Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was keep. And rename / rewrite to remove the WP:OR assertion that these are the most significant works.  Sandstein  07:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

List of 100 most significant artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Original research. Could be stripped of the assertion that these works are of especial significance and merged into Indianapolis Museum of Art, I suppose. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – List contains several items that are notable by themselves (have articles). Too large to merge into main article. Also see List of works in Museum of Modern Art Department of Painting and Sculpture. Could be renamed to remove artificial limit of one hundred. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete- inherently OR. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - List is based on accurate sources. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or rename List of works in the Indianapolis Museum of Art to get rid of self-admitted WP:SYNTHESIS. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but rename and rewrite removing the unjustified "most significant" bit, and probably the artificial limit of 100 - several of the works are clearly intended to be representative rather than of special individual significance. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod and Clarityfiend, please explain why this is unjustified and define how this could be justified to meet a standard. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the article itself, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS combination of works selected in various museum publications over the years, few presumably with the specific phrase "most significant" attached. Such lists always have problems - if they are using a single list produced by the museum they are a breach of compilation copyright. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per above - rename Collection highlights of the Indianapolis Museum of Art ...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I would ideally love to see such a list for each and every museum institution on Knowledge (XXG). A museum is by definition the best source of information on its own collection, and if they have a list, well, I for one want to see it. Most institutions are not able to produce such a list so I am impressed they have one. Jane (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't - its a synthesis of various selections of highlights. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying this is a synthesis of 100 highlights from all of the published set of highlights by the museum, yet you are denying that this also would be the 100 most significant pieces. How else could such a list be made here? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably can't be, with such a claim in the title. Highlights by no means always, or usually = "most significant" pieces. See A History of the World in 100 Objects, which has 100 objects from the British Museum, but certainly not all the "most significant" as objects. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you fighting Johnbod (who wants to keep the list)? The part that is unacceptable is an editor devising his own criteria. If we let that pass, it would open the floodgates to things like Clarityfiend's list of the greatest films of all time. Strip away the artificial limits of 100 and "most significant" (the latter is implicit anyway) and the list is fine (just like List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fighting anyone or anything. I've asked for an explanation of an opinion. To your point, if "Carityfiend" was one of the largest film museums in the U.S., published two highlights books about its movies and had its curators select the most significant movies from its collection to put on its website, I should think a List of 100 Most Significant Movies at Clarityfiend would be a rather straightforward thing to produce. Why wouldn't Clarityfiend be able to judge its most significant movies? It seems to me there is a lack of common sense being applied here and folks are over thinking this one.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is nowhere said, never mind referenced, that the museum has described them as the "100 most significant artworks". This is not a difficult point. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. Funny that you are fighting your own words here. If there is a measurable difference between the definition of highlight and a the definition of a significant work, you've got me by the sneakers. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename and rewrite the intro paragraph to get rid of the obvious synthesis going on. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• rename as list of artworks in Indianapolis Museum of Art or list of notable artworks in Indianapolis Museum of Art - locations of works of art in various institutions round the world in inherently encyclopedic. Agree that the 100 number is arbitrary and represents OR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 15:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Content forking/link farm. This list duplicates a section of the article on the Secret Intelligence Service and has little chance of being meaningfully expanded. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Secret Intelligence Service. It's a bit long, but there's a chance someone might type "Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service" into the search bar. Agree with nom about there not being much chance of expansion. — Mr. Stradivarius 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I take back my words. Squeamish Ossifrage has done an excellent job of expanding the article, and has left me feeling rather embarrassed about saying there was not much chance of expansion. — Mr. Stradivarius 20:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. This is the wrong venue. If you felt the duplication was unnecessary you could just have been bold & merged and redirected the article to Secret Intelligence Service#Chiefs of the SIS. Also, duplication is not a deletion criteria (although it may be a merge criteria). Only lack of notability is criteria for deletion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not cited duplication as a reason. This article is either (a) an attempt to fork content which was never developed or (b) a link farm, both of which are relevant criteria for deletion. The information does not need to be merged because it's already in the parent article (verbatim). I'd disagree that a redirect is the right solution - most readers would search for the head of an organisation by looking at the organisation article itself or by searching for "head of x". The term "Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service" is highly unlikely to appear as a search term (I hate to use it, but Google says 46,000 for head agaisnt 2,000 for chief). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Linkfarm refers to links to external pages. This is not a link farm, it is a Knowledge (XXG):List. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, try rereading what you just linked to, specifically the second bullet point. But yes, it is supposed to be a list, but it doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for a stand-alone list article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. It is entirely reasonable to maintain an article about the leadership position of a nation's intelligence agency separate from one about the agency itself. Compare this to the American Central Intelligence Agency/Director of the Central Intelligence Agency or the Soviet KGB/Chairman of the KGB. The content and formatting of the article under discussion can likely be improved (and the tabular information removed from the parent article accordingly), but none of that is cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an article, it's a list which doesn't meet the criteria for retention as a separate stand-alone list. How can the content be improved? There's nothing here that isn't said on the SIS article and nothing that can be added that shouldn't be on that page first and foremost. If you can provide something original and informative that demands a separate page then please do so. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

First, even were we to consider this topic as inherently limited to a bare enumeration of office-holders, how could it not meet the criteria for stand-alone lists? Looking at the expectations for lists of people and the entry selection criteria, we see that each member of this list is themselves notable, and is in fact notable in whole or in part for holding the office whose membership is summarized in this list. Furthermore, the topic itself does lend to development beyond a bare list, just as do the articles for the heads of many other government agencies worldwide. There are no shortage of references to the position, including at least one book dedicated in its entirety to the office and those who held it. With all that said, I'm not averse to doing some cleanup work on the article's appearance myself over the next couple of days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more of what Knowledge (XXG) is not - i.e. not a directory or repository of internal links . Anyway, I'll be interested to see what you can do to add content to this "article". NB the book you referred to is listed on Google books as fiction so please make sure you use reliable sources (iirc there is only one and it only goes up to 1949). Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I too could see us having a List of chiefs of the Secret Intelligence Service or similar, and I see that this is what has happened in the case of the KGB. I don't really see the need for creating such a list if it is going to be exactly the same as the one in the Secret Intelligence Service article though. I still think redirecting would be the best solution, although I think it would be a {{redirect with possibilities}}. If the Secret Intelligence Service article starts to get too large, we can split the "chiefs" section off into a new article/list. I don't really buy the argument that the article should be kept as it is because of the possibility of future expansion - this is just as true for Secret Intelligence Service as it would be for Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. We may as well keep the information in one place, unless there is a compelling argument to do otherwise. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No one ever reads the whole thing. From WP:NOTDIR: "Knowledge (XXG) encompasses many lists of links to articles within Knowledge (XXG) that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Knowledge (XXG) functions as an index or directory of its own content." postdlf (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect/merge to Secret_Intelligence_Service#Chiefs_of_the_SIS until somebody wants to write an actual article about the position that goes beyond the existing list.  Sandstein  08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this a finished product (I'd like to find photo thumbails and exact dates, where possible and to make the section on the secrecy and revelation of the position both more readable and more comprehensive), but I've updated the article to a first-draft example of how this is expansible beyond a bare list (not that, as postdlf, the alternative is necessarily a problem either). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work, now keep per expansion that demonstrates that this can be a standalone topic.  Sandstein  11:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep significant office, historically important. Cagoul (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. However, there is a reasonable request to move the article into userspace, which I can honor. Rlendog (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

PROD contested by IP with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Move to my namespace. Sorry. Was expecting him to start for the Whitecaps and broke WP:NFOOTBALL, although believe that the rules should change, but that's not a discussion for this space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bryce Alderson has appeared on the bench in league match in a fully professional league (wiki standards does not define 'appeared')...since, he has appeared on the team sheet, thus has satisfied the appeared portion in WP:NFOOTBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.135.57 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• The exact wording of WP:NFOOTBALL criterion 2 reads "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable". It's quite clear that only being on the bench isn't sufficient, you actually have to play. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Players who have appeared". Appeared on what though because that is not "quite clear" as you have stated? Appeared on the pitch? Appeared on the team sheet? It does not specify that a player has to appear on the pitch, the criteria says only about players who have appeared and Bryce has appeared on the team sheet for a professional club which fits the current criteria specified in the WP:NFOOTBALL section. The section does NOT clearly state that a player has to appear on the pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.135.57 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Almost forgot about the note displayed underneath that passage, which reads "Note: A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable". I think that puts it in pretty explicit and unambiguous terms. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Games like these:

http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2012/02/whitecaps-fc-win-third-straight-match-disney-pro-soccer-classic http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2012/02/whitecaps-fc-defeat-houston-dynamo-1-0-disney-pro-soccer-classic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.135.57 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • No, we've already been over this; appearances need to have been made in a fully professional league, not a pre-season tournament like the Walt Disney Pro Soccer Classic. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
          • "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition"..last time i checked, the mickey mouse cup was a competition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.179.130 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
            • That doesn't say that appearing in any competition is sufficient. As we've already discussed multiple times, the competition has to be a fully pro league, which the "mickey mouse cup" isn't. Simple fact is this player isn't notable until he makes his MLS debut. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Homer, Alaska. D'oh! :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Miller Landing, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm honestly unsure what to do here. Miller Landing never existed as a separate and distinct named settlement, but at one point it was a Census-designated place. It has always been considered part of Homer, Alaska, and for about the last ten years it has legally been part of it. warning, minor WP:OR ahead I live and work near here, and without getting into too much detail, my job often includes giving and receiving directions to places in and around Homer. In 12 years at this job I have never heard anyone refer to this area by the name "Miller Landing". end OR So, this small area was a homestead of a guy named Miller in 1915 (scroll down to "Historical Milestones and Related Trivia") and for a time the census bureau considered a separate settlement, but as far as I can tell Alaska itself never did. So, it's not a ghost town or anything, it does still exist as a part of Homer but has never really been considered a town of its own. So, what do we do with it? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge the appropriate parts to Homer, Alaska. If Homer's website considers Miller Landing a part of Homer, then it makes sense for Knowledge (XXG) to do so too. If there are enough sources about the place for it to pass WP:GNG, then it could have its own article, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage when I searched Google News/Books. For the record, it seems to be a different place than Miller's Landing, which is about 70 or 80 miles to the east. — Mr. Stradivarius 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alaska can be kind of annoying like that, they seem to have had a shortage of original ideas when naming stuff. In fact the original version of this article was about the other place over at Lowell Point. There's also an area called Bear Creek over by Seward and another one over by Homer. It can get confusing. I suppose we could maybe expand the main article on Homer to cover the annexation, it was quite the controversial topic here at the time, and it resulted in Miller Landing, parts of Diamond Ridge, and a few other unincorporated areas being added to Homer. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge The timeline suggests that the beginnings of continuous settlement (as opposed to its founding years, which suggests a boom-and-bust-to-ghost-town arc) actually began in Miller Landing, as opposed to the present-day downtown Homer. There's an "Old Town" in Homer which is a standard townsite plat, but if I remember, its size is about two city blocks. I haven't been to Homer in many years, but when I last walked through that "Old Town," it consisted mostly of vacant lots (still lots of them, per Google Street View). Next to that is the actual downtown, which always struck me as a random collection of subdivisions and deed lots rather than an actual platted townsite. Based on that, I'm not sure exactly how and from where downtown Homer evolved. Perhaps all this could be researched more and become a valuable addition to the history section of the Homer article, which jumps from mentioning 1896 in one paragraph to 2006 in the very next paragraph.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to navigate Homer has been described as like being just outside a town you can't quite find, because it is broken up into chunks. Google needs an update though, in the last few years old town has actually had quite the builing boom. There's a bunch of new buildings designed to look old and quaint. Then there is the bypass, where all the banks, grocery stores, etc are, Pioneer Avenue is essentially the "downtown" with lots of bars, galleries, gift shops, etc, then there is another business district across the lake on Ocean Drive, the harbor and associated tourism and fishing businesses four miles away on the Homer Spit, and finally the East side, about 2 miles outside the central area, where Miller Landing is. Most of that area, if I coresctly understand how it is being defined, is actually this rather large boatyard which still employs the old Miller hoestead boat haul-out, updated of course for modern fishing vessels. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Art Alive Gallery, New Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advertisement with dubious assertions of notability and COI history; I remain unconvinced that it can be salvaged in its present form, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I found lots of news sources listing events going on at the gallery, some of them mentioning the gallery prominently; however, I couldn't find any sources that discussed the gallery itself in any detail, so on balance I think it fails WP:ORG. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Mr. Stradivarius and WP:ORGIN: the venue does not inherit notability from the events or individuals associated with it. I couldn't find anything to support notability. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if galleries don't derive their notability from the artists/shows associated with them, what are the guidelines for their notability? The only reason people go to galleries is to see the shows. Otherwise, they're just buildings. Does this mean that no galleries are ever notable? Even those famous galleries draw their (real world, not wiki sense) notability from the artists they represent, etc. That's what draws other artists to their portfolios. That's a guideline question though and not for this AfD. That said, this article as it stands is a holy mess. I tried to clean it up when I removed the speedy back in January, but if you stub it down to remove the puffery it's an A7. If you add in the info on the shows/artists they rep, we're back to the notability question so stumped. StarM 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • reply - seems to me that a for-profit gallery is subject to the same requirements for notability as any other retail shop: what are the reliable sources writing about the gallery an sich as opposed to the merchandise (i.e., the art) they sell? Notability is not contagious: I don't become notable for selling notable books by notable authors; a bar doesn't become notable for selling notable beverages or for having notable customers. Where are the substantive articles actually writing about the gallery? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • reply I see your point, I just don't think it's that clear cut. I'm guessing by your bookselling analogy that you're a bookseller? If you're notable (not saying either way) you're notable for the books you sell, the authors you host, etc. If you don't have either of those, you're four walls and a roof. I don't see how it's that different to a gallery. For a bar, I'd argue that's exactly why they're notable. I'm not arguing "other stuff" but see, Elaine's for example. The exact reason it was notable (real world) was the customers it served. The same can be said for Carnegie_Deli. I'm not sold that this gallery is notable, which is why I'm not !voting, but I don't think notability here can be completely separated from the artists. If there were write ups on the gallery (and may be in Hindi language sources) they'd no doubt talk about the gallery's history exhibiting A, B and C or hosting guests 1,2,3, that's what galleries do. How do you separate them? StarM 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • reply I'm a clerk (now part-time) for Renaissance Books which is notable as a business for its size, its unique venue at the airport, its arguments with the city and neighbors, etc.; not for the books it sells or the authors it hosts. Retail businesses must have coverage of themselves that is about them not about the subjects with which they are associated. We see no evidence that there are articles about this gallery in and of itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Reply gotcha, think we're going to agree to disagree here. I'm still somewhat torn on this, but don't ultimately care enough about the gallery to try to save it. I tend to wonder along same lines as Mr. Stradivarius about language issues, but don't speak any of the local languages. If someone finds sources at some point it can always be re-created. StarM 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it could be that sources exist in one of the local languages. Does anyone know anyone that can do a source search in Hindi, or possibly Punjabi or Urdu? (Though I do note that our New Delhi article states that English is the primary written language of the city.) — Mr. Stradivarius 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio. The text was on Amazon in connection with a book self-published through Amazon on Jan 4th 2012, which indicates that it predates this article. Peridon (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Mir Ahmed Navaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I originally tagged this for a BLP Prod, but I honestly don't think there's a change of legitimate sources being added to this article (which is an autobiography). The reliable, independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO don't seem to be out there. A Google Books search for "mir ahmed navaid" turns up nothing but a book authored by the subject, while Google News and Google News archives searches turn up nothing. Given his academic background, I also checked Google Scholar, which also turns up nothing.

