Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 28

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 22 (Sun) September 21 (Sat) September 20 (Fri) More...

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

< 27 February	1 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Haris Duljević

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete Both with no prejudice against re-creation if either should play for their national team or in a fully-professional league in the future. At the moment they haven't and thus fail notability guidelines per nom. C 679 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy Cross Parish, Fall River

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

No apparent notability and does not meet WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Individual branches or chapters of larger organizations are not inherently notable. Mkdw 23:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Mkdw 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Find me solid coverage about this church, and I'll happily change my mind, but in the complete absence of time-independent sources, we can't have a reasonable article that follows our not-a-newspaper standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Parishes are not general notable, although their churches may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep unless I am directed to a policy that states what Necrothesp said above. (Ping me on my talk if so). Pending lack of policy, I believe parishes and churches are generally notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For starters, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists", if that is your basis for keep. If you're basing your keep because the delete camp has a lack of policy based arguments, then if you haven't closely already, please review my argument as the nominator. I cite a number of policies, but most importantly, WP:BRANCH; the larger religious organization is notable but the local branches (parishes) are not inherently notable and must meet GNG on their own. Mkdw 02:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What he said! You're surely not saying that every single parish and church in the world is notable?! Churches are notable if they're particularly big or of historical or architectural significance. Parishes would have to be pretty damn significant to be notable. Higher levels of church organisation like dioceses or equivalent, on the other hand, are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

St. Casimir Parish, New Bedford

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Find me solid coverage about this church, and I'll happily change my mind, but in the complete absence of time-independent sources, we can't have a reasonable article that follows our not-a-newspaper standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

St. Hedwig Parish, New Bedford

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Find me solid coverage about this church, and I'll happily change my mind, but in the complete absence of time-independent sources, we can't have a reasonable article that follows our not-a-newspaper standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

St. Anne Parish, New Bedford

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

It is no more or less notable than several other pages for closed churches in the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts or Catholic dioceses across the world. Others have their own pages as well. All concerned churches still exist as parts of existing parishes.EmperorOfLancs (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAP. It should be noted that most of the above mentioned articles were created by either yourself and another wikipedia editor in a series. Using one recently created page to assert another should exist isn't a basis for notability. As outlined in the local units section of WP:ORG, an individual chapter or branch must show notability beyond its local area. Mkdw 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Find me solid coverage about this church, and I'll happily change my mind, but in the complete absence of time-independent sources, we can't have a reasonable article that follows our not-a-newspaper standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

St. Therese Parish, New Bedford

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

No apparent notability and does not meet WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Individual branches or chapters of larger organizations are not inherently notable. Mkdw 23:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Find me solid coverage about this church, and I'll happily change my mind, but in the complete absence of time-independent sources, we can't have a reasonable article that follows our not-a-newspaper standards. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Unfortunately, this parish doesn't seem to have much published history, at least not that I could find. The only sources that I found were in the South Coast Today and almost all of them were trivial mentions. - Mr X 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A midsummer night's dream Act V

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

Seems to be based on an essay. Please see Wikiversity if you think it's worthy to be published. Knowledge (XXG) on the other hand can not accept what is essentially an essay. Any sourced information maybe used to support the main article GAtechnical (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a school project? Does need to be deleted - but I'd encourage the authors to help out at Knowledge (XXG). They have certainly learned a lot about the subject, and our articles about Shakespeare's plays will always need improvement. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete – Significant evidence that this was some kind of schoolwork. Another AfD exists discussing articles similar to this. –TC N7 JM 13:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. FurrySings (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Seems to be schoolwork or some sort of essay; does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 05:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep and rename. After looking through the reliable sources in the article and the various reliable sources mentioned in this AfD discussion, it seems clear that the subject covered by such sources is 'domestic violence against men', not general 'violence against men'. Pretty much everything else is covered under the military history context. Although several of the Delete comments have suggested that this subject can be adequately covered under the domestic violence article, the Violence against men section there is already overly long and could benefit from switching to summary style (which would be politically impossible without a stand-alone article to link to). It also looks like 'domestic violence against men' is capable of passing WP:GNG as its own subject, unlike 'violence against men'. My only hesitation is that domestic violence against men is likely to become a POV fork. However, I do think it is possible to write an NPOV article on the subject. I'm willing to give it a chance and see how it goes. If the article proves impossible to maintain in an NPOV state, I would recommend renominating for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Violence against men

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

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

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

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Knowledge (XXG) are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm on the fence about this one. I could conceive of sufficient improvement to this article such that it would be worth keeping, but even then, WP:TNT may be more appropriate, as very little to none of the current content would belong in a quality treatment of the subject. As it stands, the article is a big, messy bit of synthesis. The wicker man seems totally irrelevant. The military bits are misguided—that's violence committed against people because they're soldiers, not because they're men. The summary of domestic abuse is probably the only thing that really belongs here. Is that enough? I'm not sure. What do you think? BDD (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indented line The wicker man bit does seem a tad bit odd in it's current state; perhaps we could phase it into a section on historical perspective and/or historical examples of violence against men, describing cultural/historical trends or examples of violence against men. As for the military section, the particular bit on treatment of soldiers in war because they're men does not quite fit, but perhaps there are other instances relevant to war where violence is committed uniquely/differently against men (for example, when Homer describes the men being killed/slaughtered and the women and children being sold into slavery instead). Kiaomi (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this article has been deleted twice before. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep If you delete an article about violence against men, you must also delete articles of violence against women, violence against children, violence against animals, violence against aliens, or whatever other nonsense exists. Lump all articles about violence into Violence, or delete all of them. Deleting one sends mixed messages, such as, violence against men is irrelevant or unimportant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.84.4 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 60.36.84.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete there could be an article Domestic violence against men, however lumping together all kinds of violence just because of the gender of the victim is OR, and in this case creates a not very useful article. BigJim707 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Notoriety was established by User:Reyk below, along with sources i fail to see how this would be OR. Could you expand on that point? Kyleshome (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Apologies for not assuming good faith, but it does seem like it has been created as a rebuttal to feminism that just throws together a lot of things in which men have allegedly suffered for being men (even if their gender is in reality incidental). A lot of it is, as mentioned by previous contributions, totally irrelevant - "Misuse of domestic laws against men"? This POV-pushing is suggested by comments like "Acid throwing, men are victims of these attacks too, about 20% of victims are male", and "see also" links to masculism as well as even less relevant topics like prison rape. Might be salvageable via total rewriting, but I'd need proof that violence of men is a distinct topic covered in its own right by reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any where in the article that states violence against men as a concept requires gender to be a motivator. While i would agree the article needs work, AGF policies exist for a reason, And saying sorry doesn't excuse you from them. Kyleshome (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Reading the Violence Against Women page it seems that the only reason to remove this page is that it seems to offend some people who dont either agree that violence against men is possible or it is an attempt to censor an opposing viewpoint. I do agree that it needs a rewrite but there are quite a few articles and studies that show that IPV intimate partner violence is not just perpetrated against women by men but also by women. To simply delete something because you dont happen to agree with it sets a very bad precedent. Sabotage6 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Sabotage6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete with no bias against recreation if someone manages to pull together sufficient sources to write a non-synthetic page on the subject. Unsalvageably synthetic as it stands. (And the only parts that really seem to belong in the article make it seem a lot like a POVFORK.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep statistics clearly show that domestic violence against men exists nearly at the rate it does against women, and for many other types of violence men are the vast majority of the victims. There are other things I could point out, but that would violate WP:SOAPBOX. Zerbu 03:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the figures to support the claim that "statistics clearly show that domestic violence against men exists nearly at the rate it does against women" when you post them at the Domestic violence against men article. Carptrash (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm and http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf Zerbu 04:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep In addition to the info already on the page there're plenty of additional studies proving men are at higher rates of receiving mental & emotional as well as physical abuse in relationships in the US and much of Europe. There's also been some fantastic reporting recently in the British press about rape as a weapon of war against men that should be added. This is not a narrow topic, and it's very much unrecognized not due to lack of research & information but due to a lack of representation.SLEPhoto (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep The information presented here doesn't seem to be factually inaccurate and while some of the focus of the writing could be improved that doesn't seem to merit deletion. As to comment on the statement "That happens to soldiers not men" overlooks the entire point of mentioning the military. Jirekianu 20:26, 1 March 2013 Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jirekianu (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Keep The article is a bit of a mess in terms of word choice, proofreading, and grammar; however, that can be fixed in time. The article presents a valid and not well known issue that, according to some mentioned sources, has a potentially large presence in today's world. Another possibility is the article be merged with the Violence Against Women article to create some sort of a violence based on gender article, or similar article on violence. Kiaomi (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep The article does not raise issues which are not factually inaccurate. Indeed, it's understood gender based violence can occur to either sex. In truth, the fact that it seems to occur with more rarity against men elevates the academic interest in documenting specific examples. While, I. It's current form, it appears to be incomplete and poorly written, so are most nascent articles on Knowledge (XXG) and therefore a component of the process of maturation any page undergoes. Over time, with expert curation, this article may be very interesting to read. That can't happen, of course, it it gets deleted. Jeremiah (talk·cont) 05:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep- the article needs a lot of work, but it is definitely not unsalvageable. Reyk _YO! 05:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The only non-synthetic content as far as I can see is the paragraph under domestic violence. That paragraph was cherrypicked from our main domestic violence article, which makes this article seem even more like a POVFORK than it did to me at first. (I say cherrypicked because it presents Fiebert's research without including a mention of the incredible major criticisms of it.) A redirect to domestic violence would be way better than this as a standalone article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict
Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: A neglected research area
Unrecognized Victims: Sexual Violence Against Men in Conflict Settings Under International Law
Domestic violence against men
These came from a 5 minute search of Google Scholar; admittedly some are behind paywalls, but I think they demonstrate that "violence against men" is considered a real subject in scholarly literature. Reyk _YO! 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep- I think the necessary answer to a poor article on a controversial subject is to improve the article, rather than delete it. Indeed the controversy around the issue (not the controversy around the deletion) suggests against deletion. An article like this should include statistics, historical accounts, representative anecdotes, legislation and court decisions, societal attitudes, representation in media, and so forth. Alternatively, if this article doesn't stand alone, then it shouldn't be deleted until some capable users agree to integrate the concepts that would have belonged here into other articles related to gender-based violence. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned IP -->

This AfD was linked from the /r/mensrights/ subreddit in numerous threads, this being one of them. I would expect that that is where many of the new keep votes are coming from. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're surprised that a group dedicated to raising awareness about domestic violence against men (among other things) is for keeping an article about violence against men? Charwinger21 (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The article needs some work, but the subject isn't exactly non-notable. Charwinger21 (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep, obviously topic has received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Obviously this is a difficult and expansive topic given such a large group of persons (men), and a widespread human behaviour (violence), and so it is understandable that nascent efforts such as the present article fall short of the desired standards. However, for the same reasons above this is an important article to maintain. Its flaws are not critical, and it is possible to improve upon what has been started. Syamil (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The Spanish article es:Violencia contra el varón is plenty of references and cover very nice this topic. Notable. emijrp (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Needs totally re-writing, but as essential an article as Violence against Women. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep If there is Violence against Women, there should also be Violence against Men. But the article needs significant improvement.
Strong delete "Violence against men" is not a generic term like "violence against women" that is used by international organizations. Any discussion of the issue can be included in violence/domestic violence related articles.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ()
Keep If we get rid of this, then let's get rid of Violence against Women also. It's only fair. You can't have one without the other. 96.252.60.139 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep There is a growing number of female to male abuse cases. To delete this page would be sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.195.83 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 24.142.195.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. There is a review article in a "real journal" on the topic. There are also some general articles on domestic violence with significant coverage of male versus female injuries, self-reporting, etc.: This one has 87 citations and this has 560 citations. For these last two, just from the title, it is clear that male injuries are a significant part of the reports and that it is of interest to look at that subcategory of injuries.

The article should be constrained to domestic violence against men (and given that title). It's of interest in at least a "man bites dog" way. Cut the general violence stuff (Wicker man and Julius Ceasar). To be well written the article should have at least some discussion of differences/similarities in domestic violence against women. (It could just be a section within domestic violence, but it's obviously expandable to full article status.)

BTW, I agree that the article seems like some sort of "men's rights" thingie (which is even lamer than the "take back the night" marches of college students). And it's poorly written. But what should be addressed here is notability, not slant. There are lots of crappy, slanted or "crappy and slanted" articles on the Wiki.

TCO (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Many people who are commenting on the fact that domestic violence against men should be discussed are missing the point: the problem is the title of this article - "violence against women" is a recognized generic term used by the UN and most international organizations; it is specifically defined by the UN. There is a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and son on, there is nothing similar in regard to "violence against men". You may believe it's unfair, but WP goes with what sources say. Domestic violence against men can and is discussed in the general domestic violence article.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ()

Kyleshome (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It can be edited. One could argue that almost no violence against men is because they're men but because they're, e.g., husbands, but in almost all cultures to be a husband or to be a military servicemember usually requires being male. I don't know whether religious sacrifices were genderally specific (I imagine many were and religion may be an area in which explicit requirements for maleness may be found) but one sacrifical custom in a South American Indian society reputedly was of sports winners and in many cultures, for some sports, they would almost always be male (this sentence would be wrongful synthesis but is stated as a clue to research). In the U.S., by far most people awaiting criminal capital punishment are male, suggesting that maleness is almost necessary to doing the activities that get one sentenced to death. Anti-husband violence by wives occurs often enough and sourceably enough to be notable but is generally less violent and less frequent than anti-wife violence by husbands, also sourceable, and the difference is a feminist issue, also sourceable. The article should not be narrowed and retitled; instead, if content grows enough, an article on domestic violence against men can be spun off and this article then edited to summarize that one. I've seen print media on violence against men and have no doubt of reliable sources' existence. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment- I understand what you're saying, but to have an article titled "violence against men" you'll have to provide sources to show that this term is actually recognized and used internationally, that it is a mainstream term acknowledged globally, like the term "violence against women". The types of violence that you describe and do happen can be discussed in specific articles dealing with these issues.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)— 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ()

"*Domestic violence against men

On that note: I fail to see how NOR requires worldwide/widespread recognition to the degree you suggest. Kyleshome (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment -You are completely misunderstanding. The term "violence against men", by itself, it not a globally, stand-alone, recognized term like "violence against women" is. It is used in various sources to deal with specific forms of violence and specific situations, but is not an international generic term.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ()

And i'm going to ask you again, where does it state this in Knowledge (XXG) policies. I don't see it in WP:N Kyleshome (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that the general public can't recognize what "violence against men" is? The meaning seems fairly straightforward. --Squirtlekin (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment -This isn't about the general public recognizing what it is; it is about whether the term "violence against men" is recognized by reliable sources, globally as a generic term. And the discussion wasn't about whether specific forms of violence that happen to men should or should not be discussed in various articles (they should obviously), but whether an article with this title is appropriate. An article "violence against ...." should be created only if there is a consensus in reliable sources that such forms of violence are recognized internationally (by international bodies) as a specific type of violation. eg Violence against LGBT people. A specific type of violation that the respective group experiences because of the position it has occupied/occupies in society.19:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ()

