely. Not WP:N →TSU 01:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per User:Ohconfucius, this article may come up later when the subject does something notable just taking an interview is not sufficient-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Stedelijk_Gymnasium_Haarlem#Haarlem_Model_United_Nations. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Haarlem Model United Nations

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

This is not a notable conference, simply put. It appears to be a sideways promotion of Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem, a venerable institution, by an involved editor. There's a ton of Google hits for the name, but nothing that can be called notable or reliable. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. SpeakFree 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect/merge to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem, which hosts the conference. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 16 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, Panyd 14:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete or rd to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem. Many schools have model United Nations, and the vast majority of them are non notable. This one appears to be no exception. This one's unsourced and appears to be a bit Soapy. --Ohconfucius 18:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge (an edited version) to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem. Not independently notable without independent press coverage cited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect nothing to merge here as Stedelijk_Gymnasium_Haarlem#Haarlem_Model_United_Nations already contains the relevant info, rest can safely be removed. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete without prejudice. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Shy and the Fight

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

Non-notable band. No coverage in reliable, independent sources; no obvious elements of a notable band as described in WP:BAND Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

- no worries, additional press will be find to conform to WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyblack (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Currently there seems to be a lack of a sources. The only good source so far is http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-north-wales-news/wrexham-news/2011/03/18/music-shy-and-the-fight-55578-28357675/. A few more like that would tip this article into notability. --90.194.241.55 (talk) 11:30, 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, Panyd 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That's What I Call StarKid! Volume 2

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

One of a cluster of non-notable albums from non-notable company, which has its own template Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/StarKid Productions. There was no reason to start deleting all the pages before first discussing the main article. Eladkse (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the Eladkse--Mimi C. (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The result of the main discussion was to keep. An admin may now close this, as the original reason is now invalid. Eladkse (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No sign of independent notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:06, 2 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 18:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Each StarKid Productions album has a separate wiki article. I don't see why this one would be treated any differently.--Mimi C. (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable album. No WP:RS. Also, notability is not inherited. Ish dar ian 03:07, 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, Panyd 14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see evidence that WP:NALBUMS is met. I refer Eladkse to WP:NOTINHERITED, as albums/songs must be proven to have notability in their own right. I also refer Mimi C. to WP:OTHERSTUFF as the presence of multiple similar existing articles has no bearing on this AFD - maybe the other articles need to be deleted too. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 13:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete as A1 - insufficient context (non-admin technical closure)--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Types of animation

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

Already an article on Animation, that includes a section on types and techniques Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I was going to say merge/redirect, but there's nothing to salvage from this piss-poor stub. Lugnuts (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. This article appears to have been placed under the wrong title. It's not about types of animation, and I don't know what it really is about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Bill W. (film)

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

Non notable movie. Article created the day of the release in New York and L.A. It has not received significant coverage from sources independent from the subject, it has not been widely distributed, received no awards, and is not not historically notable (as determined by wikipedia's film notability guidelines). Coffeepusher (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, possibly speedy keep. I don't understand the nominator's basis for this nomination since there's a Village Voice review already quoted in the article and the Rotten Tomatoes page also linked in the article leads to reviews in the Los Angeles Times,, New York Post, and Newsday. And more is readily found: here's Daily Variety and LA Weekly. Not that it matters for notability purposes, but all of these reviews are positive.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually all of those sources are considered "trivial" under wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. "examples of trivial coverage include...capsule reviews." Each one of them is a capsule review. Based on what you have found we find that there is only trivial coverage in secondary sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, those reviews contain substantive commentary and are certainly more than trivial. I can't imagine any possible way that deleting sourced content about this film improves Knowledge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

they are capsule reviews, all contextualization with little commentary. For commentary I count one an a half paragraphs nothing critical, once sentence nothing critical, three paragraphs one critical statement about aesthetics, two paragraphs and the only really critical review, four sentences nothing critical. How are these not capsule reviews?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The reviews that Arxiloxos cites are far from trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The reviews cited are mostly standard newspaper reviews with the usual mix of explanation and commentary. To call these "capsule reviews" and eliminate them from consideration would eliminate the vast majority of newspaper reviews cited on Knowledge. None are purely plot summaries, but comment on the good and bad things about the film, so the characterization that these contain contain "all contextualization with little commentary" is inaccurate. Michitaro (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This AFD is not a substitute for cleanup. At least one review from any establishment can make this movie notable. Why would widespread papers matter more? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
SOUND Keep. The thing has only been recently released and is getting more coverage than what even might be expected for an Indie documentary. Sheesh. While the nominator is welcome to his opinion about what contitutes trivial coverage, we are more concerned with coverage being IN reliable sources and offering enough information with which to write and create a properly encyclopedic article. We have just that. Sources offering enough information with which to write an article to benefit our readers. And in agreement with those above, notability requires the availability of sources, and not that the be IN an article. Indiewire is quite substantial in its coverage. So is that of The Fix, Village Voice, Orange Papers, Covering Media, and Shockya. And contrary to the nom's feeling otherwise, Los Angeles Times offers more-than-trivial coverage, New York Post offers more-than-trivial coverage, Newsday offers more-than-trivial coverage, and Variety offers more-than-trivial coverage. There are many other such examples found through diligent BEFORE. Adding them all together we have an overwhelming meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:Notability (films) is easily met. I would suggest that the nominator might wish to withdraw in the face of the cold front? Schmidt, 21:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

you seem to be suggesting that a AFD closing as keep is a black mark on a nominators record, don't worry my "e"-go can take it :). In my opinion there are a lot more good reasons for letting an AFD run it's course than there are to give it a premature withdraw.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A withdrawl is not a "black mark", and sure... an AFD might run for the full seven days. The essays WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW suggest why an AFD might be closed early when there appears an overwhelming consensus in either direction. Schmidt, 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the essays, neither one of them elaborate on your "suggestion" that I withdraw the nomination which is still a puzzling comment for you to make. I'm chalking your suggestion that I withdraw the nomination up to the fact that you believed it was a good setup for what you thought was a clever pipe comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pipe comment? Interesting, but your "clever pipe comment" remark need not be addressed. Essays have their place, even if not policy. I suggested a withdrawal in light of consensus running strongly against a delete, and you declined. A close in a few days will serve the encyclopedia just as well as a snow close might. Schmidt, 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

oh, I just checked your page, and you use the AFD tool. That explains a lot.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point being? Schmidt, 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That you keep score, and display a link on your page for others to see. It explains why you would think I might want to withdraw...because you would.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I might. But you need not.

It IS an interesting tool, yes? I keep a link on my userpage simply for easy access... so I (and others) can occasionally check on myself without having to dig through my talk page acrhives for the link as it was provided to me last year. In now looking, I see my deletes are outnumbering my keeps... but even with my growing deletionist tendencies (gasp), my opinions in either direction are far more often in line with consensus than not. The tool provides better information than THIS table I had been keeping on my AFD opinions. Way less work too. Schmidt, 03:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The assertion that the film is not notable based on the number of theatres screening the movie is not a valid one. With rare exceptions, most documentaries never have a wide theatrical release. For example, none of the five Academy Award nominees for Best Documentary Feature this year were shown in more than 100 theatres during its widest release. The eventual winner, Undefeated was in only five theatres its opening weekend (compared to nine for Bill W. (film)) and expanded to only 21 theatres during its widest release. Igbo (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree fully. Distribution, awards, historic notability, etc., are attributes (many set to apply to older films) that we might consider if the GNG is not met, but they are NOT mandates of WP:NF. As we already have WP:GNG surpassed, these "attributes" for when the GNG might not be met, do not even need to be considered. A film topic does not need to meet them if otherwise determinable as notable. Schmidt, 05:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Significant coverage has been show per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Film has received coverage in reliable sources in the form of full reviews. A capsule review is a short blurb about the film, usually in a long list of films that simply recap the plot; that's not what we have here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I have been making the case for mention of this film in the Alcoholics Anonymous main article Since February 2011. That case applies to this article as well, which is detailed in my argument with Coffeepusher who appears to be universally opposed to the notability of this film. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous#AA_in_film Souris40 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
As it seems consensus is finding this film notable, inclusion at Alcoholics Anonymous#AA in film is not inappropriate. I see no problem there that a discussion here is not addressing. Schmidt, 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Another approach to satisfying WP:Notability (films) is whether the film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. Bill W. was edited by Patrick Gambuti, Jr., who is an Emmy Award winning editor. I would think that working on the first feature-length documentary film about someone considered to be one of the most Important People of the 20th Century would be a major part of someones career. Souris40 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice that Gambuti has won Emmys, but less cogent in this case than we having wide coverage OF the film itself. If there were an article on Patrick Gambuti showing this film as being a "major part of his career", through sources and awards and coverage of his work editing it, that argument would have stronger merit. WP:SIGCOV is by far the stongest argument here. Schmidt, 14:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Please note that Souris has been trying to get this film redlinked on the AA page since Febuary...when it had been screened at one show. At that time it didn't have any notability yet ~~Souris edit warred for a little while against consensus~~. If this page is kept then we should include it on the page.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear here, the discussion between you and he on that talk page does not make it appear at all that he wishes it to be a redlink, but was him simply arguing for its inclusion therein. And rather than "edit warred for a little while against consensus, the discussuion on that talk page was between only three people... you, he, and an editor now-indef-blocked for repeated BLP violations... three do not create consensus, specially when one of the three gets blocked for repeated policy violations. And the one-time reversion of his proper February 15 edit to the article resulted in that discussion... just as behavior policy would have happen... and did not turn into an edit war. So let's not color this civil discussion with use of the term edit war, as doing so misrepresents what actually occured. And even were it to be deleted here (unlikely) and become a redlink there, its iclusion there is perfectly fine, not against policy nor guideline, and supported by consensus. What must be underscored here is that a topic need not itself be notable, nor must it have an article, to possibly merit a mention in some other article if properly sourced. That said, it's there now... AND sourced.. and will remain no matter what happens here. The guidelines toward a film's notability perhaps allowing a separate article are not at all the same as policy allowing at least a mention to be included elsewhere. Even in the unlikley case of it somehow to be found non-notable and deleted here, the film would still merit a mention in the list there per its verifiability... and THAT's per policy. Schmidt, 04:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. That did not happen, nor does the record support it. To paraphrase a quote from another notability discussion, the penumbra cast by a large number of lesser value sources added together can meet notability in the same way that a criminal case can be won with circumstanial evidence alone. In the case of saving this film page from deletion, and preserving its rightful place on the AA page, the scales are clearly tipped in the direction of "keep." Souris40 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

you are both correct, I will strike the edit war comment. However we can not disregard The Artist's contributions. While I do understand that his tenure at Knowledge ended poorly, he was a valuable contributor on the AA page for years, and consensus is not determined by a set number of editors, rather all the editors who came to the discussion which in this case was three, two established editors of the AA page, and one newcomer to the community, and let's be honest in February it wasn't notable. I'm a little surprised MichaelQSchmidt at your heavy handed approach to including this film no matter what on a page you have never edited before. Perhaps you should become a community participant before coming down on us for not following policy as you would have it. Unfortunately I must admit that my participation on this discussion has contributed to the tone of this discussion so I can only complain so hard.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - It has coverage under WP:RS and passes WP:NF. →TSU 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The ignuwente