This is undoubtedly a bad sign for notability, and I believe this page qualifies for deletion on the basis of weak or nonexistent notability of the topic. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G12 as a copyright violation of this Amazon description. Even if Mir Ahmed Navaid wrote both the Amazon description and this article, he might have signed away the copyright to Amazon. And even if all the copyright issues somehow turn out to be ok, I couldn't find any sources indicating that he is notable. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable former Minor league baseball player. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:Run-of-the-mill, doesn't appear he did anything that would distinguish him enough from other career minor leaguers to deserve a page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of multiple sources of significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

SGS Agricultural Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advertisement, possible copyvio; apparently created by a corporate role account. Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete a promotional page for the division that doesnt really add anything that is not already in SGS S.A., although that suffers from some corporate guff as well. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No suitable sources or indication of wp:notability of this division. Written like an advertisement. 100% of material is self-description type. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• delete blatant WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I created this article after another user kept on vandalising the article Wess changing that articles content with this oen about some Croatian DJ. Dont know about the persons notability but I am quite sure he is not notable yet. BabbaQ (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable. Keep a close watch on the user who has hijacked the original Wess article, too. I reverted his original hjacking, and suspect self promotion (0.9 probabilty) Good procedural move to create the new article and then raise the deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability. The only source is self-published, a Facebook page. GregorB (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• note that the find sources tool now also includes his given name Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Balcan-IX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted (at least twice) as a speedy. Recent speedy and prod contested. Listing here for greater audience. I don't think it passes WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I see no independent, in-depth coverage, just scraps of dubiously-sourced data. And as for the (unsubstantiated) claim that this is "the largest Internet Exchange in Romania": so? May as well have an article on the largest bicycle vendor in Peru, the largest pig farm in Denmark, or the largest swimming pool in Burma. At some point, these "largest X in Y" signifiers descend into the trivial, and that is the case here. - Biruitorul 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete unremarkable topic. Not finding sufficient reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Article about a new species of orchid, said to have been discovered this year - in fact, the article seems to say that it was discovered less than a week ago, on March 25. Not surprisingly, neither of the on-line references mentions it, and the book referenced certainly does not, either, as it was published in 1990. The species is not mentioned in sites like orchidspecies.com or kew.org, and in fact I find no confirmation anywhere. The bulk of the article is general description of Bulbophyllum, plus advice about cultivating them copied from http://www.clanorchids.com/culture/bulbcult.htm, with the name of this species inserted. At best, this is a new name locally given (it is the same as the username of the article author), but we cannot keep this article without a reliable source for it as an official species name. PROD removed without comment by article author. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - as the article itself says, "The present species name Bulbophyllum hlakungpuii was given by Mapuia Hnamte in 2012." In other words, the name was not given by a scientist at Kew (for instance) but by a person in the village, and there are unsurprisingly no sources. Hlakungpui seems to name the people (or is it just the poets) of the area, not an individual. So this is not a hoax, but it is a mistaken idea both of binomial naming of plants and of WP notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - name is found in no sources; not a recognised species. -- 202.124.75.228 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete A new species must be published in a reliable academic journal in order to be accepted as a species. No such publication can be found, and the article itself doesn't inspire confidence that this has been done. First Light (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. At best some sort of "local name" for an orchid, but I suspect this is actually a promotional construct or hoax. This name does not appear in any reliable academic journal (or, for that matter, any unreliable academic journal), nor does the taxon's purported author. No plant of this name is listed in the IPNI. The "Hlakungpui Orchid Sanctuary" claimed as the discovery location does not appear to exist in any official capacity (and does not appear on the UN list of protected areas in Mizoram). None of the sources cited in the article support the claim to this taxon's existence in the slightest. Much of the article's current content is a copyright violation. And what little unique information is provided about this purported species is facially incorrect: given the size apparent in the picture, this is by no means "one of the smallest" Bulbophyllum (see here for an image of B. aschemon, for example). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this athlete to demonstrate notability under the WP:GNG, nor are there claims of notability under any appropriate SNG. joe decker 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - He is verifiably a professional skateboarder, but I am not able to find significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable actor and filmmaker. Previously deleted at Michael budd and Michaelbudd. Minor credits and no substantial reliable source coverage. Only references again are IMDb-style entries. Still fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete working actor, but I don't see anything that would pass our guidelines... very minor unnamed roles, TV commercials, and the like. Tellingly, the movie he's supposedly 'best known' for hasn't been released yet... and he's 13th-billed for it, according to IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ENT. unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly bit parts and other minor work. Lankiveil 19:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
• Delete per WP:G4 While another version was recently speedied deleted per WP:A7 as being a duplictae of THIS one, this one should have been speedied deleted too as a WP:G4 recreation of the one deleted per an AFD just six weeks before its recreation. But even if not speedied here, the rationale I offered at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Michaelbudd just 4 months ago still applies... this one is still simply Too Soon. Rarely do appearances in music videos or commercials create a sourcable notability. His film career fails WP:ENT and a lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. If or when this changes, we might consider an article, but not a repeat or under a different version of this name. I'd be okay with it being returned to its author should he ask, so he can then hope that Budd finally gets coverage upon the release of additonal projects. Schmidt, 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Stone Bridge Homes NW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite the sources, this is a non-notable company: top ten builders in Portland is not notable; winner of one non-notable award; "6th among single family home builders" - non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I contested the prod because this appeared to barely pass WP:GNG, although the sources are a little thin. It was hard to find more in a quick review of Google hits because of the piles of press releases that came up on the first few pages. However, the owner claims that very few builders are doing solar-ready homes in Oregon, which if one can find an independent source for, might be worth mentioning. Also, I suspect very few companies of this sort are owned by women, that might also be able to be sourced. Neither of these things in themselves confers notability, but they might be things to follow up on if anyone is interested in "saving" the article. Note that in general I have a hatred for developers, solar-powered or otherwise. It won't hurt my feelings this gets deleted. Valfontis (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete I had originally PROD'd this one as it was a no-brainer deletion, but not CSD'able. Non-notable placing in truly non-notable awards (6th of "local" builders). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I contested the prod, I guess I don't have a brain. Oh well. :) Valfontis (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think the real no-brainer deletion is Kelly Ritz--she has fewer sources than the article for her company. I wouldn't contest a prod on that article. Valfontis (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not done the research to see what else it out there, but what is in there is somewhat questionable. The Oregonian articles are suspect in that although they cover the topic in depth, they are not standard articles by the paper's writers. They are "special to" and other not exactly notability conferring types of articles. As in, I suspect they are PR pieces in disguise (more so than most biz articles) and that perhaps the company (or their PR firm) has been working on this. My main question is, did the nominator look in a good faith attempt to see if there is the coverage to confer notability? Currently I see no such statement. Without that, I would actually vote keep on procedural grounds, as that has almost always been a requirement (and still is) prior to starting an AfD listing (and common courtesy prior to even a PROD given the deletion policy). Aboutmovies (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - based on DGG's source check. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment see also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kelly Ritz DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete A check of G news shows there isn't. Normally when the references are a combination of local PR-originated pieces and one or two articles from a good RS that have nothing directly to do with the subject, it's fairly safe to assume there's nothing better, though of course it does need to be checked--a really thorough search can turn up surprises. But such sourcing is normally an indication of either paid PR work, or extremely naïve article writing by beginners. It can be hard to tell them apart, especially now that the paid PR writers have learned to deflect criticism by pretending they are naïve beginners. I find a fairly good distinction is if the article is well formatted and the content is worthless, it's not a naïve beginner. Since we cannot detect anonymous paid editing directly, our only defense is to be rather strict on whatever looks like promotional articles. I don't actually like that approach: I'd much rather fix articles no matter how improperly motivated, but I see no other way to deal with the increasing amount of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG, as I trust that he has done his due diligence (thank you). Also, though not a deletion criterion, note that the article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppeteer and PR spammer. Valfontis (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Paid editing is not a deletion criterion, as far as I know. Can you direct us to the guideline that says it is? Per WP:ATTP, please address the article, not the editor--what policy based concerns about the article's content do you have? Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite buy that WP:NOTADVERT doesn't apply to paid editing. Advertising is even a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD#G11, I think) 86.** IP (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The motivation behind creation of the article is irrelevant, but a few splashy articles in what amounts to the local 'sponsored by realtors' section of the newspaper aren't sufficient to demonstrate depth of coverage. They aren't written neutrally or with high journalistic tone. Otherwise, notability comes down to "hey, we put some extra wiring in our houses for solar". tedder (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think there's anything salvageable or notable about this article at all. Maybe the topic is notable. I don't think it is. Especially in its current state. It's astonishing the article was able to survive virtually unchanged since 2006 2004 - ...--Coin945 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Textbook dicdef, article is, well, a crock. Ten Pound Hammer • 13:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglooflame (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as above, DICDEF, OR, non-encyclopedic. The crock of the article refers to an item of crockery, i.e. a ceramic pot, which of course might contain something not good. As indeed the article does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as dictionary definition. Urban dictionary is thattaway. ----> /// Carrite (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Manthan The Annual National Techno management Fest at SBCET, Jaipur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article doesn't meet the general criteria of notability and there are no RS to prove the same. The College doesn't have Knowledge (XXG) page still. Amartyabag 11:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete spam with no reliable sources. OSborn_contribs. 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Lynch7 14:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I would have suggested merging with the article of its organizing institute Sri Balaji College of Engineering and Technology but as the institute article does not exist we can safely delete this one, moreover this article at the moment does not give any useful info apart from doing the promotion of this College Fest. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AM PM Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has recently become the target of some sort of struggle to drastically alter its content based on some as-yet unspecified legal issue. Legal issues aside, neither the original version nor the version as edited by an obvious WP:COI editor references any reliable sources to indicate that this local bus company meets WP:ORG. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The statements written are not true. Sorry, but I set up the company and am the mouth piece. the original article is misleading and the subject of vicious bullying of family members. Names, dates and vehicles are wrong. WikiDan61 keeps asking for authorities but is unable to produce his own. I speak first hand, whereas everything else is hearsay. I am a champion for freedom of information but only when it is the truth and when no harm is caused. Children are being bullied and it is causing serious distress and harm. the police are the next stage but in the interim this page should be deleted! No prejudice or harm will be made to members of the public if it is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manveer-ampm (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Manveer-ampm, Knowledge (XXG) has a low tolerance for legal threats and unadmitted conflict of interests and paid editing are not acceptable standards on Knowledge (XXG). Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Sadly, "first hand" accounts are not considered reliable sources. Since there is practically nothing to be found about this company in said reliable sources, it should be deleted. If Manveer can provide citations to such reliable sources, he is welcome to do so, but his own first hand knowledge is not going to suffice. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on your Comment User:Manveer-ampm actually says "this page should be deleted". So far we all seem to agree. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• No !vote yet, but some info for anyone looking at this. The article at present contains no sources whatsoever, because they were all removed by Maveer-ampm as part of the ongoing dispute. Previous versions included this industry piece about the company and this link about an award that one of their management team was nominated for. There's also this local news story about an attempt by a former employee to launch a successor company, and two bits of fairly brief coverage in Buses Magazine from 2009/10. I'll leave it to those less involved with this page to decide if that's enough to meet WP:CORP or not, noting in passing that Speedwellbus convincingly survived an AfD based on a similar set of sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments on Alzarian's sources -- if I had felt that the prior available sources were sufficient, I wouldn't have nominated for deletion. The first ref Alzarian provides is not an "industry piece" but rather a press release in which the company is announcing its new service. The second source indicates that the company's CEO was nominated for (not won) a relatively minor local business award. Winning the award would probably not have been sufficient to have the CEO's bio pass WP:BIO, so why should the nomination be considered sufficient to bolster the notability of his company? The other coverage amounts to "mention in passing" at best. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Aargh, sorry about that. I hadn't seen the web address at the base of the copied press release (that site also writes a lot of its own content, and the press release was neutral enough that I mistook it for one of those). Delete then. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to fail notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This appears to be a NN bus company. The infobox says it became defunct in 2011. Is this correct? If so it survived a mere three years. Editing by employees is unacceptable, as it is liable to lack PNOV; likewise WP:ATTACK editing. The attackers should be the subject of administrative action. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• delete per Burpelson AFB. S.G. _ping! 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This fails the notabality test and its best we get rid of it before the COI editor returns to edit waring from a meatpuppet account.Andrew Kurish (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. BigDom 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Contested PROD, by IP with no rationale given. Player has not made his first team debut therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Kingjamie, subject now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. Therefore the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Has now played first team football so meets WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ("Cameron Howieson replaces Josh McQuoid" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17520522). Kingjamie (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to withdraw the deletion nomination as the article now meets WP:NFOOTBALL subsequent to the AfD being placed. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Shōnen Ace.  Sandstein  08:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Prod was removed without comment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Shōnen Ace. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shōnen Ace is a fairly popular manga magazine in Japan, and this manga is also going to be made into a TV anime; I would guess that it is only a matter of time before reviews start to come out. I couldn't find any yet though, only announcements in Japanese that the first volume of the manga has been released in tankobon format. The bare details of the manga can be verified from the official sites, but this isn't enough for notability purposes, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Shōnen Ace in aggement with Mr. Stradivarius. – Allen4names 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Rhina Toruño-Haensly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Judging by the creator's username, this article may have been created by the subject herself. Looking at her CV, there doesn't seem to be anything that would prove that she passes WP:PROF. I also couldn't find any sources that would pass criterion one of WP:BIO. I see that she has published a lot, but I am not sure that it is enough to pass criterion one of WP:PROF. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - at this time. I have found several references as shown here . But you will notice that they are all from a small, circulation of only 16,595 during the week, Texas paper the Odessa American. If these references were from the New York Times or Washington Post I would be saying Keep. However, as it now stands, Ms Toruño-Haensly is not quite there yet for inclusion. ShoesssS 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is entirely WP:OR with no sources. Dr. Toruño-Haensly has published 5 papers according to WoS going back over 20 years and the entire body of that work has only 1 citation. GS record is similar. (Her massive >50 page CV has a long listing of "refereed journal publications", but quick glance shows that most of these "journals" are actually obscure university departmental publications. That is why they do not even appear in GS.) Her several books all have low to moderate holdings: Crossing cultures <40, Tiempo.. 110, Juan Felipe... <20, Cita... ~40. I would say this record is very average for an academic over a 35-year career. Agricola44 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Article was created by Brizel. No reliable, independent sources to show notability. Comatmebro (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete only sources are a boxing site with which Brizel seems to be connected, WP itself, and Brizel's own site (which was multiply listed under Ext links, have cleaned up). Hence no RS. Apparent CoI also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Chiswick Chap and Comatmebro. All the sources point back to the same site. Does not meet WP:Notability. Iglooflame (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - The topic appears to fail WP:GNG at this time. After performing searches using various criteria, such as ""Robert Brizel", boxing", ""Robert Brizel" writer", "Robert Brizel" boxing writer" and others, just not finding coverage in third-party reliable sources. Northamerica1000 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do Not delete! Presently I am one of Knowledge (XXG)'s principal boxing writers and photographic contributors in the public domain. Many of the Saddoboxing stories I write are written specifically to provide Knowledge (XXG) references on boxers when no other information is available. My internet boxing site gets millions of hits a day, my claim to fame. In another smile of stupidity, some Knowledge (XXG) dodos deleted my Henry Hascup (boxing historian) entry today, accusing of copyright infringement of my own article on Saddoboxing! On my own site! In fact Wiki was written first, and the Saddoboxing article on Henry Hascup was written later to support it. You might have at least waited till I got back from reporting on the Golden Gloves before you attacked my bio credibility, as well as my Wiki references, articles which I wrote on my own site specifically to create Wiki references.....Robert