Comment Sole use of a concept or existence of a concept, brings with it as its necessary condition of existence negative concepts to such a concept, eg. Concepts which are used in negative definition of such a concept. What the thing is not. The extent of the definition or negative definition is established by understandability of defined concept, how many "it is..." or "it is not..." is necessary for us to distinguish it from other concepts. This happens most visibly with most opposite concepts, those which are most necessary for definition, understanding and since one of the basic categories of lived world is Woman/man – it. Than the reasonability of existence of a disputed term and its content is encompassed in the existence of opposite term, eg. violence against woman. The generic use of aforementioned concept comes hand in hand with generic existence of the other, although perhaps not so visible. Thus Non-genericty should not be a valid argument for its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.192.107 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This article was, as BDD notes in the nomination, full of irrelevant material, and a coatrack for "men's rights" material. I've removed all of that, and provided descriptions for some of the relevant citations that were already present. I think it now has the potential to be developed into a useful article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Just because an entry is controversial or discusses concepts which conflict with other editor's pet paradigms and agendas, does not mean it should be tossed down the memory hole. A cursory search for the term shows numerous reliable sources and that the term is in common usage. - CompliantDrone (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD !votes, to have any weight, must include policy based rationales. Inappropriately attacking another editor is not a policy based rationale. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is a major topic in gender studies and the article has numerous reliable sources. Just because the article is a stub at the moment does not mean it cannot be edited and become a well written article. The deletion tag should be removed since Hex has repaired the article to a state that does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for deletion. Element₉. _TALK 21:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Changed from" Keep" to TOSS OUT. Somewhere someone said something like "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." For many at wikipedia this means constantly monitoring articles such as this one from the one-article-editors, the-unregistered-editors the-agenda-pushers, and the other fringe types drawn to this and related topics. We keep up our relentless chant of "good sources" and "no opinions" and "you can't reference blogs" and they keep up their endless inane, sophomoric parroting of whomever they have chosen to repeat without having thought about or really understood much of anything. So me must (opinion) allow them their articles and subject those to the same stringent requirements that we a;ready labour under in our editing. Remember, we are the good guys, keep the article, bookmark it on your watch list and I'll see you around. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I am now convinced, that, yes, the topic as "Violence against men" is too broad to be useful. It would start with a "History of war" for 37 paragraphs and go from there to sports and even to domestic violence and would be useless. I now realize that if I am not prepared to write the article myself it should go because I see no one here who is really going to do a credible job of it. Thanks G-Man for getting me to rethink my position. Carptrash (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there could be a good article here, but no one wants to write one. This article, for as long as it has existed, has been a POVFORK. If all POVFORK content is removed, nothing is left that isn't already better covered in other articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Most references to it as a subject talk about specific issues and thus it should be focused on gender-specific issues. Women have been actively engaged in violent conflicts and blood sports for as long as men, though typically on a lesser scale as far as being participants in them, so the idea that "violence against men" is too broad a topic could be just as easily applied to "violence against women" if you put it that way.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep The subject is plenty notable as a unique phenomenon with different cultural implications. There are many avenues this article could explore that it doesn't, so this is definitely a subject worthy of its own article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is a notable subject. Deletion would violate WP:NPOV. --AutisticCatnip (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong Delete with bias against recreation This has already been deleted twice. It reeks of a political agenda. The subject is so broad as to be meaningless. It is not a term of art in any extant body of scholarship. further, the points raised in the article, particularly those frequently cited by other keep-voters (cf. Violence against women) are all covered in other articles (such as Domestic violence, which largely avoids specifying genders). -- #_ 11:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: The following four comments moved from the talk page for the article. where they had been placed by mistake. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The page is a good starting point to enhance the discussion of domestic violence directed towards males. IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) studies from numerous groups to include the CDC, NIH as well mental health journals cite numerous topics that should allow both sides of an issue to be presented equally. With the current reauthorization of VAWA along with its many detractors because of funding and its lack of controls towards violence against men, domestic violence in LBGT relationships and other controversies make it necessary. I have listed a few sources that would allow for expansion and if it is determined would not be against taking over admin of this page.

ABSTRACT: Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships,women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio =2.3; 95% confidence interval =1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.

Sabotage6 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Domestic abuse against men is a reality and deleting this page will only ensure that it remains unrecognized by the international community

As this study from the University indicates the disparity between genders in terms of spousal abuse is not as wide as previously believed

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf

As well as other governmental studies also indicate a notable rate of female on male violence

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroin friday (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Each of the issues brought up in this article would be better suited to the main articles on those subjects. For example, there is already a discussion of domestic violence against men in the domestic violence article. Combining subsections of various articles into a single article based on gender is not only odd, but reeks of a political agenda, and is therefore lacking in NPOV. Contributors should instead address these issues within the context of each article, e.g., sexual slavery, domestic violence, prison sentencing differences, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetrock (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Any reasons to delete this page based on political agenda are equally valid reasons to delete the Violence against women page. By deleting this page and allowing the female equivalent to stand, this is itself an example of political agenda and lack of NPOV. The fate of this page should be tied to the female page, not separated. 60.241.169.85 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep. This is a legitimate issue and a sourced article.--SelfQ (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep. So the feminists and gender theorists are now invading wikipedia to spew their vile venom? Feminists are such revolting creatures. There is not a single legitimate reason to delete this article. Strong keep. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck kind of argument is that?!? Seriously, if that's the best you can offer, please keep the hell away from AfD — you're not helping either your "cause" or this discussion... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet, there are plenty of feminist responses that are solely about pushing the feminist cause, so why aren't you shooting them down? Zerbu 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete as WP:POVFORK. Clumsy attempt to synthesize some connection between Domestic_violence_against_men#Violence_against_men and Gendercide#Androcide.--Staberinde (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Delete - This article's existence only serves to detract from women who are victims of violence. This would do better as a subsection of Violence Against Women rather than its own article. Men as victims of violence is not an issue, as it is human nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.92.233 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 March 2013

This comment was placed on the talk page for this AfD. --BDD (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. So this is a politically motivated delete request? Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete - previously recreated POV-fork. Largely WP:OR. Just delete and merge the bits into the other relevant articles, of which there are plenty - Alison 07:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes and while we're at it let's delete the violence against women article. Nothing but feminist propaganda under the guise of 'academic research'. YvelinesFrance (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

~~Please take your trolling elsewhere. Thanks.~~ -- #_ 12:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) nonproductive, sorry. -- #_ 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - this is a legitimate article of a legitimate phenomenon which a proper encyclopedia is supposed to cover in an encyclopedic fashion. Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Stubify: present article is crap and should be deleted per Alison. Probably a notable topic though, per (some of) the sources presented above, so I don't see the point in deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep and rename Domestic violence against men (currently a redirect to Domestic violence), which is clearly an encyclopedic topic. This page should be conceived of as a subpage of Domestic violence. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is an important topic that belongs on Knowledge (XXG). The page as is needs some work but can act as stub from which to start from, and draw interested editors to.CSDarrow (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Regardless of the condition of the article text, there is a topic here to describe to our readers. Of course it should be free of synthesis and bias. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep This isn't a majority vote guys, remember that. Regardless of our attempts to make a relevant article with real sources, this will most likely get canned in the political favor of the feminists bias towards men... I mean, look what you're doing to us RIGHT NOW. We can't talk about domestic violence, but you can? Should we just sit idly by while they silence us? Does domestic violence matter? Is it even real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.1.9 (talk)
Keep as the topic itself is notable and is part of a series of topics on violence, for example Violence against women. Mar4d (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep. It is, in my opinion, clearly a notable topic. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - assuming it does not become a coatrack for mysogyny. Many of the sources are reliable, and can demonstrate notability through significant coverage. I think the article could be strenthened with more information on same-sex domestic violance. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think that Domestic violence would be the best place for that information? -- #_ 04:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Per The Devil's Advocate and the article's notability & viability based on the sources provided.Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. Reading a couple of chapters of the internet novel is enough to make that clear. JohnCD (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Chadley Rising (film)

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

I cannot find any sources that discuss this upcoming film. All I can find are Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete probably as a hoax. The plot's not known, the cast hasn't been announced - but there's a rumoured première five years away. In Shrewsbury, even. Oh yeh. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Skype_version_history

AfDs for this article:

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

This massive collection of information is a duplicate and is also not updated. The article Skype uses extended content sections to list pretty much identical information and is updated as it is most frequently visited by those people showing interest in Skype. This is a second nomination as I approved a text change to Skype and monitored to see if the page Skype version history would be updated, alas it was not. What links here was checked for Skype_version_history and it shows 3 links. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 22:03, 28 February 2013 (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/2013 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 22:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete Information is 1) included in the article already and 2) unreferenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Possibly copyvio as well. — daranz 02:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete because Knowledge (XXG) articles shouldn't be change logs. Likely copvio as version 5.10.0.114 material seems to have been copied from . -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gustaf-Otto Adelborg

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

This is a translation of an article on the Swedish Knowledge (XXG). I declined speedy as there is an assertion of significance, but the only reference in both articles appears to be a 1929 encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia published up to 1955. Is there nothing later, or are there more possible refs? Peridon (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gustaf-Otto Adelborg is mentioned in the the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet particularly in a article entirely devoted to his life and work. According to the article, "Gustaf-Otto Adelborg is nowadays a forgotten author", further it says that, especially, "three of his later works belongs to the most peculiar our literature own". Foremost I would like to inform that an article about Gustaf-Otto Adelborg appears in the National Swedish Encyclopedia (from year 2013), in Sweden called Nationalencyklopedin. Hence no further discussions questioning the relevance of the biography is needed. Links: http://www.svd.se/kultur/understrecket/adelborgs-tystnad-foljdes-av-klarsprak_2489951.svd, http://www.ne.se/lang/gustaf-otto-adelborg --AddyFBG (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Topics appearing in a print encyclopedia are encyclopedic by definition, so we should include them. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Subject isn't supported by enough refs to be notable. Grammarxxx 04:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So the other encyclopedias are wrong to have included this guy? Do we know better than the professionals? Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Per nyttend. good refs.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawing nomination as refs have appeared. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - per Nyttend since the AfD template is there, although I note that the nom was withdrawn. Tomas e (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Appreciate the withdrawal, but because Grammarxxx !voted delete it cannot be speedily. Appears some work has been done to the refs to make it meet notability guidelines. Mkdw 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jakob _C2 21:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)(Non-admin closure)

Zordon

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

The notability for this article is being disputed: Article is about a fictional TV character. 24.184.76.2 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Socks and or SPAs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep. Well written article, but references may need to be looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAA-22EE (talk • contribs) Delete per nom. 24.184.76.2 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC) This comment was left by the nominator but was not properly signed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Redirect to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, subject is not notable enough to have his own article. Yuffo (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Socks and or SPAs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep. Well written article, but references may need to be looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAA-22EE (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. 24.184.76.2 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
This comment was left by the nominator but was not properly signed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, subject is not notable enough to have his own article. Yuffo (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (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/2013 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 20:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete The article is well written, but has no references. I also checked Wikia before casting my vote to make sure that there was at least some info on Zordon on the internet, and they have a well rounded article. Now to figure out why this was on my watchlist in the first place...--Gee totes (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep. It is a well written article but requires references. Evilgidgit (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: Notable fictional character, appeared on television for five years and in two feature films, just needs references.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Notes, the mentions of the importance of the character in this published book and this German paper support the notability of the character. It is also important to note that sockpuppetry may be marring this discussion per Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Siabaf.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Socks and or SPAs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect per above. 174.44.109.140 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Redirect to MMPR per above. 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.92.182 (talk) Redirect to MMPR. Fails WP:GNG 69.174.58.36 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Redirect per above. Pican33 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Keep per Ryulong. 109.153.185.198 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Redirect per Pican33. power ranger characters usually don't get their own articles. HaleAgnes (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Redirectper above 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B018:C8FA:A9D7:6D59:1865:826F (talk)

Socks and or SPAs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect per above. 174.44.109.140 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to MMPR per above. 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.92.182 (talk)
Redirect to MMPR. Fails WP:GNG 69.174.58.36 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Pican33 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Ryulong. 109.153.185.198 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect per Pican33. power ranger characters usually don't get their own articles. HaleAgnes (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirectper above 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B018:C8FA:A9D7:6D59:1865:826F (talk)

Note to the closing administrator: This debate has most definitely been disrupted by a series of IPs and accounts all operated by the same person. There are only 3 registered users who have editted this page that have accounts older than February 2013 and that is myself, Gee totes, and Evilgidgit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. This discussion has changed from keep/delete to an editorial merge, that condition should continue of the appropriate talk pages. J04n(talk page) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this article is made solely to attack and slander several religious movements - Salafi, Deobandi and Ahl al-Hadith among them - and expressly promote the views of another movement - Sufism, specifically Barelvi - is enough in and of itself. On top of that, the information here is already contained largely on articles for Salafist jihadism as well as articles for the various Muslim religious movements which this article seems designed to portray in a negative light. The article's topic itself has not been the subject of enough scholarly or academic discussion or media attention to warrant a separate article, and indeed the title as well as the content insinuates that followers of the Salafist subcategory of Sunni Muslims aren't even Sunnis at all. Such a biased, overtly negative article cannot possibly be edited or sourced in a way that would ever make the tone neutral given the "topic," so to speak. This article falls into criteria number six at WP:DEL-REASON, in addition to being a WP:SOAPBOX and containing a great deal of Knowledge (XXG):No original research which could never be sourced and would result in cutting down most of the article. That would be after, of course, the theoretical title change to something less accusatory and inflammatory and the removal of what this article is essentially about. It's a blatant attempt to slander and insult several movements at once, and the only reasons I am brining this to AfD instead of speedy deletion is 1. I expect the creator of the article to want a discussion first, and 2. it was brought to my attention recently that I am not the most informed editor at this time when it comes to deletion policy and I don't want to be hasty. In a clear attempt to slander religious movements, however, a mere talk page discussion isn't enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong Keep

Need of Article-Salafist Jehadism Policies on Sufis have created a deep divide in Islam across the World.

1.Salafist view Sufis as heretic and do all attempts to destroy their Tombs and Shrines.They are involved in large scale Killing their Prominent Scholars in 2.Pakistan,Chechenya,Afghanistan,India,Somalia,Kashmir,Mali etc. 3.They are destructing their Islamic heritage. 4.This Article does not try to Potray them in negative lights,the tone is very much neutral and it can be edited.Calling some one Sufi Sunni does not meant that others are not Sunnis.It is about Sufis who are Sunnis. 5.Voices are going loud by Sufi Sunnis day by day.Sufi Scholar Kichowchhwi has warned Indian Muslims previously of Wahhabi infiltration of their institutions. Early last year he called on moderates to "liberate our properties"—referring to 10,000 shrines, mosques, and madrassas invaded successfully by the radicals in Uttar Pradesh,India.

For ex- 80% of Indian Muslims followed the Sunni Sufi tradition. AIUMB, a Sufi body also released a memorandum urging the external affairs ministry of India to ask the Saudi Arabian government to stop "destroying historical places and preserve sites associated with the Prophet, his family and his Sahabas (companions)".

Kashmir-Changing discourse Prominent Sufi Shrine was set on fire by SalafisThe Dastageer Sahib shrine in Srinagar caught fire last June. Its destruction led to tensions with the Salafis.

India-Sufi clerics issue call to reject hardline Wahabis.-

Pakistan has witnessed hundreds of Attacks on Sufi culture by Salafist and their associates.See Article
Mali-Posted on Friday, 21 December 2012 19:12-Sufism and Salafism, Mali's deep religious divide.
Egypt-Situation has worsen here after changing of Government-The Islamic Research Centre, led by Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed El-Tayeb, has also sharply renounced the attacks on the shrines. Gaber Qassem, deputy of the Sufi Orders, stated that around 14 shrines have been violated since the January 2011 revolution. Again as reported by al-Ahram, the Sufi community is mobilizing a unified front to protect the hundreds of shrines across Egypt. Sheikh Tarek El-Rifai, head of the Rifai Sufi Order, said that a number of Salafis have also allegedly prevented Sufi prayers in Al-Haram. Sheikh Rifai said that the order's lawyer has filed a report at the Al-Haram police station to that effect.

Salafis have been fighting Sufis for ages. They accuse them of polytheism and unbelief for revering the Sufi sheikhs and building mosques at their shrines. The recent dhikr ban is not the first victory for Salafi thought over moderate Sufism. They regularly call for the banning of all moulids and dhikr ceremonies, and succeeded in this respect last year when the moulid of al-Sayyida Zeinab, the prophet's Muhammad's granddaughter, was banned.

Salafi destruction of shrines and public property unacceptable-Mufti Ali Goma Numerous reports have been given by sources maintaining that some shrines have been destroyed by elements from the Salafi groups sparking angry demonstrations in Alexandria.

Libiya-Democracy Arrives in Libya: Sufi religious sites attacked and destroyed by Salafis.

UnescoThe United Nations cultural agency Unesco has urged Libyan authorities to protect Sufi mosques and shrines under repeated attack by hardliners who consider the traditional mystical school of Islam heretical.

Dagestan-Sufi scholar, 5 others killed in Dagestan suicide bomb attack.