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

No evidence that the word ignuwente (or ignuente) exists or was never used to denote this specific fictional character, hoax? --Cavarrone (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete No independent sources. Probably a hoax. Funny one though. Tigerboy1966 14:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, no sources of any kind. Hoax, Speedy G3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete -- article already exists. — CactusWriter 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Toonami (Rebirth)-Adult Swim

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

Why, the Toonami article has more information about them. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A1 and A10. I see no context from what I can make out of this article (I don't know what Toonami is) and it looks apparant to me its a duplicate of Toonami. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A10 as this same revival of the show has been addressed in Toonami#April Fools Day 2012 and revival, this represents duplicated content, or if not, an unneeded content fork. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 20:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A10 There is already an article that has this info in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Essential Collection (Atomic Kitten)

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

Non-notable and failed to chart, plus no coverage in sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete "the fifth compilation album from Atomic Kitten" is unlikely to be notable, and as far as I can tell it doesn't meet music notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this compilation album; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow 07:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - No evidence of independent notability and no information worth merging. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 12:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax - replaced by redirect. JohnCD (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Earl of Gowry

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

Hoax. No such title exists. Source added does not exist. Tryde (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete G3 as blatant hoax. No sources exist, false source given. Pure invention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Or you could just redirect it to Earl of Gowrie as a fairly commonly used alternative spelling. (William Betham used it.) Be imaginative! Deletion nominations aren't the only tools in your toolboxes. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

April the tapir

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

Contested WP:PROD. Sent to WP:AfD in accordance with WP:CONTESTED. While this article appeals to my love of whimsey, it would appear to fail the test for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep seems to be covered in reliable sources. Maybe my whimsy threshold is lower than the nom's. Tigerboy1966 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge with Belize Zoo until there is some more on the subject. I think the current text would be a good addition to the zoo article. If the section expands enough it can be split out again. Don Lammers (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Has 2 independent sources, therefore meets notability guidelines. Op47 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - any tapir that gets a government minister to her birthday party must have a reasonable level of notability. There are already multiple news sources in the article, I suspect there will be others available too, over recent years, particularly in April. Sionk (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

IAR Keep- Oldest living in captivity where also the national animal. Pushing known age limits for her kind. Dru of Id (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed case of not Knowledge:Autobiography. Dru of Id (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, guess we don't have to worry about refs from her blog or her facebook profile.--Shirt58 (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep (as article creator) This tapir is a) the oldest living tapir in captivity, and b) her birthday (27 April) is now celebrated as National Tapir Day in Belize (the tapir is also the national animal of Belize), and World Tapir Day (see www.tapirday.org). Also referenced in a number of news articles. Many thanks, Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Golden Apple Foundation

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

I was about to start abbreviating this outrageously promotional article, but I don't think the subject is notable . It's been here from 2009; about a dozen eds. made trivial corrections, but nobody seems to have thought whether it belongs here in the first place. I think that's typical for articles from that period, when it seems we accepted a remarkable level of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep The article in its current form seems promotional. However, clicking on the news button above, leads me to think that this passess WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 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) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep A quick Google News search shows plenty of reliable sources, such as the Chicago Daily Herald, Examiner, and several local publications without even digging into archives or investigating deeper. Suggest COI tags for the user and article and taking an axe to the article to remove uncited promotion. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - People have said that there are lots of reliable sources, yet have not provided any, either here or on the article. Unless and until that happens, I will vote delete. ItsZippy 20:27, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Needs independent coverage, and I don't see any. Tigerboy1966 14:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete both as hopelessly promotional and also as no true evidence of notability I would consider rewriting it, but it cannot be done without sources. And no matter what the published sources are that might be findable, the present article would need total rewriting--it could not possibly be abridged. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete lack of third party reliable sources and due to promotional concerns -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

AppLoader

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

No significant third-party coverage and Google doesn't support with additional information. Be sure to include NRG Global when doing search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 3 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) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, also per the talkpage: even the creator(s) couldn't find any useful. mabdul 19:50, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete No significant third party sources. Steven Walling • talk 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Once PORNBIO is cleared up, this might well be renominated. Earlier AfD results don't really bear much on this one, IMO, or on a next one. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ty Russell

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, no independent, substantial media coverage. The mere fact of some group awards and scene awards in an industry-internal promotional award scheme, which regularly fails to draw any attention from outside independent media, is irrelevant to notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails all plausible notability criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep this article. The fact that he is not well-covered in sources does not make him less or more notable than he already might or might not be. Sure, he fails both guidelines, but that should not be the reason to delete this article. There are other guidelines and policies that this subject may follow, such as verification policy. I've learned my lesson from WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack. These awards might not make him more notable, but right now there are not yet any directly related topics that have been covered in Knowledge. Also, this article helps serves readers know more about this person's resume than what readers should more or less know. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? "The fact that he is not well-covered in sources does not make him less or more notable"? In Knowledge policy, notability is coverage in sources. Your argument is completely out of touch with basic principles of this place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  - We are discussing this person who has appeared in at least four or more porn movies. "Notability" is just a guideline, not a policy. What basic principles? Educate readers what they want, or take away pages of any subjects just because they do not follow the rules? --George Ho (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Has won two awards, DAVE and AVN. Notability is borderline but sufficient per long standing PORNBIO criteria: "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award". Appeared in multiple movies. Keep also per the first AfD, which closed with a clear cut Keep. — Becksguy (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exclusion of any award for the PORNBIO is discussed in WT:notability (people). As I said, this person may fail the PORNBIO, but this person applies to other policies (verification and BLP) and to other guidelines (Notability not temporary). I have checked the article again and found out that he won awards for just sex scenes with others. The fact that these awards are either dubious or reliable to verify notability and that (however) PORNBIO is under discussion are irrelevant to this person's overall notability and to his multiple appearances. --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep in agreement with the keep of 2 years ago and with arguments of George Ho and Becksguy. We do not have any realistic expectation that mainstream news media will cover porn actors (unless the actor does something outside their genre) and so notability to their genre is a plausable enough consideration. Schmidt, 06:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- See my comment above, as PORNBIO is currently disputed in the other talk page. As for the genre, PORNBIO does not accurately define people who has appeared in porn movies. Instead, it wants a person to be notable by 1) individual performance awards, 2) "unique contributions to the genre", 3) multiple appearance in "mainstream media" (I don't know which mainstream). Whether he fails all criteria does not make him less notable, as you said, per NTEMP. --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - As George Ho points out, WP:PORNBIO is indeed disputed. It is unstable and chaotic, and is the subject of a recent ongoing RfC. Criteria #1 relating to "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award" (in essentially the same form) has been in the guideline since it's inception in 2006 (when it was a separate guideline). Excluding scene and ensemble awards is an extremely recent and unstable addition and there is no community wide consensus to make these and other changes, as evidenced by the the DISPUTE tag, the edit war in the guideline, and the RfC. The stable criteria that has been in force since 2006 is the only valid version that can be applied in this AfD. Otherwise we are in the untenable position of attempting to apply a guideline that is in chaos to what is supposed to be a rational and deliberative process. It's like changing the applicable law in the middle of a jury trial. If and when the the dust settles from the PORNBIO dispute and RfC, then we will have a new guideline. Or not. — Becksguy (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The only disputed thing about the current PORNBIO is whether it should be even more restrictive. Epbr123 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. As Epbr123 quite accurately notes, the disputed tag on WP:PORNBIO relates to arguments that its text should be made even more restrictive. Talk page discussion as well as repeated AFD/DRV outcomes demonstrate the consensus that, while AVN Awards are seen as the most important for their industry, some AVN Award categories lack the significance to contribute substantially to notability. The article lacks any reliable sourcing for biographical content, and several of the references are dubious. In the absence of any shred of reliably sourced biographical information, deletion of the article is consistent with established practice for BLPS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The disputed PORNBIO includes arguments that would: (1) leave it as is, (2) make it more restrictive, or (3) delete it completely. NOTABILITY is a guideline, not policy, and SNGs have evolved to handle special cases and niche categories, and for clarification. We have a long standing consensus, for some six years, that BORNBIO (before all the recent messing around with it) applied to PORN actors. Not only does this article pass the consensus version of PORNBIO, but it includes two awards, which satisfies BIO1E. This is not the place to argue what PORNBIO should, or should not be, rather this is the place to argue whether this article meets PORNBIO in it's long standing consensus version. Which it clearly does as per: "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award". Arguing that this AdD should be adjudicated based on a possible future version of PORNBIO violates CRYSTAL, common sense, and due process. If and when PORNBIO is properly modified with community wide consensus, then that version will apply to future AfD discussions, but not here and not now. — Becksguy (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Keeani Lei

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Sole basis for notability claim is a single nomination for an industry-internal award. This is an award which regularly fails to draw any independent coverage from outside mainstream sources and as such is hardly relevant for notability anyway. Moreover, the nomination in this case was not for her personally but merely for a scene she participated in. I don't know what the current formal status of the disputed pornbio "guideline" is, after the need for its reform has been under constant debate for a while, and honestly I hardly care at this point, but this one fails even the ridiculously low threshold of inclusion used there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per my arguments in the prior AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Maya (entertainer)

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

Article was deleted after BLPPROD process and then recreated. It has been deleted numerous times under different titles (Maya_(entertaiment) and Mai_Thu_Huong), including most recently prior to this recreation at AfD Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Mai_Thu_Huong. This still appears to be a new actress with minor roles, insufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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) 00:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Well, it does say she had a "chart hit", so that's something, but we still need reliable sources to back that up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 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, Sandstein 07:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Consensus is not to delete (Bearian's opinion was not taken into account, as it appears to consist solely of an entirely inappropriate expression of personal prejudice), and whether or not a merger is appropriate can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 07:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance

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

The neoligsm appears to have been a mis-translation from Russian military jargon. The concept almost certainly exists in western military operations, however the phrase "Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance" is rarely used in English and when used refers to the non-military concept of routine searches for infectious or toxic agents. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

1. If the "neoligsm" is a mis-translation, could you, please, contribute to it correction? 2. It sounds offensive when anybody calls a notion academically recognized (in Russian Academy of Sciences) as “Russian military jargon”. Can you prove your points about "mis-translation" and "Russian military jargon"? 3. If the concept exists in western military operations, might you, please, be more specific and provide the community with a reference/link? 4. You significantly exaggerated the rumor about rare use of the notion. I've got 934000 responses for "Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance" in Google search engine and 680000 responses for "Sanitary-epidemiological reconnaissance". 5. Doesn't it contradict the Knowledge's policy when somebody nominates for deletion anything that (s)he doesn’t know, understand or recognize, does it?

6. Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance is a literally translated name of an academically recognised notion & practice that has existed & was successfully tested and applied in field conditions for decades on vast expanses of Russia beyond Ural mountains and Asian part of the USSR, military operations included. The notion is a staple word in Russian school of Epidemiology for decades. In every Epidemiology textbook entire chapter is devoted to the notion, undergraduates spend many hours practicing their skill in conducting sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance. Unfortunately, the notion looks as hardly known and imagined by western professors in the densely populated West. Everybody should keep in mind that there are still many uninhabited places and areas of pre-planned deployment of valuable personnel 7. It seems no wonder that essentially the similar practice is recognized by the WHO and in Australia as a part of a wider application, encompassing chemical and radiological hazards as well. They call it “All-hazards approach” US Department of Health and Human Services in the page 300 of speaks about other surveillance systems to collect data on indicators of disease or disease potential: animal population (animal morbidity and mortality by a disease that can affect humans, the presence of a disease agent in wild and domestic sentinel animals, vectors of a disease) and environmental data. The book calls it as early-warning systems of disease potential. 8.I wonder, a) if English Knowledge should be an anglo-saxon one with practices recognized by the West or it might be an internationally friendly one as well? b) if we should neglect history stretching into the XXI century?GenOrl (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Reconnaissance. The author of this article has already inserted information on the subject into that article. This jawbreaking phrase (one that only a bureaucrat could love) is virtually never used in English according to my search (I found just one usage at Google Scholar, and Google itself turned up pretty much nothing but this article). --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I note that the nominator and another editor above have directed their arguments at the phrase "sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance" rather than the concept described in the article. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the fact that the title is a rarely used phrase in English is not in itself a reason for deletion. It would make it easier to look for sources if the article creator could tell us the Russian name of this concept if it doesn't have a common name in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. It was probably incorrect of me to call this a neologism. GenOrl more correctly describes it as a literal translation from Russian. I do know that Western militaries have invested billions into research into how to detect and protect themselves from biological and chemical threats. Is it possible that this is a uniquely Russian perspective? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Really, I couldn't have found a common name for the concept in English. For decades Russians were obsessed with epidemiology of infections and had huge biological warfare program. The concept and the routine of ‘Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance’ is known in Russian medicine, military including, as санитарно-эпидемиологическая разведка. An academic dictionary gives also эпидемиологическая разведка as a synonym. I agree that the name has more than one syllable and looks unusually long for the busy English. But in Russian the name completely describes what the concept means and encompasses. I wouldn’t call it a unique Russian perspective rather than a different, ideologically and theoretically motivated, approach. In Russian medicine and military strategy prophylaxis of infectious diseases is a corner stone of management.GenOrl (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that the Soviet Military Encyclopedia has the equivalent of a redirect from this phrase to "medical reconnaissance". Maybe that would be a better title for this article, as there seems to be quite a few sources using that term for the concept described in our article (as well as plenty of false positives using the phrase in different senses): Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The title of “medical reconnaissance” would sound great, but the latter notion has a more general meaning, although bulk of it will form the old known “(Sanitary) epidemiological reconnaissance”. I have no objection for a wider title but it will suppose the description of “medical reconnaissance” in the beginning before slipping to “(Sanitary) epidemiological reconnaissance”. Knowledge doesn’t provide any information on the wider subject, Google gives just unsystematic references. I’m not a professional in “medical reconnaissance” as it implies specific terms and notions so I’m able to give but a few trivial sentences in the foreword. Editors will be uncompromising and won’t tolerate such platitude.GenOrl (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This appears to be what Russian call one school of epidemiology as they practice medicine. They also prescribe enemas and yogurt for everything. English Knowledge ia not a compendium of second-world health remedies. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I find such bigotry breathtaking, especially from someone trusted with admin rights. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the comment about yogurt was just a joke. If this is a major branch of Russian epidemiology then it probably is notable. Lets keep things on topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I wont object from the deletion. At least I've tried. But prejudice & misinformation don’t promote exchange of ideas. Bearian made a remarkable judgment on a tool for preventing the spread of highly contagious and communicable infections. It’s an example of an English Knowledge administrator judging beyond his sphere of competence. In Russian Knowledge authors struggle with administrators from FSB and Stalinists, honorable Bearian has demonstrated that English Knowledge has its problem too. Some people don’t suspect that even the best heart surgery clinic in Albany, New York can’t be guaranteed from a quack doctor with something more sophisticated than enemas & yogurt.GenOrl (talk) 02:00, 16 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, Sandstein 07:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I am appalled at Bearian's frankly offensive comments. This is a perfectly notable foreign-language concept, and he appears to be insulting it just because he's not familiar with it. This is the *point* of wikipedia, to spread free access to all the world's information, not just to shut down stuff in accordance with our WP:Systemic Bias. Bearian, seriously, do you say these sort of things frequently? Should I file an RFC? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Personal tragedy does not equate to notability by our standards, and consensus indicates no reason for an exception. My sympathies to the family. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Coble Family

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

Knowledge is not a memorial. Newly created article about three children who died in a car accident. Extremely tragic and touching, but nothing that sets these children apart from thousands of others who die in car accidents, except for the fact that their parents have created a private charitable foundation in their memory. Public attention to the case has otherwise apparently been restricted to a few local media. WP:PROD tag was removed by page creator without a comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I'll agree with everyone, touching story. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, no notability demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete A tragedy which as resulted in some good, but the family is not notable for anything but the tragic event, which is not sufficient for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I believe Coble Kids Foundation could become non-redlinked if it gains some notability and attention. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Full Disclosure:
- I am the father of the three children mentioned in this accident.
- I have no idea who created this original Wiki page on our story. I stumbled over it from a weekly Google search with my name.
- I am willing to update the article with more information if the topic is kept. The original author did write part of our story, but not the entire story. Maybe the remaining information can be considered for potential KEEP status. Note: this is my first Wiki post so forgive any mistakes. While I'm a software engineer by trade I haven't edited many Wiki's to date.

Without going into long descriptive details of why this should be kept, I'll link a list of information which happened after the accident which is notable:

Around 6 months after the accident, Lori (my wife) got pregnant with triplets which were two girls and a boy, the same sex's we lost in the accident. This story ran all over the world and we also did a Today show interview talking about it.
The triplets were born healthy on April 30th 2008. This again ran all over the world.
5 weeks after birth, one of the triplets Ashley Coble nearly died from Group-B Strep, in the same PICU where we stopped life support on Kyle Coble slightly over a year earlier. I have no reference for this because we kept it out of the media.
We entered into a very public court case against the state of california for a wrongful death suit. While the case itself could constitute an entire book, ultimately the case was lost and we were ordered to pay $291,534.04 to the state of california.
On October 25th 2010 Lori, Myself, and the triplets shot the Oprah Winfrey Show. OCRegister ref Oprah Website ref CNN YouTube ref with Oprah Video
The Oprah taping ran all over the world for at least 18+ months.
The Coble Kids Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization that raises money for new books and toys which are donated to the Children's Hospital of Orange County to be given to sick kids. This is the hospital where: Katie Coble was born, Kyle and Katie coble were taken from the accident and subsequently died., The triplets were born, and Ashley coble's life was saved even after the group of doctors told us she wasn't going to make it. --ChrisCoble (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely tragic for the family, but a fatal car accident is really only notable where it happened and then only for a week at most. No offense to the family, but this kind of thing truly does happen every day. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I am the creator of this article. This is not the everyday car crash tragedy. This is one that gain attention all over the world. It even caught the attention of Oprah, as Chris Coble has stated above. This article is NOT in anyway intended to be a memorial, but a place for someone to get more information on the tragedy. It is a very 'popular' story even 5 years later. I am honored that Chris himself has opted to keep the article, as I think this is a very special case. This article does need some editing, but not to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomerBird (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Again, I am sorry for your loss and for the family's tragedy, but Oprah is not the news, nor is she a source for anything, other than possibly her book list. Car accidents are simply not noteworthy unless they happen to you or someone you know. The fact that someone appeared on the Oprah show is not really notable. Oprah picked the stories she wanted to do. No one edited or reviewed her interviews and they were undoubtedly done to create ratings, not knowledge. Can't you step outside your own tragedy enough to see that? Fatal car accidents involving children and lawsuits DO happen every day. The only difference with the one under discussion here is that it happened to some of the people discussing it. Sorry to be so blunt, but the only people voting to keep are connected to the article and really haven't offered any argument other than they think it should be kept. Before this gets any more painful for the family, someone should close this with a delete so the family can move on with something at least. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reply I do understand your point and appreciate you being honest/blunt. I do agree car accidents, tragedies, and lawsuits happen all the time and a pretty safe blanket statement can be made that they are not worthy of Wiki. Totally agree. Many people all over the world were impacted by this story though, especially the birth of the triplets. I spent 5 years reading emails from everywhere, often in languages I couldn't read. Does this make it Wiki worthy? Maybe not, but it at least approaches the potential of being worthy. I'm personally fine no matter what happens, but I do disagree with the statement that this was a small, local, story. --ChrisCoble (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: p b p 18:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. There is evidence and agreement that this UFC event has garnered enough attention and significant coverage in independent sources to pass WP:GNG and therefore be notable enough for its own standalone article. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC 144