• Robert, I am sorry you have to face this, but as you probably know, the problem is that to have a Knowledge (XXG) article, you need to meet the threshold of "notability" (WP:GNG - "the general notability guideline"). But basically this means unless we can find significant independent sources reporting on a subject (i.e., newspapers, books, scholarly articles, encyclopedias, etc.), the subject is unlikely to survive a deletion discussion. You can write about youself on your userpage a bit if you wanted though, at User:Cocoruff, which you have yet to create. BTW, since you write about boxing, if you know of any public domain images of Jacob Hyer, I'd love to get one on that article. Cheers.--Milowent • 02:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, since you write about boxing, if you know of any public domain images of Jacob Hyer, I'd love to get one on that article. Cheers.--Milowent • 02:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Hyer Images and Drawings exist. If only the Wiki people weren't so anxious to delete my entry on the world famous boxing historian who has them, maybe I could have provided them....Robert

• Comment – (Copied/pasted from my user talk page): Unfortunately, Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines regarding topic notability don't appear to have been met regarding the Robert Brizel article. Please refer to Knowledge (XXG)'s General notability guideline, which is Knowledge (XXG)'s primary notability guideline. It's nothing personal whatsoever, and the topic has merit in terms of being about a boxing writer. It's just that Knowledge (XXG) has these policies in place to establish criteria for what constitutes topic notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

If you could provide reliable sources for the topic, please do so in the AfD discussion and add them to the article, which will help to establish notability for the topic in terms of Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policies. Northamerica1000 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Source References Provided for Robert Brizel, Henry Hascup (reposted) and Joe Antonacci. The reliable source references have been provided.....................Robert

Incidentally, the so-called 'theshhold' of books, newspapers and magazines cited as a requirement is a standing joke. Famous boxing writers like Brizel write for internet sites and get millions of hits a day. Everything in boxing is now internet based. The so-called book, magazine and article boxing writers who write for print only (not the internet) were fired years ago. Those references and reporters don't exist in the boxing profession in the current digital era. Bert Sugar was moved from the front row to the back row in recent years, as the old boxing school faded from significance in favor of digital-minded boxing reporters.

• Delete no reliable, independent sources of information found - the ones in the article do not meet this criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG, etc. Basically, being a Knowledge (XXG) editor doesn't mean you can also have an article on yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG. As stated above, reliable sources are key, especially since this is a WP:BLP. Ishdarian 05:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Bmusician 07:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I do not feel this article satisfies the requirements at WP:ORG. All "sources" (or the external links recently added that merely mention the company) are either official links, make driveby mentions, or are promotional in nature. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I found some good coverage in Google Books, for example these: . There were also a couple of good articles I found through Google News, although admittedly nothing in the national papers. I think the book results more than make up for this, though. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. See the article for some of them: Lunapads. Northamerica1000 00:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to the article's cited coverage from the Vancouver Sun (not terribly impressive because that is their hometown paper), I found articles (behind paywalls) in the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Dayton Daily News and the Chicago Tribune . --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Does not meet criteria WP:N, WP:V, or WP:BIO. Looks like an article created by a college professor for himself. JustOneJake (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per JustOneJake and WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglooflame (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This person appears to have a long record of non-tenure positions and no research-level scholarship impact according to GS. Nothing else that would satisfy WP:PROF. Broken links, SPA-created, unsourced claims of "known for...", etc. Lots of characteristics of a fan-page or vanity-page. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Deviant Sound Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bringing this to AfD as a PROD was disputed. I can see no notability, but would prefer a consensus decision. Peridon (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost a speedy a7 deletion. I found no good independent coverage for this company. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per duffbeerforme and WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglooflame (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, non-verifiable. No reliable sources to indicate notability, and none for any of the artists listed in the article - indeed, neither this label nor its artists appear to have any independent third-party coverage at all, reliable or not. (Even Discogs, where you'd expect someone to have uploaded at least one record from such a big roster of artists, draws a total blank.) Fosse8 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – After searching, not finding third-party coverage in reliable sources. Mostly just passing mentions in directories and social networking sites. The topic appears to fail WP:GNG at this time. Northamerica1000 01:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable rapper. Sole reference is self published (Label/production company). Google searches find no reliable, third party sources to establish notability. Livit⇑/_What? 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, borderline speedy a7, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per NawlinWiki and WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglooflame (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete Close association with Hopsin (clearly notable), apparently lots of fan interest, and 2 albums on Hopsin's label Funk Volume which looks like it's getting close to just about satisfying WP:MUSIC 5, but no reliable sources yet to indicate why SwizZz himself is notable in his own right. Delete, for now, but a likely candidate for an article in the future. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤  09:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

no notabilty, referenced with personal pages. appears to be artist spam / arts administrator spam. art professor who edits articles is not notable. neither boingboing or imdb are RS. listing references from 'monochrom' is self-promotional and not RS since article subject is the monochrom founder --self-publishing. 'DIY' means 'do it yourself' so organizing a prominent DIY thing is not notable. webby award isn't notable per se. this is an just extended CV seemingly mostly created by the article subject with nothing more notable going on than with any other college art teacher. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Johannes Grenzwhatever. Just wanted to mention that I'm not writing my own entry. The entry would be better if I did. But I find it fascinating that just a couple of days after I first give an interview about my new project/essay "W for Vendetta" (a criticism of the power structure and elitist gamology of Knowledge (XXG)) my entry suddenly gets a notability inquiry and a deletion procedure. Paranoid? I guess I made a good point. ;-) Grenz (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

i'm not familiar with your presentation/s about wikipedia being an elitist cabal or whatever. if there is such a structure, i'm not part of it. i think the article deserves deletion simply and only because by wikipedia standards, you're not notable. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

keep: added some stuff to the page some time ago but could give it another shot. a google search for jg and his projects brings up a ton of references. question: why is diy culture (as a cultural phenomenon (make magazine, maker faire, hackerspaces) not notable? bizarre! Stabilo (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - and re above "question: why is diy culture (as a cultural phenomenon (make magazine, maker faire, hackerspaces) not notable? bizarre!" um. res ipsa! and if you're asking that question seriously, you have no business voting here. WP:RS does not include self-published material. no blogs. no magazines you write yourself. no making events yourself and then writing about them yourself. you and JG and his socks need to find some real reliable sources to establish notability or let this article go where it deserves to go: the dustbin.Cramyourspam (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Johannes is one of the most prolific social satirist / commentator / artists alive today. To argue that he's not notable because he creates things is idiotic - every event is created by someone at some point and Johannes has a long standing history of creating events that resonate with people and become their own thing - The annual cocktail robotics festival "Roboexotica" in Vienna has been happening annually for over 10 years, attracts thousands of people from around the world and receives national art funding, at this very moment the front page of Re/Search Publications features a book, one of three now, that they've published about Johannes' ongoing "Arse Elektronika" conference. The live theater comedy series about the ISS that he directed ran in Berlin last year to sold out audiences every night. To suggest the person responsible for these has "no notability" is laughable, but the same person is saying that BoingBoing, ranked by Alexa as being in the top 2,500 sites in the world, and top 1,500 in the US, isn't RS, so that res ipsa. People with blatant axes to grind are part of the reason I've stopped being so active on Knowledge (XXG) in the last few years, totally depressing. Seanbonner (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