As a cleric in the Sufi Brotherhood, Afandi was a key leader in the sect of Islam traditionally popular in the North Caucasus but despised by Islamic fundamentalists, who practice a puritanical form of Islam known as Salafism. While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and highly theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn what they regard as idolatry and any non-traditional forms of worship.

Comments-Salafis have tried to impose their version of Islam Where ever they could do.They also call for the establishment of Islamic rule.In this regard they are killing Sufi Scholars and destroying Sufi shrines across the world.They are banning Sufi Practices by calling them Un Islamic.The relation between the two have worsen and have taken ugly turns.Moderate Sufis have not formed their militias to fight Salafis.The Article is on notable subject which is a subject of huge debates.Only Some supporters would deny this fact. Shabiha (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Only some supporters would deny this fact"...is that really necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to improve it.I think established facts should be accepted though i m not insisting on support or oppose.Yet It is not necessary. Shabiha (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My position is to delete, still. The article is made for the purposes of putting down one movement and painting a rosy red picture of another, not to mention the fact that I don't know of current trends within research of Islamic sects which would consider such a thing an actual topic of discussion. I'm looking forward to seeing what other editors have to say. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - seems to me like a content fork done badly. Information in this article (in NPOV form) should be in the appropriate sections of either Jihadism or the appropriate religious groups' articles. Also note there is a duplication of Salafist jihadism, so that should be removed - maybe then a Sufi jihadism article could be valid. I fail to see the point of this article, to be brutally honest - they're conflicting groups, therefore they should NOT be grouped together, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment-I have moved page to more Neutral title Sufi-Salafi relations.This title and present content may be improved,sole purpose is to present a relationship and its effect between competing movements.Sufis are continuously facing violent form of Salafist Jihadism in many parts of the world.Subject is totally notable and tone is neutral.Sources are verifiable. Shabiha (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the Article is very much similar to Article Shia-Sunni relations. Shabiha (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The article title is now neutral, yes - but the article itself still appears to focus on the jihadism and such, it needs broadening into a general relationship between the sects. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Obviously it needs to be rewritten and de-POVed but there seems little doubt the conflict between Sufis and Salafis is significant. (Full disclosure: the creating editor -- Shabiha -- asked me to comment.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

am currently attempting to remove POV from the article --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep under new title - but rewrite needed to address legitimate concerns about WP:NPOV and attack. This initially looks like is going to be more difficult to keep a level ship than even Turkish-Armenian and similar en.wp flashpoint articles with 1RRR status. Unfortunately beyond seeing that, not in a position to help. A strange recommendation perhaps but editors like Jayjg or JohnCarter from WP:Religion might be invited to tag evidently inappropriate content. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if keep or delete - in brief: an article on Sufi-Salafi relations is a novel idea. This article, however, isn't about that. Aside from the content of the article still being a persuasive essay convincing the reader to like Sufis and dislike Salafists, a lot of the sources given are not directly related to the topic of Sufi-Salafi relations but rather still to the comments bashing one movement and promoting another. I'm not sure whether to categorize this comment of mine as "revised weak delete" or "keep title and not content." MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking exactly the same, hence the lack of a change - the problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, but that would, probably, be best achieved by being deleted and restarted from scratch, preferably by a draft where multiple users contribute. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Like I said above, the title was only part of why I felt this article deserved an AfD; the content seems deliberately written to push a certain POV. I would be willing to retract my deletion support if several users would pledge to help do a total rewrite of the content and help make a real article about Sufi-Salafi relations. As ironic as this next comment is considering that I am a Muslim, if those editors happen to be non-Muslims, it would be better - this is a subject which is in the news and obviously creates strong opinions in the Muslim world. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment.

I can't agree that ~~content unflattering to salafis is grounds for deletion.~~ if there are a great many sources describing Salafi attacks on Sufis and their shrines, and none about Sufi attacks on Salafi, ~~that does not mean~~ then the article relating this information is biased or bashing Salafi.
What I can agree with, having been doing research on the issue to make edits in the article to make it more "encyclopedic", is that in the one region where there has been a lot of violence against Sufis (specifically Barelvi Muslims) -- Pakistan -- the doctrinal heritage of the perpetrators is not Salafi but predominantly Deobandi. To correct this the title could be changed from salafi to something more inclusive of those Muslims who believe Sufi veneration of "saints" is Shirk, but I'm not sure what that label would be. "Fundamentalist", "militant", "puritan" are all problematic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that content unflattering to any religious group is grounds for deletion; my contention was that the article was designed to push a certain POV against one religious group and in favor of another. That's what I felt were grounds for deletion The title change helped, as did the massive amount of edits you (BoogaLouie) undertook but I would also point out that your edits changed the fundamental subject and nature of the article.

As for Muslims who oppose veneration of saints, then I don't know of any term. Remember that Deobandis are, by definition, also Sufis; they just practice a different form of Sufism than Barelvis. In the Arab countries like Libya and the sub-Saharan African nations, it's more clear cut. But if this article remains as merely "Sufi-Salafi relations," then removing content relating to Barelvi-Deobandi relations isn't the end. Keep in mind that the Ahl al-Hadith movement in South Asia, while being similar to Salafism, is still a distinct movement. Even the Mali section might not warrant a specific place in such an article; two of the belligerent groups, Boko Haram and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, have nothing to do with Salafism; about three other groups do; and one of the belligerent groups adheres to secular nationalism.

The article as it stands now would need to be gutted. Sufi-Salafi relations is a legitimate topic but we would really only be able to retain the sections on Somalia, Egypt and Libya; the rest doesn't belong in such an article. I cannot retract my support for deletion as the article currently stands, because again, it's designed to paint Sufis as victims everywhere and accuse Salafism as being responsible for all violence against Sufis internationally, when that simply isn't true, as BoogaLouia and I'm sure the rest of the editors have noticed. This goes back to my initial comments that the article's overall subject (Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism) was inappropriate, without real purpose and highly POV. BoogaLouia has de-POV'd it but we are now left with an article containing huge amounts of material with no relation to the subject. I can see a Deobandi-Barelvi relations page being notable, but the other information would need to be moved to different pages, and ALL of them would need to be watched for POV; the controversy apparent on Talk:Barelvi demonstrates what I mean. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Have crossed out the "unflattering" stuff.

Not sure "that Deobandis are, by definition, also Sufis; they just practice a different form of Sufism than Barelvis". That may have been true at one time, Or it may be true about some Deobandis, some who are not involved in attacks on Barlevi. More later --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to cross out that too. see http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/811/where-sufism-stands/ --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Sufism#Persecution

I'm afraid I'm going to have to back off my keep vote on the basis of new information ("Scores of Deobandi leaders and members of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat (ASWJ, formerly the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan) have been assassinated in Karachi in recent years. Police sources say that the Sunni Tehrik, a Barelvi organization, is behind most of these assassinations." http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews=8fd5893941d69d0be3f378576261ae3e&tx_ttnews=deobandi&tx_ttnews=39288&tx_ttnews=7&cHash=d0c7b27bc23ab9f7c336e353f5c3a905) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

To review, then, we have Shabiha with keep, Lukeno with delete, intinco oculi with keep, and BoogaLouie with merge. I still lean toward deleting this article, as given what I think both you (BoogaLouie) and I have seen, it covers multiple unrelated topics. Although, taking the sources here and merging them into other articles might work. Can we get a review by Shabiha, Lukeno and intinculus octi based on recent development? Further comments from other editors, obviously, would help even more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This basically confirms my original opinion of this being a badly-done content fork. I would stick with delete, but I definitely agree that a new, NPOV-compliant section (well, as NPOV-compliant as we can be) should be put into the Sufism#Persecution# article. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep.The Salafis is broader term includes with in it ,Deobandis,Ahle Hadees as well.Wahabis is only a common name given to this movement so on the basis of it the Article should be retained as it is.One example-Mawlid is supported by all Sunni Muslims except Salafi ,Ahle Hadeeth or Deobandi.They consider asking for Prophet Muhammad for help Shirk which is totally lawful for other Muslims.We need to understand their nexus.These all three movements share common faith and beliefs and oppose common Sufism.Msoamu (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Saudi Arabia follows Salafi ideology which promotes many movements like BokoHaram ,it is a Salafi/Wahabi movement also see it Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa is also Salafi

Reply

I'm sure some people use the term salafi as synonymous with strict, aggressive Sunni Islam. But "Salafis is broader term includes with in it, Deobandis, Ahle Hadees" doesn't explain sites like these:

https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+deobandi+and+salafi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I'll be frank, Msoamu and Shabiha are both strong supporters of the Barelvi movement. Part of the beliefs of this movement is that all their opponents - Salafis, Deobandis, Ahl al-Hadith - are conspiring against them and all form one monolithic bloc. That's part of my initial and continued opposition to this article even with the name change - it's designed specifically to put all movements other than Barelvis into one box, irrespective of dogmatics or even geography. To avoid this discussion dragging on longer than it needs to be: what is the next step? Can we have someone trusted (I would feel comfortable with either Lukeno or BoogaLouie) merge out the sourced content and delete the main article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a merger in my sandbox. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I 'strongly oppose any idea of its merger into any Article.Sufism and Salafism relations are noteworthy and should be there.I have removed total Deobandi -Barelvi linkage untill the issue is resolved.The article is very much neutral and objective.I have added information of relations between these movements in various other countries like Tunisia and Sudan,Afghanistan.Moreover MezzoMezzo's concerns have been addressed by other editor that Boko Haram andMovement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, are part and parcel of Salafism. Shabiha (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Official website of Ahle hadeeth says,'The Ahle Hadeeth or the Salafis, popularly but contemptuously referred to as the Wahabis.So the attacks by Ahle Hadeeth terrorist organizations which are also banned in Pakistan are handiwork of Salafi.These organisations and movement are known as wahabi in the entire Muslim and Academic world.There has been discussion on merging Salafi -Wahabi Articles here on wikipedia which is still possible today.Deobandi-The puritan Deobandi sect was also an offshoot of the influence of Wahhabism in India. - See more at.This fact is also endorsed by Shia community.Salafi terminology is just like a beautiful name taken from first three generations.All are 'Wahabi in their ideology.I suggest the Article may also be redirected to Sufi-Wahabi relations.Msoamu (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha - nobody has demonstrated that Boko Haram or the Movement for Oneness are Salafists.

Msoamu, the only people proposing the merger are you and other Barelvi editors. The established scholarly consensus in addition to the established consensus on Knowledge (XXG) is that Wahhabism, Salafism and Ahl al-Hadith are all distinct movements. If you would like to oppose such consensus, then you have a mountain of discussions lying before you on the talk pages for all the relevant articles, and it will take more than a handful of links to prove that all the academic world has had it wrong on these groups for the past century or so.

I'm looking forward to see the relevant content being merged to where it belongs. Perhaps five or six years from now, mainstream scholarship from places like McGill University and Brill Publishers will put out enough material on Sufi-Salafi relations to make this topic notable and deserving of its own entry on Knowledge (XXG), but as it is, this is just a hodgepodge of sources all addressing completely different topics. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your pain from your language in which you have called me Barelvi twice.This is a derogatory term which is used to show Sufi movement in poor light.You disliked when others called you Wahabiwhich is widely used term by academicians and scholars around the world.Editors are not here to satisfy individual's argument.After removing Barelvi-Deobandi links,It can be said that complete Article reflects actual relationship between both Sufi-Salafi relations.I will engage in fruitful positive discussion not in attacking/targeting editors personally.Ahle Hadith officially accepting that they are Salafi/Wahabi movement.It should be enough for all.Read Knowledge (XXG):NPA Knowledge (XXG):Civility Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith.

Boko Haram-Boko Haram, is a Salafi-jihadi Muslim group from northeastern Nigeria, has been in the headlines recently,blamed for a string of recent attacks against the Nigerian government,UN peacekeepers and Nigerian Christians. .Homegrown Salafi-jihadi group that could destabilize Nigeria.Here

Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa-Knowledge (XXG) Article of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb establishes it is Salafi splinter group.In late 2011, the splinter group Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa was founded in order to spread jihadi activities further into West Africa.Their military leader is Omar Ould Hamaha, a former AQIM fighter.I think these are enough for objective editors to know that there is no doubt these movements are Salafi. Shabiha (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New Edits

I have added relevant info related to Sufi Salafi relations and hope to see positive contributions on this very important topic.I am trying it to look neutral and objective.For those who want to understand difference between Salafi/Wahabism this Article would be helpfulFreedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Shabiha (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The vast changes you made have been entirely undiscussed, and aren't relevant to this deletion discussion anyway. The article is still a hodgepodge of unrelated sources. Let's wait and see the merge which BoogaLouie has planned.

As for claims regarding Barelvi being a derogatory term, then please don't bring the conflict currently ongoing at WP:ANI over here. Be objective and focus on this topic, not your attempts to build a case against me personally, which is obviously what you're trying to do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein,I have tried to give a clear picture of relations between these two movements.Now the Article is clear about Sufi Salafi relations.I have added heading of differences in their Beliefs and Practices.History section may also be improved. Shabiha (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Shabiha, this article is still a representation of how Sufis in general and Barelvis in particular wish to be viewed - it's still your own POV being pushed. The section on the destruction of sites is all that's relevant. The lead contains attempts by you to paint all Salafists as literalist and puritanical (both matters of opinion, not fact) and all Sufis as merely existential spiritualists (again, merely an opinion). The section on countries, again, contains some information on Sufism in general, information on attacks on Sufi shrines regardless of the perpetrators being Salafi or not and a small amount of information on actual conflict between Sufis and Salafis.

There are numerous instances of blatant attempts at inserting Barelvi polemics and conspiracy theories as objective fact rather than subjective opinion - the ridiculous claim that Deobandis and Ahle Hadith work together being the prime example. The section on differences in beliefs and practices contains some actual sourced differences but mostly material which isn't directly relevant or merely original research on your part; the background section is unsourced and mostly pointless; and the introduction section has some relevant info on Sufi-Salafi relations in Egypt (though not quite enough to justify a separate article) and just more conspiracy theories.

It's clear from your frequent edits and running back here that you're fighting tooth and nail to keep this article up, which seems to be even further proof that this is just your attempt to present Barelvi doctrine as reality. The article hasn't been improved one bit in terms of the fundamental nature and design of it being a POV fork resulting of original research and dogmatic religious belief - the original reasons why I nominated it for deletion as an unsavable, un-improvable entry. I strongly advise that we wait to see this merge suggestion above, as this entry is clearly presenting a religious movements dogmatic beliefs as objective fact, thus turning Knowledge (XXG) into a vehicle for promoting such beliefs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The merge which I (BoogaLouie) have planned will not be ready until next week. I thank anyone who's waiting for their patience. Got a bit sidetracked. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

One again your language is going from bad to worse.You personally targetting me and accusing me falsely rather than counting the merits of this important Article.I am not here to satisfy you or any one else.The Article is on recent developments ,your claim that it is not widely covered by academicians is totally lie.The fact is that Salafist Sufi relations have deteriorated in recent years and has been acknowledged by prominent authors.The issue has become a topic of debate in academicians.Salafis/Wahabis worked with different names in various countries.Ahle Hadith are doing it in South Asia with the support of Deobandis.Boko Hamaram and movement for oneness are just examples of Salafi movments.You said,the ridiculous claim that Deobandis and Ahle Hadith work together being the prime example-My anser is that both have received huge funds from their ideological father Saudi Arabia.It is fact like sun light that they are common in their agenda.Article is fine now. Shabiha (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I did discuss the merits, or lack thereof, within this article; this was in addition to expressing my perception that this article is an attempt to push a certain point of view. I didn't neglect either point.

2. Yes, the article is on recent developments, hence why it does not yet have wide academic coverage. This is a factual claim; if I am incorrect, then bring reliable sources to inform me that I am mistaken, instead of just accusing me of lying. This is a battleground type attitude being displayed, not a collaborative one.

3. Salafism and Wahhabism are two different things, not to mention Ahl al-Hadith. Again, please refer to the established consensus on thos articles.

4. Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadith have both received funding from Saudi Arabia, yes. So have Sufis such as Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, who certainly isn't either. Saudi Arabia contains 25 million people, funding from the same general region doesn't prove any sort of cooperation. This is merely another conspiracy theory, and one which is disproven by the heated, polemical debates between Deobandis and Ahl al-Hadith anyway.

5. The article isn't fine at all, as proven by the concerns expressed here. Please calm down and let things cool off until next week as the editor above requested. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Salafism and Wahhabism are single movement.There are no differences in their faith and beliefs.it has been reconfirmed by authentic researches many times.i need not to say it again.sorces are already there to prove this fact.Ahl al-Hadiths are smaller movement of wahabism in south asia.saudi funding means in media,funding to spread its official version of islam ,Salafism.The topic has already been discussed by scholars n their researches ]

Shabiha (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Shabiha, academic research has shown multiple times that Salafism and Wahhabism are not the same and you will see this reflected on the Knowledge (XXG) articles for both. I really don't know what you're trying to do here - you've edited both Wahhabi and Salafi over the years and are obviously aware of these views. It's very easy for users to go to the entries for these movements and see information contrary to what you're saying, so I'm a bit confused by your comments.

As for Jonathan Brown's article which you linked to here, then I'm assuming you Googled that after you read my comments on User talk:BoogaLouie. Shabiha, what is your goal here? Do you think I would quote a research paper which contradicted my claims of scholarly consensus? To do so would be to shoot myself in the foot; it doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, I don't think you've actually read Brown's article. I obviously did because I was mentioning it as one example (the only scholarly example I know of focusing primarily on contemporary relations between Sufis and Salafis) and I'm basing what I'm saying on the media research he has provided. He does not hold the view, as you claim, that Salafism is the official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia, nor does he hold the view that Saudi Arabia intentionally spread Salafism in Egypt; on page four of the document, he merely states that contact with the country and its lifestyle helped the spread of Salafism, not any concerted effort on the part of governments.

I'm really not impressed with your above comments, Shabiha. I get the feeling that you're treating this discussion page as a battleground between the two of us. Your attempt to simply drop a source I quoted, which you really don't seem to have read at all and which doesn't even remotely support what you're saying, isn't adding anything positive to this discussion.

Like I asked you before, please wait for BoogaLouie to finish his merger proposal. All of us our busy editors and we have an uninvolved, respected editor who volunteered after you requested that he do so on his talk page. The least you could do is wait and see what he has to offer before furthering the discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

as discussed on Talk:Wahhabi, wahabi and salafi are now synonym terms..yes at one point there was a distinction but not anymore…overall the people involved in the salafi movement are called wahabis because its a popular term & their opponents don't want to refer to them as salafi..seeing a salaf are the early muslims of the first three generations..as you wrongly thought wahabi meant "extremism" alone…they are called wahabi for their beliefs as their opponents view them as followers of a new madhab, outside the traditional sunni route..in this case they accuse them of following ibntaymiyah/abdulwahab schools rather then the a salaf as they claim. Baboon43 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

merged article

Here is a merger of Sufism#Persecution section and Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism article. ... or at least a draft, I'm sure there are improvements to be made. It is essentially a greatly expanded Sufism#Persecution section, expanded with info from Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism, though with considerable rewriting. I've tried to improve it with sources and de-POVing. Much of the mention of Salafis has been removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OOPS. Merger is now posted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome work, especially the de-POVing - I'd imagine that was the most time-consuming part. It's almost looking like "Persecution of Sufis" might become it's own article one day sort of like "History of Sufism" did, though not now.

There is some other material that, while not related to "Sufi-Salafi relations," could be saved by a merge elsewhere. The "difference in beliefs and practices" section contains a few sources which could beef up the articles for Mawlid, Urs and Ya Muhammad.

The issue of the destruction of holy sites is another one. I think there's already an article for that somewhere, and that section here contains two sources.

Probably a few more that could be moved elsewhere, though I haven't checked if these sources were already available on those articles. Either way, good initiative on BoogaLouie's part. I don't know much about the process of closing, though...what comes next? We had more comments early on but that was before massive efforts and later failure to save this article, and before the extensive merge. Is there a way to generate more comments without canvassing? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete & redirect to Pakola. KTC (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Haji Ali Mohammad

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

Fails WP:GNG. The business that he founded may be notable but there is little to substantiate his personal notability, which is not inherited from the company. Sitush (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to the company. I don't see anything wrong with the idea of "Haji Ali Mohammad" being a bluelink, even though he doesn't deserve an article. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect per Nyttend; no notability outside the business. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was KEEP. Non-admin closure Tagged with AfD cleanup Cabe 6403 10:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Vesselplasty

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: does not cite reliable secondary sources, and I cannot find any, that support notability. Scray (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

keep - The original peer-reviewed research on the subject can be found easily on PubMed, see . The article cites reliable primary sources, for example The American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) is a highly respected peer-reviewed radiology journal. There is an article on ScienceDaily too (re-printed from AJR), see . Toffanin (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Any secondary sources, to establish notability, particularly in light of WP:MEDRS? -- Scray (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

after a deep investigation with Google, I have found a research on PubMed (see ) about a so called Vessel-X(R) bone void filling container system; Vessel-X (or Vessel lock system) is an emerging technique (patent pending) in spine surgery also known by the name vesselplasty. At the moment there is a WP article about Vessel-X too, and by searching Vessel-X is possible to find several studies and researches on the subject (see , and are the prominent); there is also a peer-review medical book published by Elsevier that explains the details of the technique (see ). Clinical trials for this new technique are at an early stage so there aren't enough data for a wide coverage from primary sources; maybe a redirect (with merge of the relevant content) to Vessel-X is a preferable alternative to AfD. Toffanin (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that research, but I have not yet seen a suitable secondary source. Both of the refs for the Vessel-X article are abstracts of primary research reports (and so that article should be deleted, too - I'll AfD it while people are looking at these articles to avoid duplication of effort - OK, now it's over here). -- Scray (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

keep - The article cites reliable primary sources.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete The technique has been published in some well-established peer-reviewed journals. However, those articles have received almost no citations per Google Scholar. The technique has been around at least since 2006, plenty of time for it to be referenced by others if it was actually influencing practice in the field. I conclude that this technique has not yet found widespread acceptance. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep I think there is just enough to keep. the book chapter is in my opinion a good indication of probable notability. And the article in American Journal of Roentgenology . is in a very high quality journal. Some rewriting to decrease the emphasis on the advantage might be a good idea; I'm a little concerned about the promotional aspects here, to the point that I am going to recommend we not make a redirect from the trade name DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Academic journal coverage means that it's encyclopedic. We keep pop culture articles because their subjects get mentioned by a couple of newspaper stories (despite our not-a-newspaper standards), and should we delete a page because it's gotten only a few academic journal articles? Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What if the newspaper stories were written by the musicians themselves? We have specific standards for medicine-related content for good reasons. Secondary sources are needed. -- Scray (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Those Aren't Muskets!

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

Non-notable comedy group, doesn't pass WP:ORG - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep
- They are notable. Does pass WP:ORG. Notable links have been provided, and are continually provided. Comedy group consists of notable comedy writers as well as guest-actors who are from noted television programs. annacatt (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC) — annacatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - Comment The article has one reliable source at most (I do not know anything about tubefilter so I can't judge whether it is reliable). The group has not received significant press coverage to justify an article. Edit: as more sources have been added. My WP:ORG referral still stands, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    - comment I respectfully disagree. There are more and more sources being added. They have created films as well as web-series. There are plenty of articles that mark their notability, as well as the fact that many notable actors and comedy writers belong to this group. annacatt (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete, found one article behind a pay wall where the subject of the article is the primary subject of a non-primary reliable source, and in that source contains significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. However, one article I don't think is enough, as usually multiple reliable sources are required to indicate notability. Therefore, per WP:GNG I have to lean towards deletion. If others can find other reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, I maybe persuaded to change my mind.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Weak delete I was able to read the article you found, RCLC, and it is indeed a full-length article about this troupe, amounting to significant coverage from an independent reliable source. I used it to add information to the article. Unfortunately I couldn't find any other significant independent coverage, and one such reference is not enough. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps the article could be wikified to the author, for expansion if their notability grows. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - generally for music groups, if there is two or more notable members it would be sufficient. In this case, there are two members notable and with existing WP articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 February 2013‎

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That maybe the case however, may I refer Tiggerjay to WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because some members of the organization/group are notable does not make the group itself notable, this works vice versa; otherwise it could be argued that all service members of the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are notable because the organization is notable.

Perhaps the article should be userfied until more non-primary significant coverage is created about the subject by reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

World Wrestling Fan Xperience

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

Little promotion that only ran a show one year ago. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. It only ran one show and the whole "roster" is unsourced. Nothing notable about this "promotion". STATic message me! 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible delete - February 2012 was only a year ago so they may host another event in the future but this can't be confirmed of course. Google News archives found mostly event listings with different searches finding the same here and here. It would probably be tedious and useless to search using every wrestler's name but it seems it didn't receive much attention (that I can see) after it happened aside from the event listings. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete AFAIK this wasn't a promotion; "World Wrestling Fan Xperience" is the title of the event; the promoters just scrambled for ex-WWE wrestlers they can find. It ran only once so it's not notable, but I dunno what counts as notable if we're into wrestling "house shows". –H T D 18:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tae Yun Kim

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

There's no independent support for the claim that this person is notable. She doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE since rank doesn't show notability and she doesn't meet WP:GNG since almost all of the sources are primary (and it's not clear that the other source is reliable).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep; subject has received multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable sources, and subject may have received significant coverage from some of those RSs, however some of them are behind a pay wall and I cannot evaluate those sourcse. Additionally the NYT has given the subject significant coverage back in 1991.Therefore, assuming good faith of those sources, I have to lean towards them being significant, unless it can be shown otherwise. Therefore, the subject can be said to meet WP:GNG. The subject of the AfD has also written several books, but as the subject appears to pass GNG, I did not evaluate if the is notable per WP:AUTHOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete She certainly seems to have (or is) a good PR person. The coverage I'm seeing is her promoting her book or seminars. The fact that she runs a martial arts school does not make her notable, nor does her rank. I couldn't find support for notability as a businessperson, author, or martial artist. I'll admit the NY Times article looks good, but all it seems to say is that she teaches a martial art and helped organize the women's division of a one time tournament ("Pre World Games"?). 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep The New York Times article is pretty strong and pays her more than a passing mention. Between that and some of the other hits on Google News, I think she passes WP:GNG, barely. CaSJer (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tamojen Morgan

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

I don't believe this meets the notability guidelines for politicians. Although there are third party references, they are not what I would call significant, and this person has been an unsuccessful candidate in one Assembly election only. Furthermore, there appears to be a conflict of interest, with two editors working on this article, neither of whom has made any other substantial edits. Deb (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Unsuccessful election candidate without any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete another NN political candidate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, subject has not received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG WP:POLITICIAN & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Syed Arshad Hussain

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no indication of notability here. I've removed some obvious spam from the article, but the rest isn't much better. Claims to fame aren't sourced to secondary sources that cite the person's work--it's all primary, hence resume-style referencing. There's one possible claim to fame for GNG purposes, this "Young Scientist Research Award", but it's unsourced and its notability is questionable. Check this Google search, for "Young Scientist Research Award" "Syed Arshad Hussain", and you'll find no reliable secondary sources; you will find that this subject is more adept at setting up websites than most other academics, but recognition for academic work is lacking. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Gscholar h-index of 4 is far below the bar for physics or biology, and I see no other basis for claiming notability (young scientists' prizes, like student prizes, are usually insufficient). Ray 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete and salt. Fails WP:Prof (again). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Nom, but do not Salt -- reevaluating a scholar after 5 or 6 years is not too much of a burden and a lot can change in that time. If the page gets recreated quickly, then we can talk about salting. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete. THe awards do not seem significant enough for this to rise above the usual presumption that assistant professors do not yet pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Mkdw 06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Pompe

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

Contested PROD. Article about a media executive that seems like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. The person's notability cannot be established, and 3/4 of the article itself is about a court case, that while mildly interesting, would also fail WP:NOT#NEWS, assuming the article had been written about the case itself instead of attempting to be a bio. This was apparently created as an offshoot of Gellman v. Tribune Company, so short of deletion a redirect to that would be indicated instead. §FreeRangeFrog 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, another attempt by someone to create a bio about themselsves. Master Xandred (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

*Undecided, leaning towards delete. I do agree that it seems like a BLP1E, but I noticed that the court case was also notable enough to have an article, which could imply coverage on the person himself (but not necessarily). However, I did notice that the articles on the case and the person were created by the same person. Jakob _C2 23:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep (do not delete). I appreciate eagerness and diligence of FreeRangeFrog. However, this page should stay up. Reason #1) I am personally interested in cataloguing people who run large media companies. Media companies heavily influence culture across the globe. Across Knowledge (XXG) I see countless profiles of business executives. I am very interesting in contributing to this already-existing type of Knowledge (XXG) page. Reason #2) Rather than delete it, let's encourage the Knowledge (XXG) community to improve it. The deletion-patrol should spend more time proposing deletions for the thousands of poorly-written, half-hearted articles that I've seen across Knowledge (XXG). I'd be proud to volunteer. Reason #3) Master Xandred - I am not Scott Pompe. I do not know him. I do not work for him. Do you want me to fax you my ID? Respectfully, your argument is false. Reason #4) Let me share a quote with you."Once a year, Hundreds of participants from around the globe, Meet at the central conference of the Wikimedia movement - to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." From "Wikimania 2013", which is advertised heavily on Knowledge (XXG) (http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/Registration. Friends, please study the last 5 words of that quote. "The sum of all knowledge." Thank you for reading. Respectfully, Guinnessjerry44 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Guiness... While I sincerely appreciate your interest in businesses executives, none of your reasons are valid for our purposes here, which is simply to determine if Scott Pompe is notable, which is the policy-based test we use to determine if a subject qualifies for its own article. Your overall message is equivalent to saying that you shouldn't be arrested if you steal someone's old Cadillac because you really like Cadillacs, it can be worked on to make it really nice, and there are a lot of other people who steal Cadillacs. But the fact is, you broke the law and therefore should be arrested. And all the others who stole Cadillacs should be arrested too. So, yes, there is a lot of other crap on Wikpedia that needs to be deleted, but that in no way justifies keeping this "crap". (smile) As for reason #3, it actually doesn't matter one bit whether you are Scott Pompe or not because he still would need to pass Knowledge (XXG)'s notability test. The key words in "the sum of all knowledge" are the sum of. It is not the goal of this encylopedia (or any other) to share all knowledge, but rather the knowledge in each topic area that meets the high standards of notability. Please read WP:PEOPLE. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Guiness... for the record, Master Xandred never accused you of being Scott Pompe. He said, "another attempt by someone to create a bio about themselsves." User:Allisoncornish is the creator of the article, not you. Unless that account is you, also. So your reason #3 doesn't make sense. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Clearly not notable per WP:PEOPLE and WP:BLP1E. Here's the full lead: "Scott Pompe is an American media executive. He currently the senior vice president at a media company. Senior Vice President at Newspaper Data Exchange, a media company. Scott earned his degree from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his family." What part of that (or anything else in the article) makes him notable? We have a VP-level employee who was involved in a lawsuit. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't believe this article will survive, it should be noted that the bulk of the article is about the lawsuit. This is a bio, not an event. Should the article miraculously survive, the lawsuit content would need to be cut way down. This is not a newspaper. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Gellman v. Tribune Company should be deleted, too. Someone should do that. It's nothing more than a wrongful termination lawsuit that was dismissed. The only reason it was covered at all is because the suit was against a major newspaper publisher. But in terms of notability, it's a nothing event. What we have is an article about a fired employee who made allegations against his former employer. Whether the claims were true or not is meaningless for our purposes. Anyone can make allegations and file a lawsuit, so that in itself is most certainly not encylopedic. It should also be noted that the same editor created both the Pompe and Gellman articles. And as far as Pompe's involvement in the lawsuit, he was merely named as one of several defendants. These articles clearly do not belong on Knowledge (XXG). 76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Merge to Gellman v. Tribune Company if there is any salvageable information, delete if there isn't. Although I will say that if there is enduring coverage on an event, I don't think it matters why there is coverage. Jakob _C2 19:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jakob, although I think Gellman v. Tribune Company is clearly not notable and should be deleted, I just did an overhaul on it to give it an encylopedic tone and layout. It was a mess. So now it looks good, but unfortunately it's not notable at all. Haha. It needs to go, but I thought at least it should be properly written until that happens. ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason for my comment about enduring coverage was that from your comment ("The only reason it was covered at all...") implied there was coverage. Apparently not. But whether Gellman v. Tribune Company survives or not should be a topic for another AFD. So if Gellman v. Tribune company (somehow) survives its own AFD, then I'd say to merge it in (someone above said Scott Pompe's article is mostly about the lawsuit anyway). But if Gellman v. Tribune company gets deleted, then I'd be all for deleting Scott Pompe's article because there'd be nothing to merge it into. Jakob _C2 21:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the clarification. Well, there was limited coverage. Feel free to tag the Gellman article for deletion or just take it straight to AfD. It would make sense to deal with both of these articles at the same time. ;) Btw, I did a major cleanup of Scott Pompe, too. It was also a mess. So, like the Gellman article, it looks good now and is layed out in an encylopedic manner, but there's no notability. Haha. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Jakob, I forgot to mention a very important point because it relates to your "merge" preference. Pompe is no longer even mentioned in the Gellman article because his role in that was so insignificant. He was merely one of the several defendants initially, but the judge quickly dismissed the case against him, so his name was removed. That lawsuit was focused on the "big boys" i.e. the publishers of the L.A. Times. Therefore, since Pompe was removed, he no longer had any direct involvement in the case. So there's no content to merge. ;) 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete; subject does not appear to be notable, as the subject himself has not appeared to receive significant coverage from multiple non-reliable sourcse where the subject is the primary subject of the content of the source. Therefore the subject fails WP:ANYBIO; being an executive of a notable company does not make an individual inherintly notable. I am not commenting about the notability of the case (Gellman v. Tribune Company), that should be done through another AfD if others wish to start such a process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete and redirect to Top Chef (season 4). KTC (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Fernandes