(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 demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The event took place over three months ago and all of the sources are either from before or the days after the event and are just the routine reporting of additions to the bill or reporting of the results. Mt king 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, sound more like a license plate number than an event. UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles aren't removed from the encyclopedia per opinions about that the topic's title sounds like. Northamerica1000 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per , , , , . Also per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Northamerica1000 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Every sports event will pass WP:GNG, but as ] is policy, for this event to be included it needs to demonstrate enduring notability. Mt king 09:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep WP:GNG > WP:NOT. Lugnuts (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to the appropriate annual omnibus article. Having articles like this is like having articles for every week in an NFL season. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or like having articles for every specific season of individual NFL teams. Oh wait, those exist. Beansy (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak Delete or merge to 2012 in UFC events. The article seems to primarily contain only routine coverage of fight results. There is really no well-sourced prose, as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT, to establish why this event is/was notable. Appears there may be non-MMA sources covering the event, but they aren't being used to establish notability of the event. If the article had prose written up and became more in line with UFC 94 or UFC 140 there would be more !vote of keep, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 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) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments from sock of indef blocked user--TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per rationale provided over at WP:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_149:_Aldo_vs._Koch_(2nd_nomination). In brief, there is currently a much larger discussion about WP:MMAEVENTS which is likely to be going to WP:MEDCAB and trying to act unilaterally to remove these articles in spite of that is disruptive to that process. I can't help but speculate this looks like a last ditch attempt by a partisan editor to avoid a consensus and bully a viewpoint through before dispute resolution can be brought to bear (just my observations of the discussion over at WP:MMANOT). -Rushyo 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per mtking. 107.16.78.114 (talk, contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Striking comments from blocked sockMt king 23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. UFC events do not fail WP:EVENT as MMA is not a routine sporting event. And as stated above, notability is not temporary and the timing of sources is irrelevant. The event was notable then, and still is now. Zeekfox (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails routine, fails coverage, fails notability, fails everything. Portillo (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Because a world title in a top organization was defended at the event, making it inherently notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep In Japan, Quinton fails weight, title contention, numbered event. Also, the proposers proposed reasons for failing is failing. This is not a sport event, it's an entertainment show that can be bought as PPV or on DVD at a later date. In my opinion, the classification is used wrong and UFC events should be classified differently. I didn't see the policy of "not statbook" beeing thrown this time, but it has earlier, and that is true. These pages tend to be "just a statbook". However, the Omnibus is *also* a statbook. The proposed solution to remove all UFC pages (numbered) to one page is beyond all reasonable reason. It has been said "it's just to save the UFC pages from deletion", but I truly fail to see how the Omnibus is going to save the information! The UFC 27 page is already lost. I see no end to this. Mazter00 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep for the time being; there is currently a RfC regarding the notability of MMA events. The topic passes WP:GNG and I feel the ongoing discussion regarding the handling of these events should take place in the relevant venues rather than taking these articles to AfD. Respectfully request that nominator withdraw nomination(s) until the RfC/MEDCAB/etc has concluded. None but shining hours (talk) 15:43, 21 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) 15:29, 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 21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT. BearMan998 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

a. UFC is not a league, b. it has about one championship event every three weeks not the one a year envisaged by the guideline and c. where are the secondary sources that establish that having such a fight makes the event notable. Mt king 04:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the UFC is a league and is the top league in MMA right now. Additionally, championships for each weight class are not defended every 3 weeks, instead they are in fact defended closer to the 1 year time frame like you just stated. BearMan998 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This only shows how Mtking has no idea on what is UFC or MMA . Evenfiel (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I said this the last time this article was brought up for deletion just before it was withdrawn, and I'll point to it again: the Japan Times source cited in the article establishes the event's lasting notability. It absolutely passes WP:NOT. I'd appreciate it if this comment wasn't deleted this time. Beansy (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment was deleted, too? Let's hope whoever's doing it doesn't keep violating WP:TALKO. Agent00f (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per first half of Rushyo. Nom is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). A compromise of merge to 2012 in UFC events is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

MERGE All Similar AfDs. There seems be a large number of MMA related pages in the sports category that all have very similar contents, same AfD arguments and same users making them. The fact that I have to copy/paste this several times is evidence enough. The procedure for multiple deletions should be used to nominate, say, all UFC events instead of one by one. Doing them individually seems to be a enormous waste of time (as evidenced by the last few months of this), and at least by doing noms all at once the space can get some sense of closure and a consistent way forward instead of the incoherent mess that it's left in. TL;DR: 200 nom >> 1 nom, just do the 1 for all applicable pages so everyone can move on. The objection to this has already been answered at nom for ufc 149. Agent00f (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per , , , , . Also per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually they don't, as each of them is either a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source (WP:GNG requires secondary sources) or is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event. Mt king 20:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a recommendation not a requirement, and not for events that happened just a couple months ago or whatnot, since secondary sources here refers to "information originally printed elsewhere". Tons of articles across a wide range of subjects don't have secondary subjects. Beansy (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep In this link, when talking about secondary sources notability,: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS#Secondary_sources_for_notability It states, "AFDs require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." It says right there, in plain English, that you must wait a couple of years before you can delete an article due to a lack of secondary sources. Just because the article is short right now and just because it lacks whatever sources you are looking for is NOT grounds for deleting it. It is grounds for IMPROVING it. Why would you keep going around putting things up for deletion instead of trying to IMPROVE them? Gamezero05 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no indication that this will ever reach that standard. You are saying lets keep it on the off chance it becomes notable, like we do for all high school football players. Mt king 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't similar to high school football players. Irrelevant point. Gamezero 05 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, you still introduced "secondary sources" as an argument here despite it being inherently inapplicable. We should stick to arguments that actually apply don't you think? Beansy (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Event was notable, significant media coverage, still has long-lasting impact (Event where Henderson reached his title and furthermore, Henderson and Edgar are scheduled to fight again). UFC events have never been a problem before and now they are much bigger than in the previous years. I don't see why it became a problem all of the sudden. I honestly think that a small group of people is starting these debates with the sheer goal of accumulating edits in detriment of improving the encyclopedia. --Loukinho (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (Knowledge:Non-admin closure) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Alphonso (mango)

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

"considered one of the best in terms of sweetness, richness and flavor" is without any citation, after potential removal (I tried to do this) we are without claim of notability. Bulwersator (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus easily passing WP:GNG:

BBC News: India's much-loved Alphonso mango hit by poor weather
Macleans: The king of mangoes
The Economic Times: Vagaries of nature, rising input costs to kill the famed Alphonso mango crop
The Guardian (Newsblog): Do you know Alphonso mango?
DNA News: Cold delays Alphonso mango's arrival in Mumbai

—Northamerica1000 09:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The article's lead sentence has been revised as: "Alphonso (हापुस Haapoos in Marathi, હાફુસ in Gujarati) is a mango cultivar that is considered as one of the best in terms of sweetness, richness and flavor.

WorldCat
Rapid Risk Assessment of Acute Public Health Events. WHO.2012
Environmental Health Risk Assessment. 2004
Principles of Epidemiology. Second Edition. US Department of Health and Human Services
Subramanian, Sarmishta (May 5, 2010). "The king of mangoes". Macleans. Retrieved May 19, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The sources above, which I've checked, are more than enough to rescue the article. Individual claims are a matter of normal editing. The sources provided can be briefly quoted if more is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Very Damn Strong Keep Never delete these delicious mangoes :D Very much notable. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, I thing that anybody may close this as a wonderful keep Bulwersator (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep per above. Secret of success (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note - It appears that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination, per their comment above. Northamerica1000 05:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- his Bulwersator (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV 4

AfDs for this article:

(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 two months away. The coverage it has to date is limited to the routine type of event announcements. as is only currently sourced to MMA fan sites and UFC.com. Mt king 03:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete and speedy close. Pure speculation about an event that might be held this summer. There's more sourcing out there for an article about Jennifer Aniston's next husband. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge to 2012 in UFC events. Delete The article cites only a single non-MMA source (and it is routine coverage of a MMA event) thus is a borderline fail of WP:GNG. The article lacks well-sourced prose as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT to discuss why the event is notable. It contains only routine fight card listings and possible speculation. Actually, based on that, I'm already changing my !vote. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:11, 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) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. There is no WP:NOT violation with every single mixed martial arts event and it is disruptive to continue AfD nominating each and every one of them, and is against WP:POINT guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeekfox (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that people keep creating articles on numerous MMA events around the globe, regardless of notability, could also be considered pointy. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How so? Most of the articles in question (UFC/Strikeforce events) were created well before all the debate and discussion of whether or not they should exist. There was no point to be made because nobody opposed them. If there are a bunch of amateur bouts just now getting articles made as a result of the discussion, I could see the violation, but my reasoning for keeping this article is that the chain of UFC event articles has long pre-dated any sort of controversy, while throwing AfD nominations on almost every 2012 UFC article is a WP:POINT issue that needs to stop. Zeekfox (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing to show this future event will have the lasting significance required to show notability or that there will be anything but routine sports coverage. If there is an appropriate omnibus article then it could be merged there, but at this time it certainly doesn't appear notable enough for its own article. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete This is just an ordinary fight card that fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Mdtemp (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to UFC on Fuel TV. I consider UFC on Fuel and *FX as beeing "B-shows" where the notabillity is harder to prove, perhaps even so hard to prove that it fails the notabillity requirements and needs to be deleted. However, deleting all current and future UFC events is the wrong way to go. There is an open RFC, and open RFC/U and MedCab may be a possibillity for the more deeply involved parties. If the Omnibus can "save" Numbered UFC Events from deletion, just by placing all pages into one page, then an Omnibus could be created for UFC on Fuel as well, with the same result. Just to repeat myself, bluntly deleting information is bad. Mazter00 (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Nomination is known to be disruptive to ongoing RFC. Article is a breakout of notable topic list of UFC events that it is inappropriate to merge there due to balance (see WP:SS). A compromise of merge to 2012 in UFC events is also possible. But most important, an ongoing local agreement of how to prevent disruptive AFDs needs to be forged first. JJB 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails news, fails routine, fails coverage, fails notability, fails crystal ball, fails everything. Portillo (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete I don't see how it meets any notability criteria. None of the fights appear important (e.g., no championships are on the line), there's nothing to show this event will have any long term significance, and there's no indication that there has been or will be anything but routine sports coverage. Jakejr (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ruby Tuesday (actress)

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

article solely based on an IMDB entry but evidently a stage name based on the Stones song "Ruby Tuesday" of 1966, two years earlier for an actress who, if she was notable, will be somewhere else on wp under her own name. Merits a note in the low-budget film She-Devils on Wheels 1968 to say that the actress is unidentified, but not a stub based on a single IMDB stagename. All the other actors and actresses in the film are redlinks, no reason why whoever is under the stagename shouldn't be a redlink too. Chances are if she later became famous, which none of her co-stars did, it'd be recorded in a source. But it isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I wouldn't be surprised if the IMDb entry for this person actually combined the careers of multiple people using this same pseudonym. But even if all the roles belonged to the same person, it's not clear that she would be notable. IMDb has no biographical information about her, and most of the news articles linked on her IMDb page actually refer to Ruby Tuesday (restaurant). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
THAT particular result is caused by the stupidity of the IMDB database net crawler program and its searching for and adding items that simply include a actor's name, no matter the "name" possibly belonging to something else entirely. Sometimes this can lead to sources usable by Knowledge. More often not. Our own "Find sources", as set by an AFD template, is itself imperfect. Schmidt, 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. BLP violation, associating one or more performers in mainstream films with one or more porn performers using similar pseudonyms. No indication that any of the various performers whose careers are combined on the IMDB page are remotely notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as lacking decent sourcability. Schmidt, 06:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Now a MILF pornstar it seems..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Milwaukee School of Languages