'Keep: Johannes Grenzfurthner is a well-known artist and culture jammer. Re: Boing Boing. He created campaigns and commissioned projects for BB, e.g. the acclaimed Cheetos Campaign, Firewall (with the Billboard Liberation Front) or the Kiki and Bubu video series, that were later presented at the Venice Biennial (Future Pass, 2011) 212.95.7.79 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 22. Snotbot  t • c »  15:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I added a few links to university talks and book publications. How someone can do a Ted talk, have multiple book publications and hold a university position and still some Knowledge (XXG) editor wants to delete them baffles me. Seems totally notable to me, according to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. And, as a professional artist, I have to confirm that Grenzfurthner is very influential and widely respected in the art world. To delete his article would only demonstrate Knowledge (XXG)'s lack of knowledge about contemporary art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.173.225 (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Also, I added pages from university websites about his professor positions, which supports notability for WP:ACADEMIC.

Keep: Johannes Grenzfurthner is one of Europe's leading media artists. I recommend that the article should be rewritten somehow, if it looks like spam. Franz Ablinger, University of applied arts, Vienna.

Keep: This baffles me that this is even an issue. Johannes has done more in the world of contemporary and performance art, satire and media theory than most people could dream of accomplishing. Johannes has produced a plethora of events and media publications over the years that have certainly attracted more than a modicum of media attention. Roboexotica, Arse Elektronica, the Soviet Unterzögersdorf video games, Kiki and Bubu are all productions that have been covered by the press and could easily merit their own wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekai (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: I am relisting this discussion because nearly all of the keep !votes are WP:ILIKEIT !votes and are completely unsupported by policy. Also please note that Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy and mass keep !votes are simply ineffective.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - numerous good sources; Grenzfurthner is an academic working on/writing about culture, as well as a performer working in it, and both aspects are suitably cited here. Article is not promotional but reports the (interesting) facts neutrally. He is evidently very well known both as a performer and as a writer. On the 'about' side, there are some scholarly books that cite him; on the 'in' side, we have the problem that many (most) of the sources are by definition outside WP's rules (online magazines, pop-culture blogs) even when in fact they are independent, secondary and generally reliable. However some of the magazines I looked at seem quite measured and sensible in their tone and appear to be reputable in their field. To sum up: very many sources; plenty of independent, secondary comment; some traditional academic citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- I guess I am one of the editors accused of being "a sock puppet." No, I'm just a fan of monochrom's work and keep updating their WP pages on an (in)frequent basis. Grenzfurthner's article cites well-known newspapers from different countries (Libération, Toronto Star, Der Standard) and notable magazines or online versions of magazines (Wired, Brand Eins, Owni, Neural). K-pachs (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Everybody Most people voting here seem to be in one way or other related to the subject. The same may apply to many of the sources used. What I would really like to see is a printed source i.e. use of a reference template with a pages=xxx page number. I did a search on Google news archives and found two or three mentions, but noting that would discus the topic in any detail. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Question What makes you think that User:Ekai and User:Chiswick Chap are related to the subject? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Gee! I love it when I am challenged. User:Chiswick Chap seems to have gone through the references and has no connection. User:Ekai is connected in the way the both he and Johannes Grenzfurthner have each other in their Google+ circles. (This does not really mean much, as they have 800 and 400 similar connections respectively.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Question. This is "Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Johannes Grenzfurthner (2nd nomination)". Where is "Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Johannes Grenzfurthner"? (If nowhere, then why is this the "2nd nomination"?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- Moderate investigation of material found through Google Scholar and Google Books establishes WP:CREATIVE not WP:ACADEMIC. Cursory examination of citations and content reveals subject has not done any one thing that established Notability by itself under other criteria. However, subject's work over the past decade as referenced by in Scholar/Books links along with the subject's (apparently permanent?) exhibition in the Museumsquartier meets WP:CREATIVE 1 and 3. Establishing Notability is further confounded by the fact the subject's notable works are typically primarily referenced in German language WP:RS, while most of the subject's published works appear to be in English or in German/English hybrid form. The language barrier of WP:RS is not a bar to Notability (as explicitly stated in WP:GNG). Further confounding Notability is that the article fails to address things repeatedly covered by Books/Scholar on top of the fact the subject is prolific self-publisher and (and apparently shameless) self-promoter lending validity to WP:SPS and WP:LIKE.--Nickfarr (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The question still remains, is there anything about the subject that could not better be covered in the article monochrom? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To directly answer your question: I don't know. It appears that monochrom does a better job of framing the some of the subject's work, which simply suggests this article needs improvement. Perhaps including more content from the German articles putting the differences between the subject and his art group would improve the article? But in any case, would that somehow discount WP:CREATIVE if the subject's entire work is simply monochrom?--Nickfarr (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Merging would imply that he is only known for founding monochrom, which is not the case. He is an author writing about and reflecting on culture, technology and politics, and that is not necessarily part of his job at monochrom. In his German interviews he talks about his thoughts on being the "frontman" of a group, and how that impacts his work that is not labelled monochrom. K-pachs (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Userfying v/r - TP 03:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Make Justice Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am unable to locate significant secondary reliable source coverage to establish notability for this organization. I have turned up many passing references, that seem to always be linked to one of the key people, Roma Hooper, such as these BBC that says, "Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to highlight the cost of locking up non-violent offenders, said..." and the Burnley Citizen , which says, "Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to reform short-term prison sentences, said...." and the Scotsman which says, "However, Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which backs the policy, said...". There are claims of having "over one hundred" notable "Ambassadors" for the organization. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:ORG. There may be enough on Roma Hooper for a separate article, but that is a separate issue as notability is not inherited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I agree everything seems to trace back to Roma Hooper, the campaign founde, who seems to be a one-person publicity machine. There are hints that the campaign has had an impact on official government channels. In effect there is only one weak news source in The Guardian, while the Sun article admits it is an unabashed copy. If one other independent in-depth news source can be identified, I might change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Update from page author - I have updated the page with more information and numerous reliable sources, including direct responses to questions about the final report by a UK Cabinet minister in the house of commons. Please remove the deletion notice.Toomanyairmiles (Toomanyairmiles) 02:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe a constructive solution would be to write an article on the "Community or Custody" report, based on the sources and information that has provided. It is currently a re-direct to Make Justice Work but, in my view, it is a far better topic for an article. Most of the sources mention the Report in significant detail, while the group behind it is largely unmentioned. Sionk (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hi Sionk, yes, I would like to create a standalone page about the report eventually, but it's significance hangs on events currently taking place in the house of lords. What i'd really like to do is write about community sentencing models in the UK, but literally everyone involved in the sector from an academic, parliamentary and legal standpoint is an MJW ambassador and almost all of the evidence that this is a good thing to do comes from two of MJW's reports and the com-res survey they commissioned. It's actually very hard to reference the evidence without referencing MJW in some way. Toomanyairmiles (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very weak delete before the recent updates, I would have sided with Delete as the organization does not seem to have notability outside Roma Hooper's PR machine, as previously mentioned. However, there are 2 new cites to the related topic "Community or Custody enquiry" as having been mentioned by Tom Brake MP and Lord Dholakia during official British government business. This isn't exactly Make Justice Work itself, but it's close... however, even these mentions were made at the request of Make Justice Work, and the Government's reply to the question is generic and doesn't mention either the report or Make Justice Work, it's just a vapid politician response. I'd really like to see some other, independent and genuine notice of the organization. Zad68 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Zad68 the newsletter you refer to is actually discussing the an amendment to the forthcoming justice bill tabled by Tom Brake and proposed by MJW, the question precedes the amendment, I've added a more specific entry about the parliamentary question, but I can't talk about the amendment without citing original research. I did try and add some other independent notice of the organisation but coming from the Law Societies journal, but it was rejected by ConcernedVancouverite who threatened to ban me if I added another similar linkToomanyairmiles (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Based on this, my !vote is now Userify (or incubate) I bet this will be a worthy topic soon, but not quite just yet. Give it a week or three and as soon as we can get a quality newspaper cite it'll probably qualify. Zad68 (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy, or Incubate per WP:CRYSTAL - like sunny-side-up eggs, it's not quite ready yet. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 19 March 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  20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong| confess _ 15:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

2004 Kerala film deadlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable event. Also already covered under article Association of Malayalam Movie Artists. --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Unnotable enough to not have an article by itself. There are a few reliable sources which speak about it, but that does not automatically enable it to get so much weightage. If it is not present elsewhere, it can be merged but since it is, it could be deleted. Secret of success (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - adequately covered in Association of Malayalam Movie Artists. Cagoul (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The original article was unsatisfactory, but the consensus is clearly to keep the revised and retitled version. This seems to have been yet another example of people in the Academic Program proceeding to select article topics and titles without adequate prior consultation. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Myth: People are at Increased Risk for Suicide During the Winter Months (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One-sided personal essay, with evident POV. Some content could perhaps be smerged to Suicide. We don't have a WP:NOTMYTHBUSTERS policy, but I reckon WP:NOTESSAY will do. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a completely legitimate article. If the extreme POV is eliminated and the article rewritten for better tone, and the article renamed to something more neutral like "Relation between suicide rates and season," it will be a legitimate article. Although I do agree we need a policy about tones like this in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTESSAY. Despite the above, I am not convinced that there's a legit article topic under all this spaghetti. As I see it now it's a total WP:SYNTH nightmare. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete If the article title wasn't so long I'd argue for a plausible redirect to cabin fever, but I can't see that at all. It reads as an essay and is full of synthesis that doesn't really meet what we'd call cabin fever very much. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOTESSAY and all the rest above. Not encyclopedic at all. 24.129.180.6 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Smerge (selectively merge) to Suicide or Keep, rewrite as needed and move to Seasonal suicide rates. The "mythbusters" style of demolishing a straw-man proposition is not encyclopedic. The article does read a bit like a college research paper, but the edit history shows it being assembled sentence by sentence by a new editor who says he is studying psychology in college. It looks like the good-faith effort of a new editor to create an article on an important topic. Seasonal suicide rate variation has been a subject covered in several published articles for over a century. See a 1908 article says "June is.. the suicide month" (in the northern hemisphere) and cites Durkheim and other researchers, . Google scholar shows numerous studies which looked at suicide rates in various seasons. The conclusion of higher rates in local spring or summer than in local winter has support. In summary, I can see a place in the encyclopedia for the information, but the article needs to be moved to a better title and edited extensively for style, if it is not merged to Suicide, where I don't see coverage of its seasonal variation, with a spring or summer peak and a winter trough, a widely researched topic:, . Edison (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but rename and rewrite as Seasonal effects on suicide rates, per Edison (but note my proposed variant of the title). Alternatively merge as its own section of the Suicide article. Needs serious cleanup either way. - Jorgath (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but rename I am the professor of the student author who is working on this article. To provide some history and context for this article, the student is part of the APS wikipedia initiative; the goal of which is to provide the public with the most accurate and up-to-date information about psychological science. The impetus for the article was based on a similar myth-busting article on people using 10% of their brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/10%25_of_brain_myth). That said, we are more than happy to revise the title of the article and its content to provide a more neutral, basic information tone. We are new to the wikipedia editing process, but I can assure you the edits and changes are being made in good faith. Prof Haeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
  • Comment The "busting a myth" strawman-demolition style would be more appropriate in Parade magazine or some grocery store tabloid than in an encyclopedia. Please do not encourage your students to use that particular style of crafting future articles. Thanks to you and them for efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, thank you for your feedback; we will not use this particular style in the future for crafting articles. And, if given the opportunity, the student author will continue to work diligently on this article to improve it. That said, I would again like to note that this "style" of article was not naively based on something seen in "Parade" or a tabloid, but rather something IN wikipedia. There is an existing precedent for this style of article (see 10% myth article). Prof Haeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC).
• Keep I believe that by reversing the order of the lead sentence and moving the Popular belief section to the bottom of the article, that the article is now truly focused toward Seasonal effects on suicide rates. I do not really have any problem with the popular belief > facts presentation, but hopefully those who do will now be satisfied. Anarchangel (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NOTESSAY and above. Iglooflame (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I've done a significant rewrite on the article to try to word things in a more neutral way . . . that, in combination with the renaming should address the WP:NOTESSAY concerns raised above. There are plenty of references available to meet WP:GNG. --StvFetterly(Edits) 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic is notable, as is clear from the many reliable sources discussing studies regarding the topic. Any POV issues can be dealt with in the regular way by editing.  --Lambiam 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This was a titling problem. Content is encyclopedic and sourced. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The titled article of this AFD is not an article, it is a redirect to Seasonal effects on suicide rates North8000 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the "Myth:... redirect article. That mess of a title should not exist even as a redirect.North8000 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge the "Seasonal effects on...." article. It is well written and sourced. But it is an angle on a topic, not a topic. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. What do you want to merge the Seasonal effects on suicide rates article with?--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as Seasonal effects on suicide rates. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ricardo Alvarez-Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability and references questioned for over 20 months. Subject is a (relatively) young architecture graduate and partner in a design firm. 2 sources in article, one is written by the subject, the other may or may not contain in-depth coverage of Alvarez-Diaz. Judging by a Google search there is no evidence pointing towards notability, only listings and the occasional mention in a couple of online news articles. Does not seem enough to substantiate a WP article. NB the original author is 'Ricalvarez', strangely similar name to the subject! Sionk (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete - There is no clear claim of notability in the article. Being a working architect is not a claim to notability. There is no indication of awards, or major works that have attracted critical attention. There is no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Whpq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvis Sherbourne (talk • contribs)
• Delete No indication of wp:notability. One ref is self written, the other is vague and includes a wikilink in the reference. Ability to meet wp:notability looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A contested proposed deletion, my rationale was:

• This product has a fairly small market share as far as geologic modelling and mining software packages go, and my search for usable souces came up with nil, so this will not pass the genearal notability guidelines.

Keeping that as my AfD rationale. I am familiar with the product (although never used it myself), the market share comment is based on my own knowledge of the geo/mine modelling industry, you can choose to take it or leave it.. kelapstick 04:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, as notability of this company is not established. The article is a mixture of company and product with no distinct topic (infobox is about company, lead is about product) and no signs that any of those are notable. Each of such articles should be deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A steaming pile of WP:OR with no references to speak of. I'm sure the lynx has some place in world mythology, but IMO, it's better to scrap this and start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I've made some changes, added some sources. The sources weren't hard to find, by the way. Did you check? DoctorKubla (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Could still use more love, but it's definitely no longer pile of junk it was when nominated. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Sources now establish wp:notability. Kudos to DoctorKubla for the massive improvement. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Has improved since nomination. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination, now that's it no longer an eyesore. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Teacher of questionable notability. Provided references are either primary or unreliable sources - a Google search on "Nicole Mujica" NFAA shows only three results - two of which are from Knowledge (XXG) articles edited by this page's creator. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As above - we can't include every teacher in the world - Arjayay (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Slight Keep I would like this article to be kept but I think some of the article's information should be transferred to M.A. Milam K-8 Center since that is the school she teaches at. (Soulboost (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC))
• Note I don't understand how Judith F. Kroll is not up for deletion but this article is. Soulboost (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• We're not debating her here, but a person holding a "Distinguished Professor" title at a major research university does probably pass the WP:PROF test. However, if you disagree, please nominate that article for AfD and we'll discuss that separately. We generally try to avoid waxing on other articles. Thanks very much, Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

• Delete. The claim to notability in this article is basically that she is a well-liked middle school teacher and the sources are nothing more than her school web-page, ratemyteachers web-page, etc. This fails any of the notability guidelines you'd like to choose. With all due respect, the author has no awareness of what constitutes notability. I don't even think the contents can be transferred to her place of employment, M.A. Milam K-8 Center, because there simply isn't a single independent WP:RS. Sorry, Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

• Delete - I'm sure the subject is a wonderful teacher. I've been taught by some great teachers for whom I have a great deal of respect. But that doesn't make them notable as they have not received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources need to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ALS Awareness Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bit of a tricky one. If ALS Awareness Month really was in May, it seems like it would have great potential for being notable. However, I think the creator of this article is referring to something very local. A quick google search for "ALS Awareness Month" shows that in some places, June has the same title. What do you think? —JmaJeremy _contribs 06:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- Act of U.S. Congress set national ALS awareness month May 1992; previously scattershot, and states/local observances sometimes local-story dependent (Ohio standardized May in 2011); stories of 20th anniversary recognition at MDA and non-independent sites. Keeping likely falls to non-independent sources vs. acts of national/state congresses. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 March 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) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be widely recognized, endorsed by the national ALS association and the CDC (and that's just from the first two links of google results), although clearly the article needs a cleanup and expansion. I did what I could in the limited time I have. -RunningOnBrains 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Per the ALS Association, May is ALS Awareness month. The Muscular Dystrophy Association also confirms May as ALS month, stating that, "May is ALS Awareness Month, thanks to a 1992 declaration by the U.S. Congress to help spotlight the tremendous challenges being faced by individuals living with ALS, as well as the importance of speeding worldwide research seeking treatments and cures for the fatal disease." Northamerica1000 03:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also states that May is ALS Awareness Month – Announcements: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness Month --- May 2011. Northamerica1000 03:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - In the United States, May is "ALS Awareness Month". It may differ in other countries. The topic has received significant coverage in trustworthy and reliable government and organization sources. The topic has also received significant coverage in reliable sources:

• Cosgrove, Alicia (May 6, 2011). "May is ALS Awareness Month". Northwest Observer. Retrieved March 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• "Fresno man showcased during ALS Awareness Month". KFSN-TV. May 22, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 03:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Expanded article, added: In Canada, June has been declared as ALS Awareness Month by the Canadian Minister of Health.

—Northamerica1000 03:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep particularly following expansion... thank you Northamerica1000... obviously still needs a lot of work but stands as a stub... Fayedizard (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus appears to be to keep the content. Whether that is as a stand alone article or merged into a list can be a discussion for another venue. At root (no pun) of the issue is basically does the article satisfy WP:GNG. The argument for keeping are of the WP:CRYSTAL variety, but they are convincing nontheless. I agree with Yunshui that this specific AFD falls into the WP:IAR here with respect to the notability guidelines. The consensus appears to lean keep but at the very least it is keep the content. v/r - TP 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Buddleja 'Flutterby' Lavender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As far as I can tell on the basis of the information in the article, this is a non-notable cultivar. Individual species are of course certainly notable, no matter how obscure, and lower ranks--even cultivars--of economic or scientific or cultural importance, but this one as stated in the article "has yet to appear in literature."

There are other similar articles, and depending on what the consensus is here, I may nominate them. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment There are at least a hundred documented Buddleja#Hybrids_and_cultivars, many of them with good pages with citations. It seems a reasonable function of an encyclopedia to describe well-known hybrids and cultivars. The implied desire to remove all hybrid and cultivar pages (?!) would be somewhat drastic in its effect - there must be many thousands of them, and there is certainly a large community of gardeners and horticulturalists who are interested in maintaining and reading them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The page forms part of a set, aimed at providing the most comprehensive guide to the genus ever attempted. The cultivar has yet (March 2012) to appear in literature simply because it was only released a few months ago as part of the Flutterby™ series of STERILE buddleja. American in origin, production of many of the series has already been syndicated to European nurseries. The shrubs will no doubt soon become very popular, the inventor having eliminated virtually all the horticultural pitfalls of the genus (large size, sparse and straggly habit, prolific self-seeding, need for annual hard-pruning etc.). Ergo: the page(s) should become of interest to gardeners on either side of the pond. Ptelea (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Usually I'd vote delete on something as poorly sourced as this. However, the arguments above are valid - Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, and it seems reasonable for an encyclopedia to describe all known cultivars of a species. Perhaps this is a good time to ignore the rules? Alternatively, the numerous articles on Flutterby cultivars could possibly be merged to form one larger article, Buddleja Flutterby cultivars or similar. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think the idea of grouping under Flutterby cultivars could be worthwhile; there can still be redirects from each of the cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Pteles' comment indicates 1/that it is not yet notable and 2/that the purpose is advertising. Note the use of the TM symbol. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, I believe Ptelea is just distinguishing that Flutterby is a trademark name rather than a cultivar name ( in this case 'Podaras#11' ). See "Selling names" at Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (flora) - a consensus has not yet been reached for the best way to represent trade designations for cultivars.--Melburnian (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Something only supported by a patent application does fail GNG. But I know Ptelea's work on cultivars of all kinds of plants, and that they're working towards a complete collection of Buddlejas. Which isn't actually a bad thing, IMO. If it's pretty much certain to end up in lit., and it's rather likely to be successful, why not wait a bit? Userfy the article until such time as something is published, and which point it should be acceptable back in article space. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• tentative keep (or maybe merge to some list of Buddleja cultivars page, which we don't really have at present). This suggests it's been in USA Today (?) - alot of horticultural material has poor penetration onto the internet. and many journals are not accessible online. General Notability Guidelines work ok as once something has achieved any sort of penetration into the market there will be sourcing, but it might be hard to find....I should add that having brought plant articles which have cultivars to FA standard, finding sourced info on the cultivars can be damned hard...even when I know the name and maker and I'm staring at the plant and its label in my garden. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A detailed description from a jurisdiction outside the United States that deals with plant breeders' rights applications (like this) would help the notability cause but I haven't been able to locate one yet.--Melburnian (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. As author of this article, and resident in the UK, I have no interest in advertizing a