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

Notability beyond single appearance on Top Chef is not established. (WP:ONEEVENT) Subject did not win. (WP:REALITY #1) Article does not contain any sources besides her Top Chef biography. WANI (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete clearly fails wp:gng and possible sockpuppet has been involved in editing.Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect I wrote this article, but I nevertheless admit the article is severely flawed. Since no notability can be established beyond Top Chef, can we redirect the article to Top Chef (season 4)? If not, I understand the philosophy behind the deletion of my article, and I will be able to collect feedback from this deletion in order to improve my articles in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neddy1234 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect - No significant coverage about her outside of the Top Chef season. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ - Agreed. I am willing to redirect the article at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neddy1234 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please, only one !vote per editor. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Jakob _C2 23:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Non-admin closure

Amy Ferguson

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. No notable roles, limited coverage in reliable sources. (Prod removed: "This is not speedy worthy. Appeared in multiple notable films/TV shows including a significant role in The Master." The role in question, "Martha the salesgirl" is pretty far down the list and does not appear in our plot summary.) SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been ihncluded in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Significant roles in both The Master and Hart of Dixie. Just because a character isn't yet mentioned in WP's relatively brief plot summary has nothing to do with the notability of an actor in that film (it doesn't mention Laura Dern's role either). If The New Republic calls Ferguson "the most arresting woman in the film," then the person is significant. Very significant coverage here too. --Oakshade (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Her "significant roles" in both of these productions fails to garner a mention on either page? Remarkable. We'll build a "reasonably detailed" article based on this (the only source in the article)? Impossible.

To find her role in Hart of Dixie on IMDb: Go to the main page, past the main cast, click on full cast and crew. There she is: listed with the 12 people appearing in 2 episodes, after the 43 people appearing in more than 2. Their plot descriptions don't mention her or her character. Our lengthy list of episodes is similarly lacking.

To find her role in The Master on IMDb: Go the main page, skip the "First Billed" cast, click for full cast and crew. After 8 labeled "V.A. Patient" and 7 as "Potential Customer" is "Martha the salesgirl". Their significantly longer synopsis, like our plot summary, doesn't mention her. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, the IMDB list for The Master is in order of appearance as is customary in film credits. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are also listed after the 8 "V.A. Patient"s and 7 "Potential Customer"s. --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think this article is middle-of-the-road in terms of notability. I'm wondering though, is there a reason why the Knowledge (XXG) article is a mere sentence in length? Oakshade has provided several examples of non-trivial coverage but are those sources considered acceptable for this encyclopedia? If the answer is "yes" then this discussion should end now. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade's first source is a bare mention,; not much we can do with that. The second source (which calls all of her appearances "small roles") is, AFAICT, a blog, not a reliable source for anything here. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Marginal Keep. I'm on the fence with this one. Very little coverage of this actress: she had a significant (starring) role in Tanner Hall; for which she was interviewed here for Tribute magazine. She was also interviewed for WCPO-TV for a World Peace Yoga event. Unfortunately, notability on Knowledge (XXG) often comes down to who has hired a publicist, and who hasn't. dissolve 20:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- So the barrier-to-entry for receiving your own Knowledge (XXG) article is lower than I initially believed. In the case of a software product, being reviewed by two blogs is sufficient. If you're an actor/model, hire a publicist? Got it. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I dug though the reviews IMDb gives for Tanner Hall, hoping to find something useful. The role seems to be fairly high up for this one, though I wouldn't say "Starring". Most, but not all, reviews mention the role but the vast majority are just mentions. Variety had the

That she starred in the film is verifiable via The Newport Daily News and The New York Times. dissolve 21:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Feel free to discuss a more appropriate target on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 21:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaping Bunny

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

Google news search shows nothing but a few press releases. I don't think this is a notable organization. Dream Focus 14:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I went to contact the creator of the article, but found this single purpose account has been blocked. Special:Contributions/CrueltyFreeInternational Dream Focus 14:48, 28 February 2013 (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/2013 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 14:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to Testing cosmetics on animals. This isn't a company but a certification mark given to products/companies that don't use animals for cosmetic testing. It originally redirected to British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection but given that it's now a global standard it might be better to redirect to a general link. Funny 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would redirect, but to British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the organization that apparently owns this certification mark as a trademark. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Philip Mwala Kisia

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

See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Richard Kavemba Mutinda Zaminamina (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Notable as a former town clerk of the Nairobi, the capital of Kenya Julius Sahara (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Being a town clerk, nor merely a candidate for election, does not pass WP:Politician. The proper policy to meet would be Knowledge (XXG)'s general criteria for notability. Enos733 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete If even his party doesn't have a wikipedia article, then being its candidate doesn't confer notability. Deb (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails both general notability and WP:Politician.--Staberinde (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Geoffrey Thuku Kobia

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

See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Richard Kavemba Mutinda Zaminamina (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete assuming the absence of any evidence of meeting POLITICIAN. Slight concern about Systemic bias though - how much Western press coverage does any Kenyan politician receive? --Northernhenge (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Mwangi Muchumu

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

See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Richard Kavemba Mutinda Zaminamina (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - clearly does not meet notability criteria unless further references can be provided. Deb (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Kavemba Mutinda

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

Gubernatorial candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Zaminamina (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - clearly does not meet notability criteria unless further references can be provided. Deb (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN: 3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". --Northernhenge (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins. KTC (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Live Smashing Pumpkins

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

searched and cannot establish this as Knowledge (XXG)-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Question Why not redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Could this information not just be included in The Smashing Pumpkins article? Mebored81 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Most text was cut and pasted from the official site, and the only original sentence was purely promotional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

March May Ltd.

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No non-primary sources could be found from a Google search, and it doesn't seem like they exist. Vaca tion 9 12:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete Obvious A7. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete They exist, but the stub is almost a straight copypaste from their website . I'd support an A7 but someone's bound to object based on the unsourced "is probably the largest supplier of magnetic drive pumps in the world" claim. Funny 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Kendell Geers

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

self-promo nn vanispamicruftisement, no independent sources, over half the edits are COI additions by multiple SPAs Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I dunno, he might be notable - there's some evidence of coverage. But there are also issues with the article, including the fact that its largest section was based on two press releases. I've trimmed that bit out entirely, but am not convinced this is a keeper, yet. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep if some of the claims can be verified. This article, frankly, needs a complete rewrite. It's not encylopedic in tone and simple editing may not suffice. Some of the claims are dubious: that he urinated in Duchamp's Fountain causing "international outrage" is probably a stretch. Many people have done that (Brian Eno for example) so I doubt Geers caused much of a stir for that. If his involvement in the various biennials and museum exhibitions listed in the first section can be independently verified, that would establish notability. But as it stands, this article is terribly written. Not that it counts for anything, but I have heard of Geers. He's an artist with an international profile, so I'd say this would be a keep, but not this article in its current state. freshacconci talktalk 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep The article is a bit too much like a resume/CV, but he has enough coverage to be notable. German press , subject of book by major French publisher, coverage in second edition of Sue Williamson's Resistance Art in South Africa, Artforum, shown in major public art galleries (Baltic in UK, Haus der Kunst in Germany), series of 10 images in British Daily Telegraph. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work to tidy up, putting it in chronological order and partly rewriting the lead, though it needs more work. Artforum to a degree supports the claims about Duchamp, though outrage is a subjective thing, and I rewrote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Slutty and Sluttier

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

This article is 100% entirely sourced to the Adult Film Database and IAFD. Without even a single reliable source cited, it's hard to see what the argument for keeping the article would be. David in DC (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The article could definitely use some better sources, but the two AVN wins for Best Gonzo Series should be enough for it to pass WP:NFILMS. Erpert 11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

~~Even if the only source that says so is IAFD or the Adult Film Database.?~~ David in DC (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've added links for the two awards to the AVN Award winners pages from '09 and '11. But that still leaves everything else on the page sourced to AFD and IAFD. And the AVN Award winners pages are, I think, primary sources. Which would make citing to them original research. Does an article survive AfD when almost everything on the page is sourced to non-WP:RSes and the rest is the result of original research? The whole page looks like an advertisement for the series, not an encyclopedic article. Shouldn't it at least require actual coverage of the series in reliable sources, rather than just cast lists from IAFD and AFD, and a bare mention of the two awards sourced only to AFD and the AVN Past Awards pages. There's not even a news report from AVN (magazine).David in DC (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The AVN wins are really all you need to pass notability. If you think all the other info constitutes original research, simply get rid of it. Erpert 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the AVN Award wins that are original research. I can find no reporting about them. Not even in AVN magazine. I've sourced them to the AVN Awards history page. That's a primary source. So if I take out all the AFD and IAFD refs as not being reliable sources and I take out the AVN Awards history pages as refs because they're primary sources, we're left with an article that does nothing but list films and casts, unsourced and list 2 awards, unsourced. How does one source the awards if even AVN magazine doesn't report them? David in DC (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AVN Magazine doesn't always list the award wins and nominees in detail, but avnawards.avn.com always do, and primary sources are where you're supposed to find proof of award wins (that's exactly how pornographic actors are tested for their notability; see WP:PORNBIO). If a primary source is used only to fuel hype about the subject, for example, that would probably be discouraged. BTW, since you added the sources yourself, I'm now confused as to why you still think the article should be deleted. Erpert 09:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I added them because you said they awards clinch notability. I don't think an article should be deleted if, during discussion of the deletion, someone sugests a way to rescue it. It's not derogatory, so adding it is no problem, for the time being. But, even with the refs, I don't think the article should survive. I know what PORNBIO says about the awards, but I don't agree that "...primary sources are where you're supposed to find proof of award wins.... If a primary source is used only to fuel hype about the subject, for example, that would probably be discouraged." I can't find that exception for award wins. I think they have to be reported somewhere, in a secondary source. I could be wrong. I guess that's up to the closer. In sum: I think the article is in the best shape it can be, and I think, in that shape, it should be deleted. David in DC (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. The AVN "Best Gonzo Series" award is not "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" as required under WP:NFILM, but one of the legion of junk trophies the magazine parcels out to its advertisers (clearly signalled by the point that it's not even important enough for AVN to mention in its main news coverage). In the utter absence of any RS-coverage of the subject, deletion is called for. WP:NOTDIR also weighs in for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, HW, there is no real guideline for pornographic films specifically, so your statement that the Gonzo Series award doesn't qualify seems to merely be your own opinion. And as for WP:NFILMS, I think you missed the part of the section that says: "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." BTW, how does WP:NOTDIR play into this? (And if you're going to respond uncivilly like you usually do, don't respond at all.) Erpert 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Just enough coverage to be notable. NickCochrane (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking note that all of the refs on the page right now are to AFD and IAFD, which are, by definition, not reliable sources and the AVN Awards page, which in my view is very different from AVN news reporting, not a WP:RS and something which, if used, may violate WP:NOR, please indicate what coverage you mean. (A) If it's the AVN awards page, that's cool, we just differ and it's up to the closer to decide who's right. (B) If it's AFD or IAFD, then, again, it's for the closer to decide, but I'd be astonished (and troubled) if they sufficed. (C) If it's some other source, especially one that's not in the article yet and is inarguably a WP:RS, that would be best of all. If you insert it, and I agree it's a WP:RS, that would affect my position. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NFILMS in my view; I don't consider the AVN Awards "major", as the guideline specifies. Miniapolis 22:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- That you don't consider the AVN Awards major isn't a valid criterion for deletion; see this discussion. Erpert 00:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO has different criteria than WP:NFILMS; it only requires a "well-known and significant industry award" (or several nominations), which would include AVN. AfD is not a war zone. Miniapolis 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

But as I stated earlier, there is no real guideline for pornographic films specifically, and AVN is a well-known and significant industry award--actually, what you just stated proves my point. (BTW, what's the point of bringing up WP:NWZ? I made a simple comment, not an attack.) Erpert 05:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there's no guideline specific to pornographic films, the relevant one is WP:NFILMS. I brought up WP:NWZ not because of a personal attack, but any consensus we're trying to reach here is being drowned out by arguments with those who don't agree with you. All the best, Miniapolis 19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep FWIW, I just finished editing the article in question to the best of my ability. With 4 awards & over 20 other nominations (complete with references that I could find), I agree that this series has "just enough coverage to be notable". Guy1890 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. For reasons I'll state in a moment, I don't think it's enough to rescue the article, but I do believe that an article should be put into the best shape it can be so that, if retained, it's improved and, if deleted, we know it had it's best shot. In the one instance where you made another wiki-page a ref, I've moved it into the article as a wikilink. And now, the dreaded "but": But, all of the new refs are to the AVN Awards site, not AVN News. I don't think that's sufficient. IAFD, AFD, and primary sources are not enough. IAFD and AFD are not reliable sources. Refs to several AVN Awards pages is not significant coverage in secondary sources. The Awards pages, I believe, are primary sources. And I concur with Hullabaloo here about these awards being among "...the legion of junk trophies the magazine parcels out to its advertisers (...clearly signalled by the point that it's not even important enough for AVN to mention in its main news coverage.)" On another note, I'm persuaded by the WP:NWZ essay that I should stop rebutting after this. David in DC (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I consider the multiple AVN awards to satisfy NFILMS. Also the multiple movies in the series have been reviewed enough by expert critics in the field to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Examples Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was Has been speedied G4. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Queen Of Vagina

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

Passes GNG but I have no idea what she is notable for. GAtechnical (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy keep per nominator: "passes GNG". Until somebody puts forth an argument that she fails the notability guidelines there shouldn't be an AfD in the first place. CtP (t • c) 22:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage here for this topic and its associated subject matter. — Cirt (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep: per nominator meets GNG, the rest is clean up. Insomesia (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BLPSOURCES. The references given are either: dead links , trivial blog mentions , video links of the songs she is famous for or self referential . Even with the improper nomination, the article contains a lot of unsourced claims. I can't seem to find any reliable sources so I'm doubting how notable she is outside of her viral video. Funny 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just tagged this for G4 since it is an almost exact recreation of an article that was deleted at a different title: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Majela ZeZe Diamond. If the tag is declined, count me as a delete for the same reasons as FunnyPika. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Turn to Red/Almost Red. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost Red