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

No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep – Per Knowledge:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Essay, not a policy. And even that essay says that artciles has be properly sourced. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:40, 19 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 03:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep – sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. We delete when sources are not available not because they have not been added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There are legitimate concerns about the current state of the article, its references, and its overall notability. However, there are also legitimate concerns that the article could be improved to address the problems noted here. -Scottywong | confess _ 23:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BMI Gaming

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

The information posted for BMI Gaming is questionably accurate, and the more research I do, the more this page appears to just be an advertisement for the company. I don't think the information is appropriate for a Knowledge page and I think more factual information about the company would be useful ShawnM25 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, couldn't find any real coverage about the company. Also per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. mabdul 11:47, 7 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 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I accepted this article through AfC in 2008. It seems to meet notability criteria and was not overly promotional at the time. Perhaps it can be neutralised and better written, but this is an argument for improvement not deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 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, →B music ian 03:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Could it be a subsidary of IGT? UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment:Can you clarify this comment for me? IGT is a disambiguation and I cannot see the relation between BMI and IGT (atm). mabdul 11:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There are two pages on their site that may help us find sources. Feature on Anderson Cooper 360 and BMI in the News. If we can find a secondary source for the A360 clip, I think we'd have enough for notability, at least. — trlkly 00:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:GNG; the article contains no references to substantial coverage by reliable sources, only claims of inclusion in various rankings, which is not a sufficient basis to write a verifiable article on; also the reference links are broken. Sandstein 07:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep If the information is inaccurate, this could be fixed, but it doesn't need deletion. Dew Kane (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep Needs more sources and doesn't meet WP:NPOV, but I suspect with the help of a decent editor this could be improved. Would help if the refs weren't all dead links. -Rushyo 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. The idea that this is a content fork has dramatically failed to gain any purchase in this discussion. I cannot see any other reason given for deletion, let alone a reason that has rallied any consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

War criminals in Canada

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

The article is a content fork - Knowledge:Content forking - Rapists in Canada and Murderers in Canada are next? its totally undue - there is no special problem with war criminals in Canada - we have no War criminals in any other country article, and there are other countries with far greater coverage of the issue - the whole story, such minor as it is , is easily coverable at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the group that is focusing on the one or two cases that have been brought to trial. - a couple of not notable books commenting about war criminals in Canada do not make a notable NPOV topic for an encyclopedic article.Youreallycan 03:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Canada has had a long history of allowing war criminals to reside in their country. This article has plenty of citations and has very little to do with the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, i.e. it is not a fork! In addition, it is written from a NPOV. JunoBeach (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Note - I also have issues with the articles neutrality and there are comments on the talkpage of the article in this regards - a WP:NPOV template I added has been removed without addressing the content issues by the above user - diff - This discussion about the article on User:Bwilkins talkpage is also further detail to consider.Youreallycan 12:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep What are you alleging this is a content fork of? Did you mean POV fork? Cleanup is necessary, and perhaps a rename. "Status of war criminals in Canada" might be better. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain I came to this page on fairly routine newpage patrol. I was intrigued by what was going on there and decided to help the creator find a new consensus. I believe that the way this has always been done on wikipedia is by editing the article - not by engaging in edit wars over the NPOV tag. The NPOV is a tag is one that we can live with Canada's immigration policy has not been neutral either. But it does not mean that Wikipidia should distort facts. If there is a risk of confusing the public the NPOV tag should stay until resolved - but this is not a reason for censoring the article on political grounds.
1. However the NPOV has not been added in accordence to the recomendation of Responsible Tagging Knowledge:Responsible tagging. Infact YouRealyCan has not participated in the attempt to form a new consensus by explaining what POV, facts, opinion are missing from the article. If s/he has such opinions he has kept them to himself. I would call his work disruptive editing - but he has not edited the article -
2. The non existence of an article as a proof of non-noteablity is based on a logical fallacy - for example a dearth of swiss war criminals is not an indicator about this article. This type of sensationalism is the reason we argue from policy not from norms.
3. Regarding the uniqueness of Canada - the sources indicate that Canada is the only participant in the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Tribunals to give unlimited safe Harbor to Nazi war criminals. (Though the USA has had a similar stain in the past - one also worth an article in the future.)
4. Since policy without norms is difficult to interpret the following are a number of subject that would be censored in a less open encyclopedia:
  - Japanese war crimes
  - Dachau massacre - provides a good balance between two controversial POV
  - Historical revisionism (negationism) - what is going on here.
5. As pointed out already on the talk page, the role of the SWC in this subject is currently high-profile since they have kept the issue current with their global initiative operation last chance. However the sources indicate that the same claims have made by a much larger group of organizations - Canadian and independent. The role of SWC is marginal when compared with those of Lawyers, Judges and the Canadian legislatures.
6. Regarding the notability of the books in the further reading section. This claim is rather blatant evidence of a lack of WP:Before. These text books a frequently cited in scientific literature.
7. The author David Matas is a noted Canadian lawyer and academic who was named to the Order of Canada and nominated in 2010 for the Nobel Prize for his work related to the Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China of Falun Gong BO; talk 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. How is this a content fork? It looks like its a notable category in its own regard, and I think it meets WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

TAGOS Leadership Academy

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

No independent sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Once again, please read Knowledge:Notability (high schools) where it is stated that high schools are notable. ---GouramiWatcher 23:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are referring to an essay, not a policy... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:17, 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 03:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep – sufficient sources are available to meet WP:GNG. We delete when sources are not available not because they have not been added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficient sources available to pass WP:GNG and per consensus notability for high schools.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - per TF and the article looks notable. Passes WP:GNG. →TSU 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Michton

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

Was previously a proposed deletion on grounds of non-notability. I found a single 3rd party source which I have added to the article. Company are also featured in promotion materials produced by British Gas. I am currently undecided as to notability, so feel a discussion here is warranted. JulesH (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No opinion as nominator. (Just to clarify that my listing of this article is not intended as a !vote in favour of deletion) JulesH (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG:

Williamson, David (June 8, 2005). "Sweet success with move into America". Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales). Retrieved May 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Service stops factory from wasting energy". South Wales Evening Post. February 8, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 00:00, 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, →B music ian 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably Keep Based on what I read online, the company was founded in 1991 and has 50 employees. The references cited are a bit light for Knowledge's corporate notability guideline, but I think we should keep this article for the following reasons: (1) The company makes a product that is regionally-known; (2) There is no evidence that this article is an advertisement -- its just a decently-written stub describing a company; (3) WP:CHOCOLATE allows for Knowledge articles for all good chocolatiers. Okay maybe I'm biased because I love chocolate. NJ Wine (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Unclear why this was relisted again. The few "delete" opinions do not address the sources cited later in the discussion. Sandstein 07:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sunanda Pushkar

AfDs for this article:

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

This non-notable person is just wife of a famous politician. Doesn't have own identity. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. According to WP:BIO Max Viwe | Your Turn 20:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Which part of the entire notability guideline page WP:BIO does this above !vote pertain to? Referring to an entire page of guidelines doesn't state anything of significance. It's like stating that an article should be removed from the encyclopedia because of anything on the guideline page. Actually, this topic easily passes WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000 08:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete.~~ Or can be merged with his famous husband's article--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your "delete" recommendation as the nominator has already been taken into account. Also, you mean "her" famous husband. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Is an equity stake owner in a major professional sports team in India, was already notable for the scandal that ensued when her now-husband tried to bring the cricket team to Kerala.Pectore 15:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment -She is NOT "equity holder" of any IPL team. the "kochi team" was dissolved long back. her only identity is "wife of a famous person/politician" which violets the guidelines for having a separate article (that is also 1-2 statements in length).--Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Over the past three weeks, the nominator seems to have removed every single referenced statement from the article. I would strongly recommend that anyone participating in this AfD looks at this version of the article rather than the current one. While I rather doubt that the information there could be regarded as making her independently notable, it seems to be reliably sourced and should be considered here. PWilkinson (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment statements like "she hails from kashmir" and is a real life rebel" are personal details and were written just to expand the article with unnecessary/ unwarranted details. This article was started on the basis of her association with shashi tharoor and subsequent kochi controversy. Was nominated and deleted few times in past but created and written / expanded by same editors here. The article is complete in her present form about her. Knowledge is not a diary about people containing their trivial details that "She is a Kashmiri or this is her third marriage and all...There are approximately 20 million businesswomen here in Mumbai so should everyone create their article detailing they are from "sangli" "satara" etc. and had affair/ marriage 2-3 times followed by the names of their kids in wiki articles? Are Knowledge biographical article here to fullfill that objective?--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:56, 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) 23:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisting comment. If you want to get an article deleted you have to do more then just bold the word "delete". You actually have to make an argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - There may not be a particular thing we can say she "should" be notable for but if you look at the Google News and Google Books searches she does fulfill WP:BASIC, she "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There appear to be more than a hundred Google News hits alone on a variety of topics, not just mentioning her as someone's wife. She is as notable as Todd Palin, she just isn't American or male. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, because the person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; hence the topic passes WP:GNG:

Hassan, Ishfaq-ul- (April 14, 2010). "Sunanda Pushkar a rebel, family much revered by native village in Valley". Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved October 12, 2010.
"Sunanda Pushkar a last minute inclusion in IPL bidders group". Oneindia.in. April 18, 2010. Retrieved October 12, 2010.
Allana, Alia (April 18, 2010). "Suddenly SUNANDA". The Indian Express. Retrieved October 12, 2010.
Who is Sunanda Pushkar, the lady in Tharoor’s life? MSN News.
Sunanda continues to hold 19% stake in Rendezvous. The Times of India
Shashi Tharoor weds Sunanda Pushkar in Kerala - Times Of India The Times of India
"Sunanda Pushkar's father pleads that his daughter be left alone". Daily News and Analysis. April 14, 2010. Retrieved October 12, 2010.