cultivar only available in the USA. I have no connection whatsoever with either the plant breeder or the nursery which has obtained the propagation rights. What advertisement do you know of that does not mention the vendor? My sole purpose in writing the article, and about all the other cultivars of genus Buddleja, was to describe the plant and its history. And you regard this as advertizing? The Flutterby series are of considerable horticultural interest, since they are all sterile and thus permissable in regions where the species has been proscribed because its invasiveness. Ergo: the plants are of interest to the wider public also. As a newly released plant, references are inevitably few. However, the US patent cited comprises 4 pages, including photographs. What more do you want from a reference? Ptelea (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Given Casliber's comment, I think I will go with a keep. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that his comment and Ptelea's amount to 1. it will be notable some day and 2. We have other equally weak articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it's borderline at best. But a patent + non-trivial mention in USA Today + a catalogue entry gets it past the minimum threshold. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to an appropriate list. Per WP:V#Notability, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." No sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG are cited here or in the article. Of course it may be desirable to cover all verifiable cultivars of certain commercially important species, but in view of the aforementioned policy, such coverage should consist of a list entry rather than a separate article.  Sandstein  19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per User:Sandstein, notability has not been established during this discussion despite careful searching by all concerned, and a list would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I continue in the opinion that subspecific varieties of this sort are not notable as a matter of course. They are so only if scientifically or commercial important; the mere existence of the variety and the availability of the plants is not notability, any more than any routine commercial product. I agree with Sandstein that we should cover them--but as an entry on a list. There is no basis in policy for individual articles. The best degree of aggregation on the list I leave to the specialists. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 17:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kargar Boneh Gez Tangestan F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, author has added references, but these only support the team's appearance in the fourth level of Iranian football. No indication that the article meets either the General Notability Guidline or the specific football criteria for inclusion. Cloudz679 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a clear example of the systemic bias ingrained by WP:FOOTYN. That essay, that usually seems to be regarded as a guideline at WP:AFD, treats clubs at the tenth level of English football as notable, but is used to deny notability to clubs at the fourth level of football in a larger, equally football-mad, country. Am I the only one who can see the inconsistency here? Or will we just get more bot-like delete opinions citing an obviously unfit-for-purpose essay. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have concerns with WP:FOOTYN I suggest you initiate a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL. Cloudz679 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - With all due respects to my dear friends, I wonder why they told that it fails WP:GNG & WP:FOOTYN! The references used in the article has written enough about this FC to make him notable. On the other hand, this club had participated in Iran Football's 3rd Division; any clubs that competed in any national leagues would be notable. ●Mehran ● 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The fourth tier in Iran is actually split into six groups, not exactly a national league. So your comment about playing in a national league is not applicable in this case. According to Iranian football league system, only the top tier is a national league. Maybe it is worth looking at WP:ORGIN - not exactly unrelated sources, WP:CLUB - fails point 1, as well as the aforementioned WP:GNG. Cloudz679 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• These four tiers are organized by Football Federation of Iran. Iran pro league & Azadegan league & 2nd & 3rd division league, all are national leagues, because the teams are organized through the country, not a province or a special region. We have provincial leagues in Iran which in not national, but the higher divisions would be national. ●Mehran ● 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even Iran Football's 3rd Division refers to itself as a regional league, where teams play other teams based on geographic criteria. Cloudz679 08:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• That sentence has not any sources and it seems that it has been written by a user. In fawiki it has been considered that 3rd division is a national league and organized by the federation. You can also see the news of these leagues in the federation website. ●Mehran ● 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for a reference. The iran wiki page you referenced looks much like what I've already seen in English wiki, with the fourth tier divided into six levels. There is no information there supported by inline citations which show any kind of notability. Additionally, the federation website that you linked to doesn't seem to establish any kind of notability for the league. Cloudz679 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Relisting to allow comments on Mehran's views. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment' The rules for FOOTY are only guidelines to the extent that we want them to be; & the preferences of those who work primarily are the subject do not determine it. The project as a while makes the rules the project as a whole makes what exceptions it pleases. It seems reasonable to me that we would want to make different requirements in countries where it is a major sport, with excellent news coverage, and countries were it it is much less well organized & with much less news coverage. It's a matter of judgment, and the judgement is that of the community as a whole. How we should judge this particular case, though,I have no personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - although there are some sources only two seem to be independant (soccerworld) not really enough at the moment for me to vote keep. However, if a few more were added then I would vote keep. Adam4267 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Prod removed by article creator, who is also the subject of the article. This is the second time that Ian Parsley has created an article about himself on Knowledge (XXG). The previous article was deleted in June 2009. While Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy, the previous AFD was fairly clear with 8 people arguing for his deletion and only 2 for keep, one of them a keep! vote and the other arguing on the basis that Parsley was likely to become an MLA at the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011. He wasn't even a candidate. In the previous AFD I argued: "the subject has not held any national or regional office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage in reliable third party sources appears to be lacking. This is as close as it gets and as the BBC has, for reasons of fairness, profiled all candidates (there were only seven of them in Northern Ireland) it doesn't cut it as can be seen from the fact that the non-notable green candidate gets a similar candidate profile. Per countless previous discussions, just being a candidate is not in itself notable." All that still applies and the only other coverage since June 2009 was over a bit of minor controversy when the subject briefly switched to the Conservatives to unsuccessfully contest a Westminster seat where he finished a distant second. Valenciano (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - A play on Ian Paisley perhaps? Carrite (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there's a real politician called Ian Parsley, I just don't think he meets our notability guidelines. Valenciano (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If this gets deleted, perhaps we could recreate it as a redirect to Paisley? Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? He's got nothing to do with Ian Paisley other than having a fairly similar name. The 2009 European election in NI would probably be the best target in the event of a redirect. Valenciano (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the point: a similar name. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Magican and the comments about the "magician" redirect. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but I don't think the situation is the same and in the event of a redirect Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) would be best. Valenciano (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - last time, I spoke in favour of deletion, but, since June 2009, I'm seeing some significant coverage: Belfast Telegraph and BBC News articles on his defection to the Tories, an Irish Times article on his candidature in the 2010 general election, a News Letter article on the possibility of him standing in the Assembly election, a Belfast Telegraph article on a dispute between him and the Conservatives, and another on his departure from the party. While he doesn't meet the specific grounds listed at WP:POLITICIAN, he has now received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Warofdreams talk 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete There are no substantive grounds for notability being asserted. He doesn't even qualify as a perennial losing candidate. The article can realistically contain no notable material beyond the fact that he can't stay in one party for longer then 20 minutes and can't get elected to anything. There is no notability here beyond a vanity article, which it is worth pointing out, what this is. Traditional unionist (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability, in Knowledge (XXG) terms, is determined using this metric: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Which part of this does Parsley not now satisfy? Warofdreams talk 00:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Coverage in third-party sources is difficult for parliamentary candidates (or European Parliament). Quite often the coverage is stock party line-towing quotes in local papers on whatever local issue is getting attention this week, and IMHO that alone shouldn't qualify as evidence of notability. The thing that just about pushes me in favour of saving the article is the bar that needs to be crossed for candidature in this case. In Northern Ireland, where almost all elections are conducted by Single Transferable Vote, you normally only get one candidate in a multi-member constituency unless the party is confident they're in with a shot of getting two or members elected - and in this case, this a moderately well-known party's only candidate for the whole of Northern Ireland. MEP election are generally regarded as poor cousins to MP elections in the UK, but it's still a harder nomination to scoop that many MP candidate nominations throughout the UK. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Warofdreams. He's notable because, in Britain, politicians switching parties appear to be quite rare. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In Britain it's not unheard of, in Northern Ireland, which is where we are talking about, it happens frequently.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not specifically the fact that he switched parties, or even that he then switched back - Jim Kirkpatrick has done that on far more occasions - but that his changes of allegiance and candidacies have now attracted significant media coverage. Warofdreams talk 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Kirkpatrick qualifies because he managed to get elected to a province wide body once upon a time. Parsley has been in more parties than the tally of elections he has won, that isn't notable.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). I've added some references to the article: see diff page. Northamerica1000 22:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keep !votes (although cautious) have not been countered (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Unclear whether she is a tenured professor -- but even if she is, no real sign of notability. The "great grandmother" bit appears to indicate that the article is a vanity article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Senator2029 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep With apparently reliable English-language sources having discussed the "Sons and Daughters of the Fu Family", a novel apparently written by this author, as a best-seller and serialized in three venues, I am left with the belief that a careful examination of Chinese-language sources for this author by someone who spoke Chinese, such as , , perhaps would allay any lingering concerns about notability. The automated translations of those articles appear clear enough to me. --joe decker 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Quite clearly notable as a writer -- at least 40 novels over a very long career, most of them held in all the academic libraries that have such collections dozen novels. I cannot determine whether she is notable as an academic , but it doesn't matter. Many articles on notable authors are done by enthusiastic young readers or family members, and the presence of some inappropriate material in an article does not invalidate the notability DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The second keep doesn't express a policy based rationale for keeping and the first keep later expressed that this article should be deleted for now. v/r - TP 16:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Guernsey Rovers A.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD was contested at userpage and requested AfD. No comments offered at this stage. Original concern was no indication of notability. Cloudz679 09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 09:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Rovers are one of the 7 clubs that compete in the Guernsey Football Association League (The FNB Priaulx League) - the main league on Guernsey. Given the remoteness of the island in respect to mainland Britain I make the case that any club that has competed in the main league on the island should be treated as notable. There is an issue of precedence with reference to the Isle of Man Football League where 25 clubs have their own WP article. It could be that this is an issue that has wider ramifications and should be discussed on WP:FOOTBALL. In terms of quality the Guernsey Rovers A.C. article is dated/very poor. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
• Delete - no evidence of notability. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. GiantSnowman 13:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question. It would seem there is no article on the Guernsey Football Association League (GAFL) so would that be considered notable if created? I note that Guernsey F.C. has achieved notability because that club has qualified for an English regional league, the Combined Counties Football League. It seems to me that GAFL is very minor but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. There must be a notability relevance in the Guernsey official football team not being affiliated to either FIFA or UEFA. --Brian (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Vale Recreation from the Guernsey Football Association League competed in the FA Vase from 1987-91 refer (http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/VALEREC.HTM) - they reached the fourth round in 1987-88. Are the Island's clubs disadvantaged in entering the Vase because of costs/remoteness? (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 20:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
• Suggest defer. The debate that I have started on Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Football on Football clubs on remote islands may assist us in coming to a decision on this one. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 12:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC))
• Keep. I think the club is notable in terms of Guernsey football which deserves coverage here. --Brian (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment This AfD has been open for three weeks and the article is still lacking any independent sources which confer notability. I strongly suspect this is because there is no notability. Regarding the discussion Finnish Gas previously started, there was no consensus that notability is conferred on these island clubs. In the absence of notability, despite ample time being allowed in order to establish it, I feel the only option is to delete the article. Cloudz679 11:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Given the lack of consensus I agree with Cloudz679 that the only option is to delete. It appears that all the leading clubs on the island of Guernsey (with the exception of the new Guernsey FC and Vale Recreation) will not be recognised on Knowledge (XXG). In my view there is a need for a rethink and allow some flexibility shown on the issue of notability, in terms of recognising that:

1. the main Channel Island newspaper(s) are equivalent to a regional paper.

2. Guernsey clubs are treated in the same manner as 26 clubs on the Isle of Man. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

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

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

The result was Procedural close. I don't feel this is a good faith nomination for deletion due to the edit warring that led to the nomination. Further, the rationale for deletion (not the top-most comment which was not added in the correct thread order) does not provide a valid rationale for deletion. Problems with this article can be solved by discussion on the article's talk page and perhaps a merge discussion. Not suitable for AFD. v/r - TP 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mr. Joyson Prabhu is wrong in his assertion that chief minister ship articles do not exist for Indian politicians (easy to verify with a search for chief ministership), Rajagopalachari and Kamaraj have pages like that, infact an editor suggested it for this page when " well referenced the actual things he did in office without editorializing" were added to his biography . Mr Nyttend's suggestion "things he actually did" was the core of this article till this edit war started, It was a list of 30 odd specific policies with references, and that was a valuable resource for any one interested in political history of Andhra Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.213.77 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I created this article initially to spew out a mostly unsourced list as I got tired on an editor persisting to add it in the main article. Now an editor is using the sub article as an excuse to remove any mention of his political career in his main biography. A good article on him would effectively summarise this. The article will be a POV magnet and is causing major problems with the main article on him. There is no reason why we need a sub article when the main article is 27 bytes only. The scruffy list in my opinion should be deleted or at least if some points are important put into prose in the main article. Most of the content replicates that covered in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr Blofeld is lying, I was tracking this as well and a look at the history of this article will clearly show the following. Mr. Blofeld was vandalizing the main page on N.T. Rama Rao, after being allowed back into Knowledge (XXG) from being banned for vandalizing and POVing in a lot of articles on which he had no expertise, A Knowledge (XXG) nominated editor looked into the issues and suggested moving the political career to a different article (the editor suggested Chief Ministership of N T Rama Rao to be like other political articles), and here it is. The new article was a very well referenced un-editorialized list of 32 domestic accomplishments of N.T.Rama rao, the references were a good resource, The article has been rated good by eight independent experts on the matter and was having about a 1000 views a month. The article was stable and a valuable asset to Knowledge (XXG), Mr. Blofeld started vandalizing both N.T. Rama Rao main article and this one again. In the entire set of edits on either of the article, he has not added any information, not improved any quality and causes a lot of disruption to most of the articles he touches. I don't know why he is renaming the article, he agreed on the original title. Seems to be this guy is bent of making material unavailable and us-usable on Wiki.. He makes up stuff, he removed a photo claiming it is copyright material (I know it to be public domain fair use material) and then goes on to use it in another article. Time to deal with this man's disruptions again. Leave this article in place, the references and his 32 domestic priorities are a valuable resource for any who is interested in the political history of Andhra Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.247.102 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@IP 24.7.247.102 The irony in your statement is that it was actually myself who cleaned up the POV N. T. Rama Rao article of a year or two ago and rewrote and sourced it and I am the chief reason the article has been pretty stable since then. As for the image you mention File:NT Rama Rao.jpg, it is clearly NOT public domain and may NOT be used in sister articles. I strongly suggest you look into things before accusing me of disruption and vandalism. Indeed you are so far wrong (including that I've ever been banned fpr vandlaising and POVing) that I'm not even going to try to defend the situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Questions After the current edit war grinds to a halt, couldn't this title be used for an article about what his government did while he was Chief Minister? I don't know whether this is common for Indian articles, but at least in the USA we have articles such as Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Also — what's the 27-byte article? Something that short should be speedily redirected to N. T. Rama Rao, his biographical article. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Someone just moved the article to Political career of N. T. Rama Rao. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It could yes, but the fact is even as Moviehub said this article contains POV and original research and is a magent for POV pushers. Rama Rao was a prominent Andhra Pradesh politician but he isn't Reagan and there's nothing here which couldn't adequately be summarised in his main article which is only 27 kb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: NTR was a very famous political personality and a popular CM. However, i don't see the point of having a separate article on the fellow's chief-ministership. Apart from the fact that there are no precedents on other Indian politics related articles, there isn't a dearth of info that we couldn't suitably incorporate into his bio. Joyson Prabhu 10:46, 11 March 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  09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me build a consensus based on policy: 1. This has been an article that was rated very highly by eight independent reviewers of the content prior to the latest edit war. 2. The article was created out of a consensus to create it based on a wiki admin's suggestion to avoid making the N T Rama Rao article too long. 3. The article had been a valuable addition and it had approx 1200 view per month. 4. Prior to the latest edit war that culminated with one of the warriors referring this article for deletion, it has been enhancing Knowledge (XXG) without any controversy. A well used well rated article's deletion would not be a good idea. Let us keep POV (Prominent politician's are difficult people to agree about, but what they did is usually public record) out and So I say leave it be.. now that the edit wars seem to have ended in a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.247.102 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Has 35 references, presumably at least a few in the are suitable for wp:notability. Scale of the position indicates notability is highly likely. Article needs work. Lots of OR and POV problem. Provides a long list of happenings as "As Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh" but generally the sources just say that those things happened, most with not mention of him or his role. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I concur with North 8000 need to get rid of the OR and POV but the reference list is authoritative and valuable.