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

unnecessary now given that Turn to Red/Almost Red exists Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect per nom, and keep the page history. Chutznik (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect This is a perfect search term to redirect. Why delete it instead? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was KEEP. Non-admin closure Source provided demonstrate that the company meets WP:NCORP. Article has been moved to Hadley Group. Cabe 6403 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hadley Industries plc

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

WP:CORP notability guidelines not met. atnair (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep notable company. Sources can be found for expanding the article (). The article title should be Hadley Group or Hadley Industries, "plc" should only be used if necessary for disambiguation. Peter James (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep Sufficiently notable company. I have moved article to the proper name of Hadley Group and have marked the duplicate article Hadley group for deletion under CSD A10. Safiel (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep per above. Yuffo (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep -- The article is currently a redirect to Hadley Group. I would prefer the article to be at the company name, even if the content may cover subsidiaries. Rolling 125000 tons sounds significnat to me. This is four times the size of the domestic iron industry in the early 18th century. It is perhaps a poor article, but that suggests improvemetn, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was There seems to be a consensus to move this article to Blind Pew (disambiguation), and restore the original redirect.. Lankiveil 12:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Blind Pew

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

One minor character and one redlinked band do not a dab page make. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Confusing and unhelpful content. - Mr X 03:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Revert to the original redirect, Treasure Island. Seems like the dab was made to include a band that has since been deleted. Funny 08:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Move disambiguation to Blind Pew (disambiguation), redirect base name to Treasure Island as per Funny Pika. I added a blue link to the description of the band and added another "Blind Pew" mentioned on Knowledge (XXG), but the Treasure Island character appears to be primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
But then we'd need a Redirect hatnote on Treasure Island to point to the dab page, which gets a bit cluttery. And interestingly the listing at Treasure_Island#Minor_characters only calls him "Pew" - and there isn't a link from Pew (disambiguation). Messy. Perhaps best just left as is. PamD 13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Some clutter is necessary for navigation. Avoiding clutter isn't one of the criteria for determining primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep per situation described above. Not a wonderful dab page but better than alernatives. PamD 13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I tidied some of the mess (added note of "Blind Pew" to the Treasure Island minor characters list, added Pew (Treasure Island) to Pew (disambiguation). The only remaining tidying is to move the dab and add the hatnote to Treasure Island, which will not over-clutter the article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Pew (disambiguation). And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Definitely do not redirect to Pew (disambiguation). Readers looking for "Blind Pew" are wildly unlikely to be seeking anything on that dab page except Pew (Treasure Island). No need to waste the readers' time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep and move to Blind Pew (disambiguation) (with Blind Pew being redirected to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Treasure Island#Minor characters), per JHunterJ and FunnyPika. Also per MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABMENTION. -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistero

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

tagged 4 weeks ago by another editor as not meeting WP:GNG and no attempt has been made since to prove notability
no references have been provided
google hits (although mostly in Italian) appear to be only tv blog sites and the Italia1 channel's own website

Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment "No attempt has been made since to prove notability." That sounds like WP:SEP which is not a valid argument. It's just a waste of time. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Defence of reason for deletion As I have stated in the 3rd point, I had performed a google search on the subject in an attempt to find journalistic references for the article. Another editor flagged the page as not meeting WP:GNG, so I believe it is entirely valid to expect the article creator within 4 weeks to offer a reputable secondary source to demonstrate the notability of his/her article. Kindly don't accuse me of wasting time by listing an article for deletion when the previous editor had made it WP:SEP by tagging it for notability and then doing nothing about it - I have done 4 things about it; checking the article history, checking the content against WP policy, doing a google search for sources, and listing this here so that others have an opportunity to comment on its notability. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It's a very low quality Italian TV show aired on Italia 1 but lacks notability outside Italy (and even inside Italy too, IMHO); as an article should belong to the Italian Knowledge (XXG) (see ) and not here on en.wiki. It's not worth keeping. Toffanin (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

on a side note, these articles should be delete too as they are part of the Mistero show: Le teorie di Adam Kadmon, Adam Kadmon (character). Toffanin (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Angie Chang

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. The sources in the article appear to be mostly blogs, and browsing around on Google didn't turn up much else. Ks0stm 20:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Article clearly falls under WP:NOTADVERTISING. No significant coverage of the subject from secondary or tertiary reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of any independent coverage from sources with reputations for being reliable. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No issue against a renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hire Association Europe

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

Likely A7 bait, no indication of notability. But since its been around for over 4 years, I'll give it a chance at AFD in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible delete - Because the article doesn't provide much information (founder, notable achievements, etc), I wouldn't know how far to search but using "1974", "Solihull" and "HAE" only provided this (company profile which mentions this Knowledge (XXG) article), this (one of their clients) and this (Russian, short news entry). However, a search using "model trade association" provided some results, mostly with an award they hosted. Some of the articles also mention a "managing director" Graham Arundell so I searched again and found some more results. This search also provided a former director Kevin Minton so I searched another time and found a few results. One of the results from the Graham Arundell search also mentioned another employee here, Stephen Dorricott. Searches including Stephen Dorricott provided nothing else aside from the one manchestereveningnews.co.uk link so he may not receive as much attention as Arundell. Highbeam offered some results which makes me question if they may be notable (perhaps only locally) despite there not being any significant information about them. I also found an interview here with Arundell which talks more about the industry than the group itself. I'm not British so I'm not familiar with this company but I'm willing to reconsider if other users prove Hire Association is notable. It seems to me that someone from HAE created this article and it became one of the many forgotten articles here on Knowledge (XXG). The advert templates were removed from this article at one point and one British IP replaced the content with "Please visit www.hae.org.uk". SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep I have not tried to read them in detail, but the abstracts of the sources ST has found indicate extensive coverage in UK business periodicals--which of course has to be tempered with a regard from probable influence by PR, and also that The Independent and the Daily Mail uses them as a key source on the industry. That's something I take more seriously, and it's sufficient. My general concept is that just as a national sport team in a sport is notable , the major national association in a significant line of business is notable DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Lind

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

No indications that this artist meets WP:CREATIVE. Claims that he is represented in the collections of major museums cannot be verified. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Question - what exactly is it about about the Danish Agency for Culture that makes you think they might falsify an artists' CV? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I do not assume that the Danish Agency for Culture would falsify this CV -- I presume only that they would publish the CV provided to them by the artist, which makes this not an independent source. The Danish Agency for Culture lists hundreds of artists on their website -- I doubt they have the time or inclination to verify all of the CVs submitted. Nor do I think that Lind would falsify his own CV, I just point out that reliable independent sources are generally sought for such information, and there is no listing of any works by Lind at several of the museums where he is said to be represented. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would have thought that as a state funding agency they do very good diligence indeed, more than a commercial gallery. As regards non-hits on the two photo museums, search at Brandts Museum of Photographic Art doesn't pull up anything for Lind is because it is simply a website search not an index of all photographers represented. On the National Library he comes up, but not for his own photos but as publisher and digitaliser of Inga Aistrup (1910-1990). But again, not being able to find his own photos isn't a reason to say "there is no listing of any works by Lind" In ictu oculi (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep - would appear to pass WP:CREATIVE, even if his day job is a graphic designer. A great shame his Lego beer table design only has own website as a non-reliable source. http://www.peterlind.dk/lego/sofabord In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep — The Danish Agency for Culture is a credible authority and we have no evidence that they don't fact-check what they publish. If this were a PR firm paid by Lind, they would be non-independent, but that is not the case. The Danish Agency's own reputation is at stake and we should presume they are diligent. The CV gives a sufficient number of galleries and museums to meet WP:CREATIVE. (This appears to be a different photographer named Peter Lind, also born around 1961.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Question - Better with little than with poor reference ?

The article has been updating with more documentation : Publications and References to "Database of artworks in Danish state-owned and state-subsidised museums". This database is possible more misinforming than informing. The data has possible not been updater since 1991. Peter Lind are listed two times as two different people. Here : https://www.kulturarv.dk/kid/SoegKunstnerVaerker.do?kunstnerId=12915 and here again : https://www.kulturarv.dk/kid/SoegKunstnerVaerker.do?kunstnerId=14784 The entry from The Royal library only list a few of the Portrait they own by Peter Lind, and one with a wrong names. Maybe it better to skip this poor References ? Even if the credibility of the article has been questioned ?

Museum inventory are known to be mystery, occasionally you hear about a museum who find a Da Vinci in their collection they had for centuries without knowing, or the contrary something they think they have, has got missing. Eye witness reports from artist like in an interview are more reliable, they know what they shipped and if they got payed. Also photo documentation are underrated, in wikipedia it's legitm to link to an external text, but not to an external photo.Fa bene si (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Question - ?

More documentation : Annual report The Danish Art Foundation 1996, including list of acquisitions, on page 27 : Peter Lind Uden titel 1996, foto på filmstrimler 24.275 (Price in DKK) http://www.kunst.dk/fileadmin/_kunst2011/user_upload/Dokumenter/Kunstfonden/AArsberetninger/AArsberetning_1996.pdf This external link should not been in the reference ? I haven't seen this kind detail documentation in any artikel ? Fa bene si (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but the article needs attention as it has a promotional tone that should be dealt with. Deb (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fly Europa

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

This is a proposed business model, which never materialized. Therefore, it fails the general notability guideline. The page content consists entirely of product announcements, thus it should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. --FoxyOrange (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but for a slightly different reason. We can have articles about proposed / planned / future things if they get substantial coverage from independent sources; even a list of future products is fine if it's framed appropriately and if that's what independent sources are interested in. However, in this case, Fly Europa lacks coverage by independent sources - apart from a couple of forums - so it fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above. Chutznik (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Ruth Manning-Sanders. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A Book of Magic Horses

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

Each of the books fails each WP:NBOOK criterion quite clearly, none of the articles contained even asserts notability. The series as a whole just might warrant an article, but not each book. The first book in the series is not bundled in this AFD, as it is just possible that as the first of a series, it's notable - though not in my opinion. Storkk (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A Book of Ghosts and Goblins

A Book of Princes and Princesses

A Book of Magical Beasts

A Book of Devils and Demons

A Book of Charms and Changelings

A Book of Ogres and Trolls

A Book of Sorcerers and Spells

A Book of Magic Animals

A Book of Monsters

A Book of Enchantments and Curses

A Book of Kings and Queens

A Book of Marvels and Magic

A Book of Spooks and Spectres

A Book of Cats and Creatures

A Book of Heroes and Heroines

A Book of Magic Adventures

Delete Most of the stories are retellings of standard fairy-tales. The tables-of-contents with links to the corresponding Knowledge (XXG) articles are interesting, but I think Knowledge (XXG) is not the best place for that. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect all to Ruth Manning-Sanders, which includes a bibliography listing all these books, or delete if you don't fancy creating all those redirects. I don't see evidence of notability of the books, and the book articles don't contain any critical comment, information on their writing, or other things that make a worthwhile book article. Although Manning-Sanders' article is itself not great she's in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and almost certainly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect all to Ruth Manning-Sanders until there is some content (from third party sources, reviews, etc). Chapter listing of the books is not suitable content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to European People's Party#European Senior Citizens' Union (ESCU). J04n(talk page) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

European Senior Citizen's Union

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as although it claims a large membership, there are no gnews results, and ghits appear self-published
Possible WP:SPA
Unreferenced
Promotional in tone
If kept, the title needs moving from citizen's to citizens' as per the official website Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, did not find any significant coverage of the subject from secondary or tertiary reliable sources to indicate subject is notable per WP:ORG or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect or merge (depending on whether sources get added during this AfD) to European People's Party#European Seniors' Union. There are enough available sources (even just in English) to justify a section and redirect there. However, as the European People's Party does not currently have a British affiliate party, sources are more likely to be in German (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) or Spanish (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - and perhaps French (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), but the ESCU does not seem to have an affiliate in France. PWilkinson (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep if only because of the size of the membership. See German article on German sub-organization. There shouldn't be questions of WP:SPA for an account with only 2 edits (in different articles!). Does need more sources, but these are likely to be in languages I'm not familiar with. The article does NOT have a promotional tone. This type of stub does no harm to Knowledge (XXG), and the article is likely to expand. The arguments for deletion are purely formal, not substantive, so WP:IAR might be appropriate, but I don't even think we need to go that far. The only problem is an inexperienced editor and lack of work on the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Yakuts. J04n(talk page) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yakut American

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous AfD listing, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Yakut American, did not reach consensus. The article was nominated for lack of notability and paucity of sources.

This article was started three years ago, but only has four sentences and two references. A machine translation of one of the references says

You can count four Yakut family. Ivanov and his daughter Agafea lived here for 6 years. Aviva Family and Dorothea Prokofiev and login Olympics and Nikolaev. Family Permyakova. There were two Yakut-Indian families. Georgy Zakharov, who came to the fort in 1829, baptized Indian woman married to Natalia. They had a son, Simeon. In 1837, George Zakharov was sent to Russia. Probably, he returned to his home in Yakutia. There is no evidence of his family after his departure. In 1836, Benjamin held a regular census of Fort Ross. Of the 110 people Yakuts were two.

(emphasis added) It seems there were only a few Yakut/Sakha who came to America with other Russians, and still fewer who stayed. The article doesn't say how the Yakut-American culture is distinct from Russian-American culture, except that it mentions the Sakha language. It seems to me that this topic could be covered in the Sakha Republic, Sakha people, Sakha language, Russian colonization of America, Russian-American Company, Fort Ross, Russian America, Russian American or Yakuts articles. The Yakuts infobox lists under "regions with significant populations" the Ukraine with 304 people and Kazakhstan with 119, but doesn't mention North America. —rybec 06:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Yakuts. Nothing particularly wrong with the title, but it doesn't seem worthy of standing as a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to Yakuts. Fork. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club

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

Non-notable football club. No evidence provided and none found that club meets WP:GNG / WP:ORG Hack (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What more evidence is needed? The page has already been deleted before, but this was due to copyright material, which I had authorised use of anyway. I have this time re-worded the article in my own words to avoid this issue, and have provided references where required. Please let me know if i can revive the old page and fix it to ensure it is adequate per Knowledge (XXG) terms and conditions, as this is a legitimate page and club. User:Nickathans 28 February 2013 23:52 Melbourne Time
~~Weak Keep~~ I gather that this club is in a non-league platform and is in the pyramid which can be promoted all the way to the top (A-League). I am however not sure if the club is registered for the FFA Cup know. Being as we have non-league teams in England that are in the pyramid system I am inclined to keep the article. However the page needs a lot of work, references(citations). Govvy (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The club can be promoted to the Victorian Premier League, the second level of soccer in Australia. Promotion to A-League is not possible. The FFA Cup is purely theoretically at this point. Below the top tier of the state leagues, reliable source coverage is next to zero. Hack (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NCLUB and WP:ORG. just because it could be promoted 2 levels to notable level is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok here is what i can tell you. The club does exist and is a league club! It is directly affiliated with Football Federation Victoria which is the governing body of football in Victoria, Australia. You can find that the club does exist on the official FFV club directory at FFV Club Directory. The club is competing in Victorian State League Division 5 in the EAST league. The club has the ability to be promoted and relegated through the pyramid of Victorian football, and can reach the Victorian Premier League with continuous promotions. The FFA Cup has not been established yet, so no teams are competing. There is also an FFV State Knockout Cup for FFV clubs to compete in, however this is a voluntary competition, and Old Trinity Grammarians SC did not elect to participate this season. Please summarise for me what the page needs in order to meet Knowledge (XXG) standards. User:Nickathans 01 March 2013 10:53 Melbourne Time

You need to prove that the club has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The criteria is listed at WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick, as I wrote on your talk page, it needs significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Redirect / selective Merge to Trinity Grammar School (Victoria) (which needs more sources itself) if sources can't be found for this article. The-Pope (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The club has a registered website at www.otgsc.com.au. The clubs also pays affiliation fees to the FFV every year. Results posted at sporting pulse will prove its existence not only this year, but since 2002. All records have been kept, the club has over 50 playing members. Please identify what information you still require. Tom Frederico (non registered user)