—Northamerica1000 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment statements like "she hails from kashmir" and is a real life rebel" are personal details and were written just to expand the article with unnecessary/ unwarranted details. This article was started on the basis of her association with shashi tharoor and subsequent kochi controversy. Was nominated and deleted few times in past but created and written / expanded by same editors here. The article is complete in her present form about her. Knowledge is not a diary about people containing their trivial details that "She is a Kashmiri or this is her third marriage and all...There are approximately 20 million businesswomen here in Mumbai so should everyone create their article detailing they are from "sangli" "satara" etc. and had affair/ marriage 2-3 times followed by the names of their kids in wiki articles? Are Knowledge biographical article here to fullfill that objective?--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't the sort of statements one finds in a diary; that's the sort of information found in an encyclopedic biographical article. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and severely trout nominator The article used to look like this until the nominator came along and reduced the article to this in a series of edits that had no edit summaries. This was an entirely bad faith move on the nominator's part that was meant to influence the outcome of this AfD and they should be severely trouted if not taken to ANI for such surreptitious actions. The subject is clearly notable from the sources listed above. Silver seren 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast. It's happened before that somebody comes to a BLP, finds that the sources all suck, removes the sources and the content they refer to per WP:BLP but then finds that there is nothing left to base an article on so nominates it for deletion. However, I do agree that Adamstraw99 has "got some splainin to do". Adamstraw99, at first glance, the sources in the version shown by Silver seren didn't look that bad. Why did you remove them and gut the article, why didn't you use edit summaries and why didn't you say that you did this and why in your nomination statement? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Shashi Tharoor, as it seems that the coverage she received is in reason of her marriage with him. At the same time blame the nominator for his conduct. I've checked the sources and I find them accurate and supporting in their text the contents which reference them. If even he was convinced about a complete non-notability of the subject nothing authorized him on deleting all the text and the references without not even a note in the talk page. Cavarrone (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As the sources show above, she's received significant coverage separate from Tharoor and has become a celebrity on her own accord. Suddenly Sunanda by itself shows this. Silver seren 20:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep As per Silver Seren and added ref for her receiving sweat equity from Kochi Tuskers Kerala.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Relisting rationale: Even when WP:ATA arguments are discounted, there's still no consensus to delete the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

List of the Most Populous metropolitan areas in Peru

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

Sourced by unreliable material and he makes an original research with primary sources, in the source of population do not talk about metropolitan areas, and the user make a sum to his understanding, has several errors. This is an original research, It does not have enough references, and in fact there are unreliable, even one of them is a blog. only the references of some metropolitan areas are verifiable, with regard to the "population" of the same this is not verifiable, about the same article in other languages, all were created by the same IP, there seems to be making a claim that information like true or trustworthy Cmonzonc (talk) 03:55, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 04:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Yes, it is sourced by unreliable material. I noticed other country articles were getting these things included, so I did not mention anything about it. However, now that the sources are being challenged, it certainly is a good time to get rid of this thing. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. As far as I can tell, most of the sources used are government planning documents and official census estimates. I agree that some of the population estimates could be better sourced--they seem to rely on newspaper accounts--but that's what editing is for. This page does need a specific cut-off point or benchmark for inclusion, though (e.g. "List of Metropolitan areas in Peru with Populations above 500,000" or something).TCSaint (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. How many recognized metropolitan areas are there in Peru? Why not make this a comprehensive list that is sortable by population, rather than having an arbitrary cut-off? postdlf (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. In Perú exists only three metropolitan areas, in Perú to be an metropolitan area the urban conglomeration must have more than half a million inhabitants and count with a metropolitan development plan, the metropolitan areas not adjusts to the circunscripcion of the "distritos". A part of the population of the "distrito" can be in or can be out of the metropolitan area, the author of the article is not consider the real metropolitan area, is consider all the popoulation districts assuming that the entire population of the "distrito" is in the metropolitan area, this is bad and convert the article in an original research. According to Knowledge is not possible make a synthesis or assumptions about census information, which is a primary source. In this case only talk about "distritos", and not exists source which says that a particular metropolitan area has a certain amount of people.--Cmonzonc (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- So convert this to Metropolitan areas of Peru to explain the classification and describe the three MAs; remove everything that's not officially a metropolitan area; and create a List of distritos of Peru with a sortable population column. Would that work? postdlf (talk) 00:24, 7 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) 23:48, 12 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 03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Zions Bank Idaho Headquarters

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

I have tried to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability for this building, but have been unable to do so. There are a few passing stories, but it does not appear to be generally notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This one might be worth some consideration. The new Zions Bank building is part of a longer story, of some considerable significance to Boise, relating to a long-abandoned project that came to be known as the "Boise Hole". As explained in numerous news stories, e.g. , a historic (NRHP-registered) building called the Eastman Building burned down in 1987, soon after it had been "saved" from demolition as part of a large urban renewal project. Later it was then slated for a new building, to be the tallest in the state, but the project fell through and lay fallow for many years. Some information about the Boise Hole is already contained at List of tallest buildings in Boise, and I find numerous news articles about it over the years. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Interesting backstory, Arxiloxos. Sounds like there may be enough material for an article on the Boise Hole and then this material could be included there if there is enough sourcing found. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including coverage outside of the Boise area in Spokane's Spokesman-Review:

Russell, Betsy Z. (September 25, 2011). "Eye on Boise: Zions offices would complete Boise core". The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved May 5, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Zions Bank Will Build 15-Story Idaho Headquarters Building at Boise Tower Site Beginning Next Spring". Idaho Statesman. September 19, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Brandt, Jaclyn (March 14, 2012). "Gardner Co. announces five new tenants for building in downtown Boise". Fox 9 News. Retrieved May 5, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Week Keep~~ Delete. In its favor: there have been several news stories about the proposed building. Against: they're all local coverage, which doesn't necessarily mean sufficient notability (note: while the The Spokesman-Review is located in Spokane, Washington, much of the newspaper's readership base is in Idaho—in that region, 285 miles (as the crow flies) just makes Spokane the next big town over ). Also, according to the building's brochure (page 7), construction isn't even set to begin until Winter 2013, making much of what's there WP:CRYSTAL. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Changed to delete per User:Northamerica1000, who wrote, "the topic of the article isn't congruent with having a high level of internal links to it. If unremoved, the orphan tag would likely stay on the article for years." Currently, no articles link to this one; if no articles are likely to ever link to it, it shouldn't be part of the encyclopedia. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Article is now linked from List of tallest buildings in Boise (where this project was already mentioned). Other incoming links could be added (such as Zions Bank). Orphanage concern solved. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  - The article is also now linked to Zions Bank. There are now two links that lead to the article. Northamerica1000 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Also, the The Spokesman-Review is based in Spokane, Washington, a different state, and hence is a source that qualifies as regional coverage/statewide coverage in another state. The notion that there are readers of the newspaper in Boise doesn't disqualify the source as local coverage, because it just isn't. Northamerica1000 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I note the comment, "if no articles are likely to ever link to it, it shouldn't be part of the encyclopedia." is not a deletion criterion. It's an absurd criterion, we're a collection of articles, not a collection of links. WP is not a link directory. We try to avoid orphans, but it's not a requirement. Anyway, it's unlikely: there's at least the company, the city, the architect, probably the contractor. Sufficient notability & references. Local coverage is relevant for local events and institutions, but I don't see how it makes sense for buildings. It's where you would expect to find sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:26, 12 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) 23:51, 12 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 03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per DGG. Calling the Spokesman-Review local news for Boise is a stretch. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per the sources establishing notability. DGG's comments are spot on as an article being an orphan is not at all a reason for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Tia Norfleet

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

fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. She is not a professional driver. She is strictly a local driver and no indication that she is ready to start in any of the major 3 NASCAR series. No starts in any NASCAR touring series. Her father is notable but not her. The same scenario as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jared Siefert resulted in deletion. Royal broil 03:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Does indeed fail WP:NSPORT/WP:NMOTORSPORT, but that is not the be-all and end-all; I believe she meets the WP:GNG. Huffington Post article, Daily Mail article, Safe America Foundation promo and Augusta Chronicle article about same, Sporting News article, Style Magazine article, BlackNews.com article, BET article, Dallas Weekly article, and I could go on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Immediate Keep and close - This topic easily passes WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000 11:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per everything above. -- Nascar1996 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Charles (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep It meets WP:GNG easily. Zappa (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG →TSU 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hip pop

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

Per Knowledge:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General, this is a recreation of a previously deleted article (see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Pop rap). Content is either unsourced or original research. Per Knowledge:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, a likely neologism. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I closed the referenced AFD two years ago. I'm not familiar with the content genre, but I think it would violate NOR and therefore should be deleted. MBisanz 03:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment There doesn't seem to be any justification for calling this topic Pop Rap, which, judging from the only real source (All Music), is a somewhat hollow term for American black music which charted in the early nineties. The references to Pop rap and the list should be removed as off-topic. Hip pop on the other hand does seem to have valency in the Japanese market (and perhaps the modern US market, judging by the billboard source). On that basis I would suggest that the article be refocused and kept. SFB 11:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