Info Junkie

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

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

The result was keep. the consensus seems to be that enough information is known to satisfy CRYSTAL. How far in the future we should go with these sorts of articles for recurring events needs a more general discussion,. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recreation of a previously deleted page. Too far in the future for a meaningful article to be started. While some regulatory changes have been forecast, there is no calendar, and only three drivers of which much could change for in the next two years. Falcadore (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Expanded (26-03-12): As the content is essentially a coupy of the 2013 Formula One season article with minor ammendment and included a fair degree of unsourced rumour (the list of races for example which is very WP:CBALL) merging (per WP:Duplicate) the article into Formula One article future section is an alternative to deletion. --Falcadore (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's two years away. Back in 2006, Knowledge (XXG) had articles for the 2011 F1 season, and nobody deleted them did they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCH17 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment What Knowledge (XXG) did six years ago is not exactly relevant. But if it makes you feel better, just over a year ago seasons 2014 through 2020 were deleted because of premature creation. If past Knowledge (XXG) behavior is something you value. What is more important is the merits of this partciular case. --Falcadore (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As point or order, you've said it should be included, but that isn't the discussion. This is a deletion discussion, not a creation discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You need to cite which policy/policies this breaks, or to show why this isn't notable. You haven't done that. Please come back when you can. Lugnuts (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep because the article appears to be based solely on what various constructor teams and races are contracted to do, not on speculation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - as stated above, the page only details teams and events that are contractually obliged to appear, and therefore there is reasonable expectation that all will happen. While drivers for two seasons away may be in doubt, the established teams and locations are probably not. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably? I didn't think Knowledge (XXG) worked on probably. --Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith and not take a single word out of context .... I say "probably" because one of the locations could be destroyed in fire, bombed in a terrorist attack, destroyed in a plane crash etc etc etc ... as WP:CRYSTAL says - Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. But since the dates are written into a contract, then barring freak unexpected circumstances, there would be undesirable consequences (ie: breach of contract) if the events did not happen, so preparations will continue on the assumption that they would. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Good faith has nothing to do with it. I don't believe it is out of context. It goes to the core of my objections. Already the article is filled with assumptions, like for example, all the chassis-engine combinations. Williams changed at little notice and the smaller teams would be even more suspetible to changes. We have not accepted in the past that two years out is exempt from Crystal Ball tendencies. The Rome Grand Prix is another example of yes definately yes its coming and.... oh its gone and never was. Freak circumstances is not even close to the level of some of these assumptions failing. I note the European Grand Prix is included without any details of its future, this article is already attracting guesses and half-thoughts. Despite previous assurances above that this is about something the is almost certain to take place, it is reapidly filling up with details contrary to that statement and becoming a magnet for rumours - see the section on races where just being suggested means it can be added.
      • Surely this is an example of where a trimmed down version of this article could be merged into the Future seciotn on Formula One. Details about the length of contract of individual races and drivers can most easily be placed on the articles about those drivers and races? There is no danger of any of the information on this page being lost by its deletion. Right now the article is a collection of disparate facts and none of the organisers involved have issued any kind of collective announcement about calendars and drivers. I believe that WP:CBALL certainly applies here. Statements to the contrary (not by you) are of an opinion based nature. Statements of "come back later" don't reflect good faith either. It has been six years since Knowledge (XXG) has not deleted F1 seasons two years out under CBALL, why is it different now? --Falcadore (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I recall that Rory Byrne and another bloke was employed by the FIA to propose radical changes to the technical regulations this year. They gave their recommendations with FOTA disagreeing and giving their own proposals. Charlie Whiting confirmed that there were to be radical changes in a citation for the article of the 2013 Formula One season. Maybe it is a good idea to specify these changes instead of deleting the article. Byrne's ideas (off the top of my head) was that there would be larger rear wheels, ground effects and an overall reduction in the quality of handling as a result of the changes, reason being that it would separate the men from the boys, so to speak. I hope that rung a few bells. Antimatter31 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Changes to the 2013 season are not relevant to this deletion debate. This is about the 2014 season, the year AFTER next year. --Falcadore (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You are correct, however it states in that article that 'At the 2012 Australian Grand Prix, Charlie Whiting — the FIA technical delegate — announced that although the changes to the sporting regulations planned for the 2014 season would effectively remove the "platypus" effect, the sport's governing body is planning to phase the stepped nose out for 2013.'... the source given for this originated from reference #62 http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98054 , which in turn has Charlie Whiting stating that 'In 2014, the rules will be entirely different and there will be much, much lower noses so that problem will disappear in 2014 I imagine.' These were the rules I was referring to. Antimatter31 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The information in the article is legitimate, and the 2014 season will have a lot of crucial rule changes that should be added to the article (if they haven't been added already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Those rule changes will indeed be added, but they have not yet been announced. In fact, they are unlikely to be announced until the middle of the 2013 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - For the following reasons:

• Most of the content has simply been copied over from the 2013 season page. The text under "2014 season calendar" is taken verbatim from the 2013 page, and deals with the 2012 Concorde Agreement.
• No detail has been provided with regards to the change in engines and regulations, and to the best of my knowledge, no futher information is currently available except for general statements.
• The list of potential races for 2014 (Thailand, Argentina, Dubai, Mallorca, Greece, South Africa and Croatia) is highly speculative, and while substantiated by references, most of these fail WP:RELIABLE. Forums, for instance, are not to be referenced.
• The only significant, substantiated difference between the 2013 and 2014 pages is the addition of the Russian Grand Prix to the table. That's it.
• Finally, while Formula 1 season pages have been created in advance in the past, they generally only get made about 12 months in advance; for example, the 2013 season page was not made until October 2011. I believe there is a consensus about this somewhere at WP:F1. A 2014 season page will eventually be necessary, but "We're going to need it anyway" isn't really a valid reason for keeping the page. If previous years in the sport are anything to go by, then no real information about 2014 will emerge until later this year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Having F1 seasons articles one year in advance is sufficient. The 2014 season article is currently close to empty and it is not going to change until the end of 2012. As it is now, the 2013 article itself contains very few information, but it will be expanded over the course of 2012. The same will happen next year for 2014, so there is no need to hurry. We should focus on the nearest upcoming season; now it looks like we have this article just for having it. Maimai009 08:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject will without doubt be proven notable. The is currently sufficient reliably sourced information for a stan alone article. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply because the content is not speculative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: But there is no content. I'd be all for keeping the article if the content could be found. At the moment, there is none. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see content, and easily more than enough for a stub, which is enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• That content is simply lifted from the 2013 page, rewritten slightly. There is no detail of the content right now. Why is it so critical that the page exists when it is simply going to do nothing for a year before actual content becomes available? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The season will take place and is notable, and the general outline of the season is already known. Hektor (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It's important to keep this page, because 2014 will be a milestone in Formula one with the move to more enviromental motors and the return of the turbocharger. Unknown 21:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.87.70 (talk)

• Comment: once again, the season might be a landmark, but there is currently a total lack of information available. We only know what will happen in the general sense - there are currently no details available because the 2014 season is two years away. We don't have any detail on the 2013 regulations, much less the 2014 ones. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Relisting admin's comment: Both sides of the debate above make good points in their arguments; while there is a somewhat stronger case, IMHO, for deletion, it's hardly conclusive. That, combined with the fact the nominator expanded the nomination rationale over a week after the nomination was created, led me to relist this in hopes of further discussion to establish consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm re-stating my support for deleting the article. My arguments are the same as above:

• First of all, although the 2014 season will happen and will see a significant change in the technical regulations, there is currently no real detail about those changes, except to say that they will happen and explaining them in general terms. The 2014 regulations will largely be influenced by the 2013 designs, which will have been shaped by the 2013 regulations - and the 2013 regulations have not been detailed yet, so it's impossible to say with any certainty what will happen in 2014.
• Secondly, the majority of the content on the 2014 season page has simply been copied and pasted from the 2013 season article. The only really new information is the addition of the Russian Grand Prix - and that is already covered in the Formula One article. It is also misleading, because I know several races need to re-negotiate their contracts ahead of the 2014 season, and yet these have been included in the list of races due to take place (though I couldn't name them off the top of my head - if I could, I would edit the article accordingly). And, at the risk of editorialising, the photo of the 2011 Indian Grand Prix podium feels like it has been added to justify keeping the article.
• Finally, I'm not sure what the exact Knowledge (XXG) policy is (I know it exists), but "it will happen, so therefore, a page should be made for it" is not justification for creating the page, especially given the current lack of detail. It is an established practice within WP:F1 to only create pages once they are absolutely necessary - for instance, the 2013 season page was not made until October 2011, and even then, it was only made once details of a new race were announced (if the race in New Jersey hadn't been unveiled, it's likely the 2013 page would not have been created until January 2012 at the earliest).