Hey The-Pope (talk), here is the link Sporting Pulse - FFV State League 5 East. You being Australian and based around aussie rules would be aware of Sporting Pulse, as all AFL clubs are registered here as well. Nickathans —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Please find here match report by opposition club Middle Park http://mpfc.com.au/firsts/round-14-v-old-trinity-grammarians/ and a video taken by local football reporter Football Chaos http://footballchaos.com/index.php/videos/2010/115-pl-rd-20-seaford-united-v-old-trinity-grammarians. The club is also listed on the Trinity Grammar School Kew's Official website http://www.trinity.vic.edu.au/trinity-community/old-trinity-grammarians/otg-sporting-clubs/
Please also refer to the following PDF file for further reporting on the club. This is an official independant Publication by Trinity Grammar School (See pages 8 onwards) The Trinity Grammarian - Vol 27 Issue No.2 July 2012

comment Well if the club can't go from the VPL to the A-League in a pyramid system then I am not sure how you cover it too pass non-league status, the only valid path is GNG. You will need to add a references section to the article, please look at Man United as an example to go by, notes, footnotes, citations. As all the link you provided here are better suited in the article. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that NO clubs in Australia can go from VPL to A-League. The A-League does not have relegation and no clubs in the country can be promoted to the league

Delete No evidence that WP:ORG is met, and it is unlikely that this non-professional team is notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of amateur sporting teams. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D that's a poor response. Knowledge (XXG) has literally thousands of amateur sporting teams and associations listed. Here are examples of other Victorian sporting clubs listed on Knowledge (XXG) which are part of the same soccer pyramid. These articles seem to be lacking a lot of vital referencing and citations, and are not as organised or referenced as Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club, and they don't seem to be under any review for deletion. Please explain: Parkmore Soccer Club, Ringwood City, Williamstown SC, Essendon Royals, Collingwood City F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickathans (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Seems like Old Trinity Grammarians have more than satisfied WP:ORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickathans (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you have a re-read of WP:ORG and try that again. LGA _talk 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete Lack of any independent reliable sources covering the club in detail, the only sources I can find confirm it exists and give details of results, nothing covering the history that would lead you to conclude it is wiki-notable. I have removed a lot of the WP:FANCRUFT in the article. LGA _talk 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Sorry nick, until there is substantive media / books written about the club, it does not meet the inclusion criteria. --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to All Natural Glamour Solos (film series). J04n(talk page) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

All Natural Glamour Solos

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

I'm nominating this one as it appears a patent WP:REDUNDANTFORK from the article about the whole film series (All Natural Glamour Solos (film series)). The whole content of the article is already included in the parent article, here there is just a duplication of informations. No need to split, especially as the parent article is quite short and could still be expanded. A simple redirect could be enough, but the creator does not seem to accept this kind of action. Cavarrone (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For the same reasons (for the last two it only changes the name of the parent article, Mother-Daughter Exchange Club) I'm also nominating:

If you bothered to check the history of the parent article, you'd notice that I already removed the so-called redundant information. What's your problem, anyway? Erpert 08:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- And I did the same thing here. No one has complained about any of these articles I created but you, you know. And you should really take another look at WP:ATD. Erpert 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  - With respect, your above link to WP:DISRUPTIVE as well as your edit summary here are an overreaction and disruptive themselves. Especially as the deletion of these stubs would not results in a lost of contents, that ~~are~~ were already (and still could be) included in the parent articles. And I am still not convinced that the deletions of a couple of lines from the parent articles now make these spinouts necessary, but if the community thinks differently so be it. Cavarrone (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this is disruptive because you know that this kind of issue is not what AfD is for, as you stated yourself in your nomination. And my removing those lines from the parent article is no different from removing album and single information from the parent article of a musical artist when a separate discography article is later made. (BTW, if you're in turn calling me disruptive, I suggest you read WP:POT.) Erpert 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, as I stated before ( ), those two films have their own articles because they each won their own awards. This is why I didn't create separate articles for all the films in the series. Erpert 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  - Sure, they won their own awards, and these awards are all already listed in the parent articles (at least until you will delete them to create the illusion that these spinoff stubs are somehow necessary). Still, you should explain how these articles does not fall under WP:CONTENTFORK. And I wonder why you want so much six articles while two are enough to include all the contents (that basically consists in a list of actors and a list of awards). Cavarrone (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    - Why I want so much six articles? What? Anyway, I wasn't aware that the award wins being listed in both the parent article and the separate articles violated WP:CONTENTFORK; where does it say that, now? And if you had a problem with any of this (albeit, as I noted above, you're the only one), you should have brought it up on the talk page instead of opening up an AfD, especially since you don't even want anything deleted. (Being such an active Wikipedian as you state on your user page, I would think you'd set a better example than this.) Erpert 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      - I tried to redirect them, you know. And I would even opened a merge discussion if there was something worthy of merging, but, as the article's contents were absolutely identical, there was nothing to discuss. And, just to inform you, even with the lines you deleted from the parent articles the problem is still there: eg. and are pretty identical. Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        Both of those are the exact same link. Erpert 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        Erpert, you've been cautioned before about inappropriately personalizing deletion discussions, and you know perfectly well, especially given the large number of porn articles you created that were AFD-deleted, that quite a few users rejected your opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
        Why are you bringing up something that happened over a year ago? And if you were even paying attention, you would notice that the nominator doesn't even want the articles deleted; he wants them redirected. Sheesh, don't you ever quit? Erpert 06:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd really rather not be in the middle of this discussion (since I'm guessing that the two editors above might have a history together that I don't understand), so I don't plan on adding it to my watchlist. All I will say is that a merge of Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 12 and Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 17 to the parent article Mother-Daughter Exchange Club would seem to me to be much more appropriate. Hopefully, that can be entertained at some point instead of just deletion. Guy1890 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- No objection about a similar outcome. It is sufficient to revert and . I don't see anything else worth merging. Cavarrone (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

* Keep or possibly merge Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 17 , borderline notability, not a delete candidate, i don't know why a merge wasn't first done but there is no need to delete it. Insomesia (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep or possibly merge Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 12; I don't as of yet see the need for a stand alone article when there is a perfectly good parent article. But deletion is not the answer here, merge should have been proposed first. Insomesia (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep or merge All Natural Glamour Solos and All Natural Glamour Solos, II; no reason to delete, a merge is probably the wisest course until the parent article is too big and spin outs are needed. But no reason to delete. Insomesia (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep, or perhaps merge, but with awards comes secondary source discussion, more research is probably needed to determine precisely how much secondary source coverage there is overall. — Cirt (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete all and redirect per nom. No information to merge beyond what is in the series articles. No sign of RS coverage of the individual releases. These downscale "awards" are not the "major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" called for by WP:NFILM, but junky tinfoil trophies that AVN showers on its advertisers; every video series that regularly buys a half-page or larger ad in the mostly-advertising magazine receives such nominations and awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you actually prove any of this about AVN awards, HW? (And for the record, an article doesn't have to be deleted in order for it to be redirected.) Erpert 06:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, let me take a different perspective here...as was pointed out here, there is no real guideline for pornographic films, so you can't really claim that Best Solo Release is a "junky tinfoil trophy" kind of award (outside of your own opinion, that is). Erpert 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Still, it remains the point that there is "no information to merge beyond what is in the series articles". At best, a minor award could authorize us to create an article about the film (or better about the series), not groups of stubs about the same films and with identical contents. And even after the start of this discussion I don't see any attempt to expand these one-sentence stubs in order to justify the splitting. Cavarrone (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    - WP:SPINOFF would be being violated only if the separate articles were non-neutral. And they're not "groups of stubs about the same films"; they're a parent article and a few "child" articles. Speaking of that, remember earlier when I said "my removing those lines from the parent article is no different from removing album and single information from the parent article of a musical artist when a separate discography article is later made"? How is this any different? And the reason the awards are listed in both places is because if they weren't listed in the parent article too, casual users might look at it and want it deleted because they think it's just another run-of-the-mill porn movie. Erpert 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per nom; these content-forking permastubs are covered in the parent articles. AVN awards are not the "major awards" required by WP:NFILMS. Miniapolis 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do know that that argument didn't work when you made it here either, don't you? And again, an article does not have to be deleted in order to be redirected. Erpert 08:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please address the content, and not the editor. Miniapolis 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Um...I did address the content. Did I call you a name or something? Erpert 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was Delete. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Alcohols in alcoholic beverages

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

This article is based on extensive copy-paste from both Knowledge (XXG) and external sources, but possibly falling outside the scope of either CSD G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) or A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). A variety of the copied texts were discussed here. More recent editing has produced changes that might confound a search engine, but are so closely related to the original text that they are dependent. For example, "Ethanol is the active ingredient in alcoholic beverages and is produced by", from Alcoholic beverage became "Ethanol is the active ingredient in common alcoholic beverages and it is always produced" in an intermediate version, and, more recently, "Ethanol is the psychoactive ingredient...". Novangelis (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Nomination rationale not within purview of AFD. The nominator obviously has been following a discussion on ANI that did not turn out how he personally wanted. The AFD process is not for "article cleanup." OGBranniff (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Delete - the article is poorly, indeed apparently drunkenly written, and has evidently been created with a lot of careless cutting and pasting, making it badly structured and difficult to read. Those are however matters for patient editing, not deletion. The article, such as it is, is a coherent enough topic, and contains enough citations, to show that it is notable. There is no doubt that it needs substantial rewriting but the basic idea with a table of alcohols and their properties is sound, so it would be hard to justify the WP:TNT approach here. Duplicates part of existing article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - unless I'm missing something, what the hell is the point of this article? Certainly from the title, you'd kinda expect alcoholic beverages to contain alcohol - so what's the point of this article? Surely any useful content belongs in Alcoholic beverage, and anything not useful doesn't belong anywhere? Definite copyvio issues, from an editor that appears to have a long-standing issue with this, weakens any reason for keeping it - and I don't see either editor above me addressing the copyvio concern. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, copyvio. Page contained substantial amounts of text copied from another Knowledge (XXG) article without attribution, and as such it was a copyright infringement, since copying our text without attribution is a violation of the CC-by-sa and GFDL terms. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Lankiveil 12:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Embassy of Ukraine, Bern

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. there needs to be significant coverage of the activities of the embassy or the building it is located in. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete No sign of notability. It's in an ordinary building, nothing interesting happened there. The mere existence of an embassy doesn't mean there should be an article. Embassies are generally only notable if they're of architectural, historical or political importance, e.g. Embassy of the United States, London. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. No indication that the topic has coverage that would allow passing WP:N. The information about diplomatic relations would belong in an article about Switzerland–Ukraine relations, but that article doesn't exist yet. Sandstein 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect or keep. I strongly suspect that coverage exists, but in their absence, there's nothing wrong with this title per se. Without sources, this should be redirected to the Switzerland-Ukraine relations article. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

if there is coverage, please show WP:MUSTBESOURCES. otherwise this is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read my entire statement instead of stopping at the first comma. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I did read the entire statement, you can't say "or keep" without a solid reason. simply saying "strongly suspect coverage" doesn't cut it. I read you argument as solely "redirect" as you can't find evidence to support keep. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet Knowledge (XXG):GNG and contains little than a list of ambassadors Smirkingman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, g4 (recreation of deleted and salted Princé B. Richardson), g5 (created by sockpuppet of blocked user). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Brandon Richardson

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Actor with one minor role. Producer for non-notable record label. —teb728 t c 11:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of fast food restaurant chains#Malaysia. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

List of fast food restaurants in Malaysia

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

Author contested PROD, Knowledge (XXG) is not a business directory. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Just a directory (a list of non-notable fast food restaurants). It may be possible to write an article on foreign fast food companies in Malaysia, or more generally on Malaysian fast food, but you can't do that just by listing all the McDonalds. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we shouldn't be listing every location of chains, but do we have any precedent for just listing notable companies that have a presence in a given country, even if it's not where they are primarily based? postdlf (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - per NOTDIRECTORY. Knowledge (XXG) is not a roster of franchise locations... Carrite (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ The article shouldn't list the location of every single restaurant, but it should list what chains are found in that nation, like other articles do, such as List of restaurant chains in the United States. Perhaps list the number of places total in the nation of each chain or franchise, and list the company profits or other relevant information if you can find it. Dream Focus 09:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment. The current content of this list is a pointless violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. By comparison, List of Philippine restaurant chains has useful content: it defines itself as "a list of fast food and restaurant chains closely associated with or in the Philippines", and does not include international chains. The Philippines list is not in perfect condition—it has a bunch of redlinks that may need evaluation for their potential notability along with its many bluelinks—but something with similar limitations might be appropriate for Malaysia. However, the question would then be if there are enough such Malaysia-focused, notable chains to justify maintaining a separate list; otherwise, we already have the four bluelinked chains listed at List of fast food restaurant chains#Malaysia, and that might be enough. I note that List of fast food restaurants in Egypt, for example, has been redirected to this multination list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Redirect to List of fast food restaurant chains#Malaysia. Probably not going to be able to find the other information I mentioned, to make a decent article, so a redirect is fine. Dream Focus 19:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Association at the University of Maryland

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

I don't think they're notable; such significance as they have is from Spartan Packet Radio Experiment , which has its own article--but otherwise this is just a student club at a single university--and notability is not transferred from a notableproject to whomever was involved with it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:ORG. no notability outside the university. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. DGG knows better than almost everyone else how to find reliable sources; if he says that they don't exist, nobody's going to find them. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted and WP:SALTed by NawlinWiki under WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) BryanG (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Princé B. Richardson

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced, promotional biography of a non-notable person. Unable to find any reliable sources using his stage name or his real name. - Mr X 02:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Lankiveil 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Donald Panther-Yates

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

opening AfD that has been requested by a new editor (Kokiugwe (talk • contribs) who states he is the subject. No personal opinion being stated at this moment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC) For discussion purposes, prior to the current stubbed version, previous versions include -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC) and as a clarification, the sample versions listed above are almost completely arbitrary, showing versions before or after major periods of editing- editors are encouraged to review the history for themselves before commenting here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, no WP:RELIABLE sources in article to denote notability.He iro 01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ but this article was vandalized once and restored. It has now been subject to another unwarranted attack, every word of which is either inaccurate or inappropriate. I will refrain from examples since I do not wish to repeat potentially libelous material, but if you would like me to cite examples I will. I was made aware that that was not wanted. Where were the protectors of all the other hundreds of thousands of articles on Living Persons when the systematic damage was inflicted on this article by two editors over the past four days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.90.126 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It was edited by several well respected editors here in an attempt to bring it into line with our policies and guidelines for WP:BLP and WP:GNG, obviously it could not be done. Just because it lasted here for 2 years under the radar does not mean the situation it was in should be allowed to continue. I've looked at older version of this article not just the most recent one, none of the previous sourcing established the notability of the subject. If you want the article kept, find sources that pass WP:RELIABLE and add them to the article. He iro 06:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And, I noticed that this one edit is the only edit by this IP, geolocated to Glendale, AZ. You would not happen to be Kokiugwe logged out of your account would you? He iro 06:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete: too easy a target for malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokiugwe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am the author and agree: Delete, though not for the same reason necessarily. It started out as something notable in a rare category or overlap of categories (Elvis, DNA, ethnicity, writers) but became a target for vandalism and controversy. Delete, please. Knowledge (XXG) is best served by non-ethnic, uncontroversial material. I don't know what to think about Living Persons category but that it would tend to be impossible to protect from malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokiugwe (talk • contribs)

Comment No, it's not impossible to protect biographies from vandalism, we have hundreds of thousands of them and we do a good job at protecting them. That is not the issue here. An article is deleted based on whether or not it meets the notability guidelines. Nothing else is under consideration here. §FreeRangeFrog 01:53, 28 February 2013 (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/2013 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 02:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The argument that ethnic or controversial topics should not be included on Knowledge (XXG) should carry no weight whatsoever. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored. See: WP:NOTCENSORED. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I worked on it recently, and went to considerable effort to bring it line with standard bios and try to find some RS to support its statements. I found little to support his self-proclaimed notability, but documented with full citations what I did find. He appeared in a documentary making statements about a fraudulent artifact, and has written books and articles. It is valid to include what scholars have said about his work. Agree with deletion; he is not notable.Parkwells (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
delete I was not able to find significant coverage by reliable third party sources about any impactful contributions - does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CORP and a random story about a claim made as an "expert" at a trial does not constitute noteworthyness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tentative Keep It appears that the figure seems to be a significant source of pseudoscience which influenced a wider phenomenon of assertions by Appalachian Americans that they are of Native American descent. I would like more time to investigate and source this. Not long at all. Three days? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Knock yourself out, AFDs run for seven days. §FreeRangeFrog 18:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete Already knocked myself out. The controversy, which I did not describe as accurately from memory as I should have, is the subject of discussion among genealogists but not represented in any detail among RS. There's no reason to keep this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