For those who do not believe hip pop exists and live in the Sacromento area; you can even hire a hip pop dj with the "spam retracted". Arcandam (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I retracted that link per our policy in external links and advertising do not readd as it's a link adverting someone services, random DJs playing "hip pop" music in random cities has nothing to do with the notability here. Secret 21:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit my comments and you misunderstand our policy on external links. We are allowed to link to commercial websites to prove a point on AfD's. Reread the policy you linked. Nota bene: I posted lots of links to Google Books. Google is a commercial website. Arcandam (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ but completely rewrite and rename to Hip hop impact in popular music or something similar as the current version is pure original research and a neologism which has no place in here, and a term being abused by Arcandam as to promote his point of view in major hip hop artists articles against consensus. None of the sources mentioned relate as hip pop as a specific genre in detail and saying it's a genre based on a person point of view, and many of those sources are also extremely trivial passing mentions or unreliable sources like a German coloring book. Though I agree some of the source Arcandam does mention in good detail the influence of hip hop catering to a pop crowd, which is a very notable topic by itself and strongly deserves an article. So keep for now but just not this version. Secret 21:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete considering that the article needs to be rewritten from scratch to replace this original research to a completely different topic, it's better off to delete and start fresh in the title I was thinking of. Secret 01:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The person who wrote that foreword in that coloring book is J-Zone. Hiphop fans will know who I am talking about. It was published in San Fransico, and it is in English. What is German about it? Arcandam (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Improving it is a good idea of course and it should be relatively easy given the huge amount of sources. Renaming the article to Hip hop impact in popular music or something similar would be original research. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Arcandam (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This accusation of "promoting a POV" is pretty funny, to be honest I've quite a few reasons to think those who pose as the fair and balanced defenders of the true genre and use editsummaries like this are a part of the problem, not a solution. Arcandam (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone ever heard of a neologism? (Knowledge:Avoid_neologisms#Neologisms) Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a neologism back in the late 1980s/early 90's. It's 2012. Arcandam (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Any sources from 2012, then? Anyway, you should read those articles you cited in context. Some of them are questionable, like using this quote, which is from a label exec. that uses the term disparagingly. This one discusses the early disco-sampling hip hop of the late-70s. This one just uses your term to mean hip hop that's gained mainstream success, nothing about it as a genre (musical/lyrical, etc.). This one brings up some other made-up term "combat rap". You've fished around for anything mentioning "pop rap", but the term still doesn't feel encyclopedic/legitimate. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to attack some of the sources, there are over 8000 of them. Good luck. 8k sources are wrong, you are right. Sounds unlikely. If you want some sources from 2012 you can find them yourself, should be easy enough. Google Books isn't as up to date as it should be. Why should the sources be 5 months old at most? Arcandam (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you used the search engine correctly, there are 2k, but you can't filter out fiction books. But hey, found this dictionary source for "hip pop". None for 2012, though. Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you would've been familiar with this genre, you would've realised that "pop rap" is the same thing... It even says so in the article. Why should the sources be 5 months old at most? Arcandam (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a genre (source: hip hop culture critic)... but what article are you referring to? Dan56 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. That was pretty funny. Arcandam (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can co-operate on writing an essay that promotes the viewpoint that every article should have over 9000 sources BTW. Arcandam (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Knowledge:Avoid_neologisms#Neologisms:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, quite a few of these sources are secondary or tertairy and quite a few of them describe pop rap/hip pop and its history instead of just mentioning it. But you would've known that already if you would've read 'em. Arcandam (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Which? Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to read over 8000 sources and then tell you which ones fulfill the criteria above you can hire me. But I am pretty expensive. You haven't yet answered any of my questions as far as I can remember BTW. Arcandam (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't nice to vandalise an article before nominating it for deletion BTW. Of course it increases the chance it gets deleted, but it isn't really fair. Arcandam (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but you could have explained your revert, like I appropriately did when I edited the article. Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Nota bene: Dan just did this edit. Arcandam (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what "ditto" means? If so, why do you use it incorrectly? Arcandam (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits to Hip pop? Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because you shouldn't delete most of the content in the article, and then nominate it for deletion, that is unfair. If that part of that sentence is not sourced, ok, so be it, just leave it unsourced for a while. Arcandam (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not call me 'bro'. I am not your 'bro'. How old are you? Arcandam (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It should at least be tagged. Try using an edit summary next time. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Editsummaries suck. Try reading a bit about different music genres before nominating an article about a music genre for deletion next time. Or maybe you should stick to your favorite genre's (I assume you are more knowledgeable about those) and steer clear of hiphop- and hippop-related stuff. Arcandam (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. I don't know anything about hip hop. I just wrote articles like Fear of a Black Planet, The Lost Tapes, It Was Written, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, East Coast hip hop, Fight the Power, Radio (LL Cool J album), and Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty. Wait, but what would a foreigner know about American music anyway. Dan56 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3AArcandam&diff=493386657&oldid=493131791 Arcandam (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Xenophobia. Arcandam (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance. Dan56 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Penguins. Arcandam (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have an impressive collection of randomly selected words maybe we can go back to the topic. Yeah, you may have helped write parts of certain articles about a different genre. But until very recently you were unaware this genre even existed. Only that article about that Kanye album is relevant, because that is hip pop. You incorrectly listed it under hiphop. Arcandam (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, back it up. Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I already did. With a reliable source, a leading expert in the hiphop community. Maybe you've heard of him: KRS-ONE. Arcandam (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I wrote those articles in their entirety and got them through GAN. What does one opinion from a rapper have to do with Kanye West? Dan56 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How many accounts do you have? Arcandam (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. If you look very carefully you may be able to insert even more citation needed templates in there. It is really helpful.

If I can't remove like it should be removed.... Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think hiphop fans in general are aware who KRS-ONE is, he is not a random person with an opinion, he is afaik the most reliable source for statements about hiphop. You can compare him to a doctor who was trained by Harvard medical school diagnosing a patient, that is not "just a random persons opinion", it is the opinion of an expert who has all the necessary credentials to be able to make such a claim. User Secret said he is a leading expert in the hiphop culture. I agree. What do you think? Arcandam (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete There's really not enough notability on this so called genre. A quick Google search comes up bare, with Google asking: "Did you mean: hip hop". If it had be expanded, however, I would be willing to change my opinion. — Statυs (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Status (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Nota bene: Dan56 has canvassed his friend Status to get someone to agree with him. @Status: It is kind of weird to base your vote on your lack of understanding of Google's typo autocorrect feature. Arcandam (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Dan is not a friend of mine, I have only talked to him previously on maybe 2 or 3 occasions. He asked me to leave a comment, so I did. It can be discarded if will be. @Arcandam I fail to see where I stated delete Google said "did you mean". I said a quick Google search shows up bare, with it additionally showing us as "did you mean: hip hop". — Statυs (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yeah, you talked on maybe 2 or 3 occassions... LOL. Please follow that link I posted. I will post it again here. If I search for "hippop" on Google (including quotes!) I get about half a million results. If I search for "hip pop" I get well over 4 million. If I search for "pop rap" I get 5 1/4th million and if I search for "poprap" I get 80k more. Arcandam (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look for yourself. The first is a "welcome to Knowledge" message from him, second is another user talking of him, third is a message from asking to look at a talk page at an article in which I edit frequently, fourth is him leaving me a message saying something about track listings, fifth talking about moving of an article I edit, sixth a few questions he asked me. )I'm going in order from the bottom to top) I can't say for sure I even replied to most of them. But please, continue. — Statυs (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And again I'll say this, I did a quick search. Most, if not all, the results are only about hip hop. — Statυs (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Status&user2=Dan56&namespace=0&namespace=1&namespace=2&namespace=3&namespace=4&namespace=5 Arcandam (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to start shit here? We edit the same type of articles; what is your point? What relevance does that have here? You stated the two of us were friends when that obviously is not the case. Check out his talk page history. I edited it ten times. And I believe most of them were over content disputes between the two of us. I get canvassing, and I happily said my comment could be discarded if it is found to be questionable. He didn't ask me to vote delete, I did that all on my own. I even said I would change my mind if the article became more notable. — Statυs (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You can see the list below. It is quite obvious he asked some people he likes and knows to comment. I am not saying you think of him as a friend, if I have given that impression that is wrong. Arcandam (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A love his BDP albums, but did KRS even graduate high school? Dan56 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that matter? Arcandam (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a joke, but is it encyclopedic to give undue weight to one of the more conscious rappers when theyre being a bit critical of a rapper that's the polar opposite of him in West? Dan56 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That joke sucks. Arcandam (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You should probably stop canvassing now, before someone else notices. Arcandam (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

R U being a sore loser? I've asked numerous users, including STATicVerseatide, Wikipedian_Penguin, Rp0211, and this article's only major contributor ACSE, along with this article's creator Lairor. I even asked Sillyfolkboy, who had the only keep vote at the AfD discussion for "pop rap". Editors that have edited music-related articles will likely have talked to me before: I primarily edit those articles. Don't make baseless accusations, like I don't know anything about hip hop or canvassing. Dan56 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed you don't know anything about canvassing. I am quite sure you do. Arcandam (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If attacking me will help save this article, then keep at it. Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I? Do I need to remind you what you wrote earlier? Arcandam (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See here Arcandam (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You think it'll work for me as well? Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Arcandam (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan56 & STATicVerseatide
Dan56 & Wikipedian Penguin
Dan56 & Rp0211
ACSE's latest edit is dated 19 October 2011, it is unlikely he will respond
Lairor is still here, but not very active, and it is unlikely he will respond in time

Arcandam (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else. This is a discussion about the deletion of an article. I feel real sorry for anybody who will try to read this page. — Statυs (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious he asked some people he knows and likes to comment. WP:CANVASS Arcandam (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a template for that. Listing everyone he left a message to and when they last edited has no relevance to the topic at hand. — Statυs (talk)

The correct template is {{Uw-canvass}} Arcandam (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious you're losing your mind. Dan56 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If attacking me will help delete this article, then keep at it. Arcandam (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan, there's no need for this either. — Statυs (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well he must be. How does that even work? I hardly agree with my friends most of the time, let alone WP editors. It's just like him to bring up something ludicrous like that. I shouldnt have addressed that Kanye West talk page. Otherwise, he probably wouldnt have followed me here. Dan56 (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: I corrected the genre on Kanye West from hiphop to hip pop. Dan's response was to try and delete the hip pop article. Later he nominated Indie hip hop for deletion as well, possibly as revenge. Arcandam (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we continue this discussion at WP:ANI or are you going to stop with the personal attacks? Arcandam (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You're accusing me of canvassing, bro. I don't appreciate it. You're undermining my effort. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you before not to call me 'bro'. I don't appreciate it. I am not your 'bro'. You wouldn't dare call me 'bro' IRL, don't do it over the internet. Even Status says the audience was "questionable" (bottom of his talkpage). I think that is a big understatement. Arcandam (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then don't accuse me of canvassing. I asked people who usually edit music articles to comment. You know agree with Status one something, but as soon as he commented here and disagreed with you about this keeping or deleting this article, you brought up irrelevant ethical questions that you wouldnt have had he agreed with you. Dan56 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe I wouldn't say "you are canvassing" if you didn't canvass. I remember a short while ago when you were not canvassing (or at least not that I was aware of!) and I did not accuse you of canvassing. But now I am aware you have been canvassing. And not just on this article. Indie hip hop is another of your victims. I think I will need to spend some time looking into your contributions and figuring out what is going on. Arcandam (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. The question if someone is canvassing is not an "irrelevant ethical question".

It is. I haven't. You don't agree with me on this article. OK. But you're hitting below the belt with this. Dan56 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. I know you are worried I will discover you've done this before. I already figured out that you did the same thing to Indie hip hop. Trying to ask an admin to help you now won't work, its a bit late now. If you did nothing wrong I will discover that soon enough. In that case there is no problem. But it seems more likely that you have done this more than twice. Arcandam (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: if you would've done nothing wrong then it wouldn't be a problem if I start investigating possible canvassing, right? Arcandam (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, bro. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, sis. Arcandam (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) p.s. I've asked Dan56 plenty of times to stop calling me 'bro', he keeps trying to troll by using that word, but it backfired.