So the way I see it, all of these issues need to be overcome before we can justify creating the 2014 page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the policy section that you are thinking of is Knowledge (XXG):CRYSTAL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I believe we will begin to get more information on it in the next few months (when drivers begin renewing contracts), which will add to the content, making it more relevant. Mainly, though, this article should be kept because it includes important future events that have been confirmed, no speculation. If pages such as 2022 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics can exist, then surely a page only two years in the future, not ten and sixteen years in advance, should be allowed, especially considering it is, by far, not a stub. Editadam 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Then recreate the page in a few months. It is not Knowledge (XXG)'s role to anticipate notability. There is considerably more detail available of Olympics Games, for example the extensive bid processes which begin more than a decade ahead of the events. There is considerably more to write about. There is no such bid process for Grands Prix and indeed we are at least a year out from a calendar becoming available, so Olympic comparisons I believe fail. And the Rome Grand Prix is an example how 2014 calendars are not confirmed in 2012, but sepculatory in nature. The existance of future contracts can be made mention of in the pages of the individual races. --Falcadore (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• And just to build on Falcadore's point, if you look at the 2022 World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics pages, you will see the difference between them and the 2014 Formula One season is that the World Cup and Olympics pages have actual content in them. Just look at the 2022 World Cup page - it has details of the bidding process, the venues, and describes the local issues that will need to be overcome for the events to take place. Now, look at the 2014 season page, and all you will find is an incomplete list of teams and drivers and a list of races. It's not enough to justify the page's existence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This still gives good referenced information and this is what wikipedia is all about. I don't think it should matter if it is a few years ahead as long as it has it's information which this page clearly does. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the article? Moreover, have you actually read the article in comparison to the 2013 season page? 99% of the information on this page is identical to the 2013 season page. There simply isn't enough new information to seaprate the 2014 page from the 2013 page, and thereby justify keeping the 2014 page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Information is the same? No, this talks about the new engines and new tracks, I don't see 2012 or 2013 mentioning the 2014 Russian track. Both 2013 and 2014 do mention the 2014 engine change, which should really be for 2014, so this is good information. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 2014 engines are documented on other season pages for a reason: they were originally intended to be introduced for 2013, but were pushed back a year at the request of engine manufacturers. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for them to be mentioned on other pages. Which means that the only unique piece of information on this page is the addition of the Russian Grand Prix - which is already covered (and has been for some time) at Formula One#Future. It's not enough to justify the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep There is absolutely no reason that this article needs to be deleted. 2014 is going to see a lot of rule changes that need to be posted on this page. User:GeoJoe2000 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep per improvements and sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Makuhari international school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article was previously deleted after AfD. It has been recreated in a modified form, but still does not have significant reliable source coverage, as was concluded in the previous AfD Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Makuhari_International_School. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability made.Weak keep even though I just blocked creator indef. "First and only state-run international school in Japan" ... that seems to be an assertion of notability, if true. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't been able to find any reliable source references to verify and establish notability of that claim. I wonder if we can find a Japanese language editor who can find something written in Japanese that supports the claim? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I found one page here from the local government that confirms that this school is the first international school in Japan to be covered by Article One of the School Education Law, which means that it is treated as a school in accordance with Japanese law. (All other international schools in Japan up until that point essentially were not recognized as schools under the law.) This does NOT mean it is "state-run," since it is still a private school. But since it is defined as a school under Article One, it is eligible for public funds like other private schools, and unlike other international schools. Clearly there has been a lot of local government support as well since it is part of Chiba's effort to make Makuhari an international site. Michitaro (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. No in-depth (or any) third-party coverage to verify notability. Neither of the two reference sources currently provided actually mention the Makuhari school even in passing. This appears to be an attempt by the school to use Knowledge (XXG) to publicize itself. --DAJF (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt This is the fourth time this article has been created (see 1 and 2). It was prod'd in Oct. 2011 for being insufficiently notable, CSD'd on 1 March for being a copyvio, and AFD'd on 1 March. I looked into the school when I nom'd it as a copyvio, and so far as I can tell, there are no reliable sources that mention this school. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. While those who made this page have not been quite following the rules, I don't think people have been looking hard enough to find sources. The opening of the school was covered in all the major newspapers such as the Asahi, the Yomiuri, and the Sankei shinbun (the article is no longer there, but it used to be here). This school, while private, has been a major government endeavor involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which supported it as part of their internationalization efforts ), Chiba Prefecture (it is the centerpiece of their "International Education Special Area" , ), and Chiba City (the link I cited above). It is notable in itself at being the first international school in Japan to be recognized as a school and all the sources I have provided emphasize that. The school building even won an award from the Architectural Institute of Japan . Again, while the initial creation of this page was not kosher, there are plenty of major and non-trivial news media and governmental sources attesting to the unique status of this school. Michitaro (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, here are a few more news reports, from Kyodo News (national news service), Tokyo Shinbun (Tokyo paper), Chiba Nippo (Chiba paper), and Chiba TV (local TV). Michitaro (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per the impressive research by User:Michitaro. This topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 23:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - "First and only state-run international school in Japan" marks the school out as having some distinction. When the sources found are added then it will meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. FYI, Northamerica1000 and I have added some of the found sources to the article and revised the text to reflect the sources. Others are welcome to help clean up the article. Michitaro (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 3 weeks with no mention of whether or not it meets WP:WEB and no mention of sources or lack therof. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Small website closed in 2009. Previous AFD reveals it had an Alexa ranking of over 1 million even when it was open (for comparison, my personal homepage has an Alexa rank of 133,000). Shii (tock) 06:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete-may once have been popular but did not achieve any lasting notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:BAND. SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not finding much; just these so far.  Gongshow  03:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Two albums on Cornerstone RAS/Skunk Records. Also covered in the books Visual Vitriol and American hardcore: a tribal history.--Michig (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Help me out here: Skunk obviously isn't a major label. Yes, they a had "a history of more than a few years" but as to their "roster of performers, many of whom are notable"... it looks like most of them were not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like most are notable. The guideline only asks for 'many' being notable.--Michig (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The only Skunk artists who clearly isn't notable is Corn Doggy Dogg & the Half Pound, which has since moved on to Long Beach Records; however, CDD&THP's frontman Todd Zalkins is arguably notable due to his bestselling drug addiction memoir, Dying for Triplicate. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article claims that this band were best known for their work with SST Records however the article makes no mention of this band. They really do not seem like they were ever a notable outfit. Recording 2 albums is not much of an achievement, but recording two popular albums is. I get the impression that this band were never popular. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep per WP:MUSIC 5 - SST Records and Skunk Records both meet the criteria for independent labels, regardless of how important (or otherwise) this band's role was in their respective catalogues. Some good third party sources would really be useful here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤  10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:MUSIC#5 and per some book sources such as the above cited "Visual Vitriol" and "American hardcore: a tribal history", plus "Not like you: A history of punk subculture in Long Beach, California", "The Redneck Manifesto" and several volumes of "Maximum rocknroll". Cavarrone (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Although there are as many delete !votes (including the nomination) as keeps, the deletes are based on lack of sources, and the keeps subsequently provided several unchallenged sources. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Taipei Community Services Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This organization does not seem notable, and I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG. The two references do not count as significant coverage from independent sources. In retrospect, this would have been a strong candidate for speedy deletion WP:CSD under criterion A7. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For searches also try trad. Ch.: "國際社區服務文教中心 and also "The Community Services Center". icetea8 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This organization certainly gets plenty of media coverage. I found 92 hits (58 deghosted) on the Taipei Times site. They put out their own English-language magazine as well. Kauffner (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If Taipei Times isn't enough, The China Post has another 26 (16 deghosted) hits for this organization. Kauffner (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG. Here's some sources added to the article:

• Rickards, Jane (September 16, 2005). "Gov't plans for ICRT dangerous, CSC says". The China Post. Retrieved March 29, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Rickards, Jane (October 15, 2006). "Community Services Center kicks off annual fund raiser". The China Post. Retrieved March 29, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Wang, Erika (May 6, 2007). "Hundreds scale Taipei 101 in charity Climbathon". The China Post. Retrieved March 29, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Lok-sin, Loa (May 06, 2007). "Hundreds climb world's tallest building for charity". Taipei Times. Retrieved March 29, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 00:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association. insufficient material for a separate article, per Berian and others. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley District of the Unitarian Universalist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Could not find enough reliable sources to prove this organization's notability. Will withdraw if some are found though. Narutolovehinata5 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add this article, which the author just created. Narutolovehinata5 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

‎Southwest District of the Unitarian Universalist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Creator here: Are you looking for non-UU references? --RayneVanDunem (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, under Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards, we will be looking for independent reliable sources. Let me ask a related question: why would separate articles for these UUA districts add meaningful content to our encyclopedic coverage of UU, beyond what is already laid out succinctly in the article Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association?--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Partly because I wanted to do something similar to the dioceses and episcopal provinces of, say, the usually-suspected religious bodies. But I admit that, without a prominent leadership that is more associated with a presbyterian or episcopal structure, it's hard to place names with these districts or add much to these articles beyond their associated "congregational clusters". Hardly much history to be found about these districts outside of UU material, as far as I can see. If the content found could be merged and integrated into a larger version of the Districts article, that *might* work just as well until more substance can be found. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Redirect to Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Normally, this would be notable, because such districts are equivalent to dioceses. However, until more non-UU sources can be found, a redirect can't hurt. I only found 3 Gnews Ghits. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- I agree that we are dealing with the equivalent of dioceses, which would certainly be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect per Bearian. Catholic and Episcopal dioceses are notable because they tend to get lots of coverage, not because they're dioceses. Since the UUA is largely congregational, its diocese-level structures are much less relevant for outsiders and shouldn't be expected to get as much coverage. Given the paltry findings from Bearian's search, I believe that we should consider them non-notable and thus suitable for inclusion only as redirects to the article suggested by Whpq. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete 3 passing mentions in gnews does not cut it. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong| confer _ 15:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Proxy (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet WP:Web Notability Standards (WP:WEB). No evidence of notability or importance, or reliable secondary sources. Just a series of videos, no reason to be on Knowledge (XXG). andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I watch nearly everything Stuart Ashen puts out, but I'm afraid this doesn't meet our notability requirements well enough right now. Just a film series which is mainly a promotional platform for a computer company. Nate • (chatter) 06:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I see no indication of this passing GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge Stuart Ashen doesn't even have his own Knowledge (XXG) article. It would be alright if someone wrote that, and in his filmography write 'The Proxy was a internet sweepstakes for Alienware.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.233.9 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Merge Although I know this doesn't really need to stay, but Ashens is a big enough 'Youtube celebrity' to deserve his own Knowledge (XXG) page, but for now, this should be deleted, and rewritten into a Ashens article. Hemi9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC).
• Delete Does Ashens himself even qualify for WP:Web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.158.250 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hercules Chemical Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning towards keep on this one. The business has apparently been around since before WWI. They have some interesting inventions with lasting significance, such as a scheme to make acetone and methane from kelp. They were making Agent Orange for the Vietnam war. This suggests significant effects on history, technology, and culture. There may be a Chinese business using the same name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 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) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 20. Snotbot  t • c »  10:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• The mentions of kelp and Agent Orange above seem to be about Hercules Powder Company/Hercules Inc., apparently a separate company. Peter E. James (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Relisted in hopes of getting comment from our milhist community, as there is no clear consensus that I can see above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• delete coverage is not in-depth in gnews, fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I'm pretty liberal on this sort of article, but this is a small specialized company with no significant references except for its going out of business. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Punk's Not Dead. -Scottywong| gossip _ 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Although her film Punk's Not Dead is clearly notable, I have severe doubts that this director is. Notability is not inherited, and she does not appear to have received any media coverage beyond being mentioned as the director of this film. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. She does have producing credits on other films (here's her IMDb link), but I didn't find any significant coverage in an independent source (reliable or otherwise) about her role in connection with any of these other films. If something like that turns up, she could pass the notability test; as it is, probably not.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 15 March 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) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect the stub to her film Punk's Not Dead as it is itself notable, and we can send readers to the one place where she might be written of in sourcable context to that work. If her career and coverage grows, we can always reverse the redirect and flesh out her article accordingly.Schmidt, 05:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong| confess _ 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Change 123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable; no results in Google News search. Google search (and article references) contain only primary sources. Miniapolis (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. – Allen4names 04:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - There are some French reviews that can be found using the external links. – Allen4names 04:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if product reviews are sufficient to establish notability, and whether or not they serve as verifiability indicators would depend on the website; as sources, they should contain enough of a translation to demonstrate that they verify the material. Miniapolis (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Two of the French web site linked (that have reviews) are considered reliable at WP:A&M/I witch is why I voted weak keep. I should also note that sources do not have to be in English. – Allen4names 02:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 01:03 17 March 2012 (GMT)

Yes, but none of those results seems to meet the criteria for a reliable source. Miniapolis (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Reviews by two reliable sources are barely sufficient to show notability. While I don't personally have much knowledge of French anime/manga websites, the two in question have been discussed before and have been determined to be reliable (see WP:A&M/I). Calathan (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep As far i can tell, MangaNews & MangaSanctuary are likely the #1 & #2 in numbers of visitors in French speaking anime & manga websites. In addition both provide official previews of upcoming and just released manga, and MangaNews hosts an official anime streaming service. Acknowledgement by readership/viewership and by the French professionals in Manga/Anime field => Give their staff reviews a modicum of WP:Weight. Now for Animeland series of very short reviews, Animeland is first a 20 years old anime/manga dedicated paper magazine, usually a review in the paper issue ends up into a way shorter version in their website. One may argue that those are French reviews and not English ones, per WP:BIAS it doesn't and for what's worth France is still the #2 country for numbers of sold manga after Japan. --KrebMarkt (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment (by nominator): I keep hearing about all these sources and how they meet the RS guidelines; however, as of today (March 21, 2012) none have been added to the article. This, I've found, is all-too-characteristic of AFD discussions; external links are peppered throughout the discussion to fuel the !voting, but the articles themselves continue to be un- (or poorly-) sourced. Winning the "dispute" seems to trump actual editing. Miniapolis (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

With greatest respect to Dr Chakraborty, this article would appear to fail WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I could not find evidence that this doctor meets WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. BTW based on his facebook page he seems to prefer the spelling Kamalendu Chakrabarti; I also found Chakrabarty at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete not seeing sufficient sourcing to rise to SCHOLAR or BASIC either, under either spelling. --joe decker 04:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong| chat _ 15:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

No reliable sources in the article. I actually nominated for CSD, but it was declined on the claim of notability which has not been established in the article. Delete unless sources are presented. lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Reference found for one of the awards, and added it to the article. (NB - I was the admin that declined the speedy deletion, as notability was asserted through the award section included in the article. If this makes me involved, then feel free to disregard my comment) Stephen! 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

? Is this a reliable source? It looks like an SPS to me, but I'm not sure since I don't understand the language (I did however try some google translation). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable per the following: .--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 March 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) 01:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong| confer _ 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Quiz Foundation of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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