Nota bene: Dan also nominated Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Indie_hip_hop#Indie_hip_hop. Why do all the hiphop-related genres have to be deleted if all the pokemon can stay? Yeah I know, otherstuffexists, but WP:Don't worry about performance, we have plenty of storage space. But there are thousands of sources that mention these genres. It seems rather unlikely that all 8000+ sources together in Google Books alone are not enough to write a decent article. And if that would be the case we could simply use Google News and the normal searchengine. This kind of deletionism hurts the 'pedia. Arcandam (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Snowball

We can basically snowball this by now. 8000 sources in Google Books alone. Canvassing. Personal attacks. Trolling. Arcandam (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No --Guerillero | My Talk 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK --Arcandam (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of comments

Keep per WP:PRESERVE and allow time for article expansion. The topic is used in many various sources. Northamerica1000 14:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For those who do not like reading: here is a summarized version of this debate: plenty of sources v.s. IDHT Arcandam (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks as if the article should be moved to pop rap, as there seems to be more sources calling it that. — Statυs (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree but I would like to remind everyone of WP:BIAS. I am unable to speak Japanese, that may unbalance the article because I am unable to give due weight to their part of the story. Maybe we can ask a J-pop specialist to look for sources on Baidu. Arcandam (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Back to a point I made earlier, all these sources are fine, but are there any that describe "hip pop" or "pop rap" as a genre, that is a stylistic criteria? For instance, is there anything that can back up what the article currently says: "a fusion music genre combining the vocal style of pop with hip hop"? Rather than just using the term, is there something analytical, describing them this way?. Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that even you admit that all these sources are fine. Maybe you should move your attention elsewhere. Please read both WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. Arcandam (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. For others editor who'll acknowledge my previous comment, I did an article, Neo soul, that dealt with the term that emerged in the 1990s to market certain soul artists, but it went on to take on another meaning, stylistic characteristics, etc. It went from being a marketing term to being its own genre. So what I'm asking is, if this is a genre, are there sources to support whatever musical characteristics it has. It's a fair question, so I'm asking it. Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but it is a bit timeconsuming/wasting to respond all the time and to correct all the mistakes you make. Knowledge:Randy in Boise. If you are still trying to get this article deleted even though you say "all these sources are fine" I just don't understand you. What do you want done? Want an improved article with a clear definition of the genre and its stylistic characteristics, etc.? {{sofixit}}! But this is a debate about deleting this page. Do some of the work yourself, improve it, instead of complaining. Go find sources, you know how Google works. You bragged about writing other articles, feel free to demonstrate your superior editing skills on the articles you nominated for deletion. Turn them into a GA. Arcandam (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one claiming it's a genre. Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. 8000 sources on Google books alone do that. And millions more on the searchengine Google. Even the hiphop lyrics I posted on the talkpage are clear evidence. You are claiming that all these people use the same neologism/WP:OR... and you do not even have a single source. Go do something constructive please. If you think the article can be improved, be bold, google, and improve it. Arcandam (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No they don't. A genre is a stylistic criteria. If the sources did support it, that leading statement in the article would be sourced. I'm trying not to be a dick to you anymore, but you don't return the favor. Can we please stick to the substance of this discussion? Are you saying that I need a source to support whether it's a neologism or not? B/c the term is being used rather than described/explained, then how is my point not related to what Knowledge:Avoid_neologisms#Neologisms says about "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." Dan56 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Stop. Halt. This is important. You've stopped trying to be a dick. Cool! If that is true I forgive and forget your earlier behaviour. Hello friend. Lets work together, and improve this Knowledge. I am not sure what kind of stylistic criteria should be used to describe music like this, maybe we can find someone who can help you with that. Maybe it is a good idea to try Knowledge:Reference_desk/Entertainment or something similar. No need to delete the article, we do not have a deadline to finish the improvement you want. Arcandam (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? A genre is a stylistic criteria. This article reads "Hip pop, also known as pop rap, is a fusion music genre combining the vocal style of pop with hip hop". Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not write that sentence afaik. Arcandam (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So what is "hip pop", according to you? Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not a reliable source. I would say "hip pop" has more than one meaning. But that is WP:OR. Arcandam (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing. I did not write that sentence afaik. I am not sure what you want to improve and how, but we can always try to find some sources, or we can ask for help on (for example) WP:REFDESK. Arcandam (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

But you said before that it's a genre. If it's not defined by certain stylistic elements/characteristics, then how is it a genre? This point goes back to what I said before about the guidline on neologisms. The results from Google show the term being used, but not being analyzed/described, which fits what WP:Avoiding neologisms says, and what Knowledge:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion supports as well. Regardless, shouldn't that statement be removed if it can't be verified? Dan56 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I was echoing sources, sources say it is a genre so I do too. My personal opinion is not important or relevant, but if you wanna know: I am not sure about the Japanese part because I am unable to understand that language. I am sure it is a genre in the US of A. I like to compare Knowledge to playing LEGO with a group of kids. Lets say the common goal of our group is to build a police station. They found some LEGO in a corner. Other kids played with it, and it is a bit messy, but it is still fun to play with. Maybe one kids idea is to build a wall four times, put them together and build a roof, and when that is done he starts to pick which doors and windows and the like he wants and then he starts decorating the place. Another kid notices a flaw that he believes is really important, and he wants fix it before the other parts of the police station are built and he also wants to destroy the police station if it is not fixed soon enough. Of course those kids run into communication problems, they have a very different mindset, but they both want to have a police station in the end. I agree, that is a flaw, and I agree that it is important. It is defined by having certain stylistic elements/characteristics from both hip hop and pop of course. In case of doubt I try to stick to the sources. We may be able to find an expert via something like WP:REFDESK or IRC: we are not alone. There are plenty friendly and helpful people we can contact. From experience I know that if you need an expert on something weird, e.g. Flags of Nepal, there is always a Wiki-Expert to be found. Arcandam (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO: 'To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.' and 'Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Knowledge.' I've looked through all the above canvassed drivel for something resembling a cogent argument this article should stay but I'm not finding it. A dump of sources from Google Books does not meet the criteria. -Rushyo 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You must've missed this; clearly about the term; not just using it. That short list is not "all possible sources", it is just meant as proof that this term is not original research, like Dan56 claimed earlier. There are over 8000 sources on google books alone, good luck searching the best source for this article! There are so many to chose from... Arcandam (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Really didn't miss anything. Those are incredibly blatant neologisms. The authors aren't even comfortable using them, preferring to describe it as "pop" rap and "pop rap", or just throwing every possible derivative under the sun at the keyboard. If that's a representative sample it's not helpful to the argument at all.-Rushyo 21:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gangsta rap is also between quotes... Is that a neologism too? Only HipHop Matters uses those quotes in the way you described. I don't know if it is a representative sample of course, I haven't checked all potential sources (over 5 million). Arcandam (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll note Gangsta rap has multiple verifiable, reliable third-party sources that are exclusively about the term, explaining it in depth, rather than using it or trying to half-heartedly define it. I'm not convinced you'll find those kind of sources in your 5 million link haystack, even if you looked. Regardless of that, sources must be verifiable, not just 'probably exist'. To quote WP:V: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Knowledge; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true " -Rushyo 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a believer :-) Gangsta rap is a subgenre, this is a fusion genre, that is a big difference in this case. Why would someone write a book about pop rap as a genre? That is the curse with fusion-genre's, it is very possible to get a book about rock or rap, but an article about rock-rap? Lets try another subgenre. Searching for "Rap" on Google books gives 3.370.000 results. Searching for Jazz rap about 2.620. Should Jazz rap be deleted too? And Nu jazz. Please check a couple of articles in Category:Jazz genres and Category:Hip hop genres and Category:Fusion music genres; lots of articles do not live up to those standards. Do you think they should all be removed instead of improved? Arcandam (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What I think is somewhat irrelevant. We have a consensus, through WP:NEO, as to how scenarios such as this should be dealt with. I know you're familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I don't know why you're asking me that question. You're relying on a reductio ad absurdum argument which is really a false dichotomy. To rebutt it less coldly I will point out that the only two sources in Jazz rap are still better at meeting WP:NEO than anything I've seen for this article. This is a perfect example of a point where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will keep you out of trouble. -Rushyo 22:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand what you mean now. Give me a couple of minutes, I will try to fix the problem, please be patient. Arcandam (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete a dump of g books sources does not satisfy the GNG. I have not found one of the given sources that shows that the topic has been covered by a plethora of RSes. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Then dig up some more. There are plenty to chose from. Arcandam (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Renaming

Proposal:

The article is renamed to Pop rap.
I think this source is exactly what you are asking for
We'll look for more sources

Is that a good idea? Arcandam (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the venue to discuss renaming an article --Guerillero | My Talk 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This was the same thing brought up in Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Pop rap, where the response to the Allmusic source was that it's still only one source. Dan56 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but don't you understand how impossible this is? Should I make a list of all the music articles that do not adhere to those standards? We are trying to build something here. Arcandam (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't impossible. We are trying to build a verifiable encyclopedia of notable topics. That sometimes means that topics get dropped due to a lack of sources to lend to this goal. I am running into this same problem myself with a genre article I am trying to write. It is something that I accept and I find a new topic to write about. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Positive hardcore" has 36.800 Google results and 103 Google Books results. In that case it makes perfect sense. Here it is very different. Arcandam (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The article used to look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pop_rap&oldid=139805051 . Arcandum has shown that there are many, many, reliable and substantive sources for this. Anarchangel (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources may be reliable, but that doesnt mean every word/term they use should be made into an article. Echoing Rushyo's comment, sources that are about the term, rather than just use the term, should be cited, per WP:NEO. Per WP:Notability, if there isnt coverage on a topic, then it doesnt have the merits for its own article. As it is, the article is still mostly original research. Maybe adding the term to wiktionary instead? Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe stopping to push your POV instead? Maybe dropping the stick instead? Maybe admitting you are not the great hip hop expert you believe you are? Arcandam (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 13:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Not seeing the sort of in-depth coverage from reliable sources needed to meet GNG. Note that existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Its a real genre so needs coverage. The news media refer to it as "hip pop genre". The Pitch (newspaper) has 473 articles with "hip-pop" in it. The Virginian-Pilot says "The fluffy, lightweight sounds of modern pop music have yielded to harder, darker timbres. It's hip-hop-inflected pop. Call it hip-pop, or R&pop. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) Bad Ronald's new 'hip-pop' album a fun listening experience.(Time Out!) says album featuring some of the best "hip-pop" on the market today. They refer to this genre in many of the 430 search results from Highbeam. Dream Focus 15:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Are any of these article about the term, rather than just articles that use the term? (WP:NEO). Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to FreeRange WebReader. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

FreeRange

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

Delete non-notable firm, or move content into article on its marginally notable product, FreeRange WebReader, Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge I could go for merging both this article and FreeRange WebReader into the Handmark article if it's all just part of that company's history now. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - cited to a press release and a blog post, I can't see anything online to indicate the company is notable (I can't see much to show the WebReader or Handmark are notable either, for that matter). Sionk (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to a company history section in FreeRange WebReader. The single product is substantially notable -- see the users such as the Wall Street Journal and Reuters -- but the company alone is probably not on its own. Steven Walling • talk 23:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge in FreeRange WebReader. -- Dewritech (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge FreeRange fails WP:CORP. Merge company and FreeRange WebReader to Handmark per Struthious. None but shining hours (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)