REQUEST TO DELETE - Malicious editing should not be tolerated. The good man's company did my DNA tests, he is well revered in many circles and it is a travesty to simply delete this article but perhaps best due to the continuing unfounded degredations. What was it Einstein stated about those who first ignore then attack, disagree, ridicule to oh... final acceptance? In this case it applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.136.78 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(off topic of AfD response to above off topic soapboxing) i think you were looking for WP:FRINGE, and if not, you probably should be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a cyber-bullying witch hunt. This is a respected man with a PHd from Duke University with a respected business that has been around for a decade. Psuedo-science? This is second-generation, Autosomal DNA testing which is the latest science for DNA ancestry testing- similar to what the CSI & FBI uses. Hardly psuedo-science. His company is one of the few that uses an ISO certified lab- the highest standard in the industry. And -notable- he & DNA Tribes were one of the first to come out with such a DNA test though he is hardly alone. His company IS the only one that has done a scientific study on Melungeons having Melungeon populations in its database. However, he is not the only person to note that some people from the Appalachians have a mixed but predominately Mid-Eastern ancestry or noted that these people often are afflicted with Mid-Eastern diseases. I have friends with this ancestry that have familial Mediterranean fever. It is a shame to suggest this article be deleted, but think it best to put it elsewhere and consider the source- Knowledge (XXG). Allowing this type of behavior is the reason I do not allow my students to use Knowledge (XXG) for research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.90.126 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Got some WP:RELIABLE sources for that? No? It is not "cyber-bullying" to make sure all articles abide by our policies. And, as I asked above, whose IP sock are you? He iro 23:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

REQUEST TO DELETE - RE ABOVE: Whose IP sock are you? This is Zoey7. I know Dr. Yates. Yes, I could get you reliable evidence of all of the above information as could he. However, that seems a rather pointless exercise since his desire is to have the article deleted and published elsewhere where he has more control of his own information. Zoey7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoey7 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting that Zoey7 was the IP 75.171.90.126 - that edit is before Zoey7 created an account, and there has been no attempt to disguise that Zoey7 is the IP, this is all good faith editing. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Most of the information above, maybe all, is correct (although I'll note that we won't use DNA Tribes as a reliable source). So was the information added to the article about what his book says, the fact that he has self-published a number of publications, etc. And, if we can believe the DNA Consultants website, that his company is located in Scottsdale, although he denies it which puzzles me. The pseudo-science is, for instance, claims made on the basis of claimed cultural similarities between the Cherokee and Phoenicians, Ancient Egyptians, whatever. I don't think it is disputed that he thinks the Bat Creek Inscription is genuine or that he wrote two articles in the fringe archaeology magazine The Ancient American although he deleted all of that material from his article. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

REQUEST TO DELETE Zoey7 Most puzzling that you do not think a person knows where they live and work. The company is in Phoenix not Scottsdale. That is not hidden as it is on the website. Have you never heard of people moving? It is an attack and potentially libelous to call someone a psuedo-scientist who has a reputable, scientific company and has had a successful business for a decade. I am really unclear as to how you can justifiably attack...and it is an attack...this man. He did not have any information about the bat creek stone on his page. That was added by someone & he deleted it. Almost every single word has been changed and much for no apparent reason. ( You require proof that he has a PHd from Duke? This was changed to "he went to college.")What background do any of you have? That is unknown & with the requirements to edit for Knowledge (XXG)...unimpressive. Many a scientific theory has been ridiculed & that is fine. It is one thing to say, " I disagree with someone's theory." It is altogether another to call someone names. Zoey7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.73.84 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 75.171.73.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment-Since everyone commenting so far, including the subject himself, has argues for deletion, would this qualify for WP:SNOW? Several editors have looked for references to bring this up to WP:CITE and WP:RELIABLE, and so far come up empty handed to pass WP:GNG. It seems all this is generating now is drama and some name calling/ranting. He iro 04:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't understand what is going on here. This has been stubbed out beyond recognition. I think there is probably a decent case to be made for notability as a leading genetic genealogist, but this article has been blown to smithereens in some sort of deeply personal edit war and this debate stinks of stale socks... Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are free to look for sources to meet WP:GNG, but if you read some of the comments above you'll see that some other editors (including the original creator of the article) have come up empty handed. Maybe you can find something they missed. He iro 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, it was the subject himself who stubbed it. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for concluding that the author is a leading genetic genealogist, and I am not sure that the pursuit even has what could be called leaders. Agricolae (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw 06:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Washington School of Nursing

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/University of Washington School of Nursing

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

This article, in the current state, contains not even a single sentence; the only content in this article is an infobox and citations on the infobox. This article might qualify for speedy deletion for criterion A3, but I am unsure due to the infobox being in this article and the infobox information having citations. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by Nominator. Clarityfiend, thank you for cleaning up this article. I will withdraw my nomination based on the new information in this article. Steel1943 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a Husky. What else could I do? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This page was created as the Special:WantedPages listed this topic to have 14,482 inbound links. I guess, rather than deleting, this article needs improvement. Mehedi (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2013 (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/2013 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 01:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It's "top-ranked", according to the Seattle Times, and has been for the past "unprecedented 27 years", according to US News & World Report. It's been a pioneer in the past, as "the first nursing school on the West Coast and only the second university-affiliated nursing school in the U.S.". Just needs some bandages stat. I'll see what I can do a bit later. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep and improve. Failing that, it should be a redirect to UW itself. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Lankiveil 12:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Morphing Grid

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

This is a term that has no notability outside of the series of television shows that it is a part of. There are no reliable sources that show that it is notable, only citations that show that the term has been used at various points during the television series and its sequels. If this page is not to be deleted, it should be redirected towards Power Rangers or Mighty Morphin Power Rangers as I had done previously until an IP editor (or one individual using multiple IPs) decided to recreate the article this past month. —Ryulong (琉竜) 01:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Just stating that "hey, this term exists" isn't really enough for it to be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article. –TC N7 JM 02:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment – I can't see this lasting as a redirect. It doesn't meet any of the criteria of the purpose of redirects. –TCN7JM 02:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: redirects are cheap and there's no need to strand any readers looking for more information when they could just as easily be redirected. - Dravecky (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry, but could you please elaborate? I'm not completely sure I understand what you're saying? –TC N7 JM 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Merge to Power Rangers or Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The redirect may have been undone because the concept isn't described in the article. As it's mentioned in several articles, there should be a description somewhere, whether in each place it's mentioned (which would be unnecessary repetition) or as part of a section that it can be redirected to. Peter James (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete really, really, really trivial trivia. Extremely unlikely this has the requisite substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article only sourced to the show itself, which isn't acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 109.153.185.198 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I copied this article to wikialpha for preservation. Mathewignash (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Slip-on shoe. after Deleting the page. J04n(talk page) 22:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Penny Loafers

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable college a capella club. Not signed to a record label, no major hits, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hence, fails WP:BAND. Fails WP:GNG as well. Knowledge (XXG):No one cares about your college a capella group. GrapedApe (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge material about the a capella group to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania, then redirect the current article title to slip-on shoe (the article about the shoe type), and, finally, update the hatnote at that article to point to the student life article instead of its current target. There's some material about this, and it's certainly a longstanding part of the University of Pennsylvania. But there's really minimal-to-zero evidence of notability independent of that context. It survived the 2007 first AFD on the back of the "international tour" criterion in WP:BAND, which has such a sordid history that the current wording (which the Penny Loafers don't seem to qualify for) comes with a warning note. I think it's safe to consider that inadequate against our current sourcing expectations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This appears to be just one of about ten a cappella groups at Penn. No relevant sources have been provided other than two specialized a cappella sites and the group's own site (the other sources cited are broken or irrelevant links). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per above, with all of the merge stuff outlined by Squeamish Ossifrage. Surely the group got its name from the shoes? It makes no sense that this title redirects to a group named after the shoes, rather than something about the shoes themselves. Especially given the non-n nature of the group. Stalwart111 07:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to the shoes. Material doesn't appear significant enough for a merger. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer L. Canty

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. I do see that there's a link in the article to a story by the Washington Post, but when I went to search for more sources I was coming up pretty dry. The company she is famous for founding (Dyscern) also has no article. Ks0stm 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete, did not find any significant coverage of the subject that indicates notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep As noted, the article includes a link to a significant story about her in the Washington Post. Google News Archive finds occasional mentions like this and this at CBS News, and this at the New York Sun. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Scant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or the basic WP:ANYBIO. dci | TALK 01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ercy Mirage

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

WP:NN DJ. The only reliable source mentions the subject in passing as an A&R employee of a non-notable record label. Creator claims in an edit comment that the subject was nominated for a 2013 Grammy, but I can't find evidence to support that. Pburka (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find anything that would meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. — sparklism 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. KTC (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Management & Social Sciences

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

Journal not listed in any selective databases. Article has no independent sources. A search (thanks to Neelix gives some hits on Google News and Google Books. However, none of this is more than an in-passing mention and not sufficient coverage to establish notability for the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Pakistan is not a locus of notable academic journals and this thing has no web or academic prescence. TCO (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 07:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep-an article to expand. The topic seems notable.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment As the nom says, sources are thin. I could find no in-depth independent sources for general notability. With respect to databases, JMSS is in DOAJ, DOAJ claims to be selective and DOAJ is notable itself. I'll leave it to the experts to determine if DOAJ is selective enough for JMSS to pass WP:NJournals. --Mark viking (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. The subject (a traditional sport in Assam) exists. Given the article's pitiful state when the nominator found it, this certainly looked like a good faith nomination, but apparently the nominator is banned as a sockpuppet, which makes this a case for speedy keep. I only learned about the ban when I went to the nominator's talk page to ask for a second look after the rewrite. I entirely rewrote the article from what I was able to find. If anybody else can tease out more information about the actual gameplay from the one source I found, you're a better man than I am. It sounds like some kind of demented combination of soccer and dodgeball, and judging from the photo (we actually had one on Commons) it's played with a Hacky Sack. At any rate, as the author of the current version and a !voter in the discussion I'm quite a scofflaw for closing this. So if you have an issue, let me know, and I'll be happy to reverse myself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dhopkhel

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

Does not specify significance and is short of content... Ajayupai95 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep, weakly. This page is nigh unintelligible, the nomination easily understandable: but the subject would appear to be real. This is a much more intelligible introduction from what appears to be a news aggregation site of some kind. It also appears in this children's textbook. Are there other names in different languages, or closely related games? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I replaced the text found here with a slight but serviceable stub. I found the description of the game play on the reference somewhat hard to follow, so someone who actually knows how the game is played might want to correct that. There are not a whole lot of references for this -- again, unless there are other names or spelling variants. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I was going to ask the nominator to consider withdrawing this, when I discovered that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. This may be technical grounds for a speedy keep. We even had a picture of the game being played at Commons. The current text is quite different from the nominated text in any case, and obviously I'm not the person who should close this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Concert Live Ltd.

(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)

Non-neutral story that looks like advertising The Banner talk 23:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrative note. Article was cut-and-paste moved. In the course of cleaning it up, it is now titled Concert Live. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Respawnables

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

I am concerned over WP:GNG/WP:CORP for this soft. There is a number of sources cited, but they don't strike me as reliable - mostly if not entirely commercial and self-published sites. Knowledge (XXG) is not Yellow Pages, software catalog, nor a place to promote a product. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 22:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Maxair (aviation)

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

Completely unreferenced; especially not clear how big this company was and whether scheduled flights were operated. The little information I can find does not establish notability per WP:CORP: There just isn't anything substantial. --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Keep No signs of notability.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep operated at least one Saab 340, Metroliner and a Jetstream 31, and was notable enough to be allocated a iata code, just needs some references not deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Airlines are not intrinsically notable, regardless of the size of the aircraft operated; they must still meet WP:CORP. YSSYguy (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of references from Flight International's annual World Airline Directory for 2000 and 2001. These confirm that the airline did operate scheduled domestic and international services, and give an idea of the airlines fleet. doesn't say much of any use, although it may do to premium subscribers. indicates the airline launching a route between Malmo and Norrkoping, while mentions the airlines bankruptcy. This is a Swedish article about the airline taking over the Malmo–Norrkoping route. I think that given these sources, Maxair probably passes GNG and so keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Aberystwyth University Mens Hockey Club

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

Local club article that fails WP:NCOLLATH. No notability asserted or demonstrated. References simply prove the club exists but fails to establish any notability. Velella 17:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Chutznik (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

GreenJet Airlines

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

Pure WP:CRYSTAL. This is just a product announcement, a mere intention of an airline (so far, no aircraft have been acquired). There is no significant coverage either, so it also fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete If this company ever comes to anything, someone will create the article then. Chutznik (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of airlines of Germany. J04n(talk page) 22:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Air-taxi europe

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

Fails WP:CORP: This corporate air charter company has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Also, the creator (User:Goosebump17) did not edit any other Knowledge (XXG) artcles, so it's likely a WP:COI case). --FoxyOrange (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment how is this different from NetJets? Both are private airlines. Chutznik (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- NetJets passes the WP:GNG. This doesn't. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment Airline is current, I'd like to keep it. User:Pilot-NL (talk) 06 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:ILIKEIT. How does being 'current' establish notability?
Do not delete as the information is verifiable and important, but instead Merge and redirect to List_of_airlines_of_Germany. The information at that list can be expanded. This airline requires third party coverage before a stand alone article can be justified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:V is satisfied, how is WP:N? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  - WP:N is not met, but WP:N is a standalone article criterion and doesn't limit inclusion on another page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete - non-scheduled air taxi service that doesn't meet the notability standard. Nothing to merge anywhere; should not be redirected as this is not an airline, but an air taxi/charter flight operator - there is no scheduling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Anne Berit Vestby

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

Was nominated for speedy soon after creation. Nothing of substance added in the intervening years. No evidence of notability. 1 IMDB ref and 1 from her own company. Nothing major produced, 1 film "nominated" for a film festival. Dmol (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to Beautiful Creatures (novel). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lena Duchannes

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

Entry on a non-notable fictional character that is not supported by references. YuMa NuMa 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Beautiful Creatures (novel)#Characters per WP:BKD, which already has some of the information, but might be fleshed out a teeny bit further. Storkk (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect per above. If anyone is interested in creating it, there looks to be enough reason to create a page entitled List of characters in the Caster Chronicles series. But individual pages? No, not yet. The series is popular enough but Lena isn't at the level of notoriety or focus as say, Katniss or Hermoine. There is the movie, but then it really hasn't exploded into cinemas the way that everyone thought it would and reception so far has been relatively underwhelming. It doesn't look like any of the characters in the series will become the focus of RS that would give them notability independent of the series itself, at least not anytime soon that I can foresee. But until someone wants to create that page, a redirect to the character section of the first book would be a good idea.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. KTC (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Darling Parade

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. The provided references, other than musicnewsnashville, are not substantial. The Summerfest reference is misleading. They played four bands before Chevelle. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Corrected the broken Billboard chart reference, as well as added clarification on Summerfest to verify the band was not Direct Support for Chevelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.105.244 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Qualifies under WP:BAND Criteria #10 with music placed in major TV or movies. (The CW, SyFy, ABC Family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonking (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what more they need to do to qualify but they are a real band with real albums and real fans. Why delete the page on them? They are releasing an album on April 2nd, 2013 under the record label "Page 2 Music". They have several EPs and a full studio album coming (which you can already pre-order on Amazon) and while they are still a smaller emerging band, they are definitely noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.241.118 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism 11:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP - Qualifies under WP:Band with several criteria as listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.105.244 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ed Thompson (Photographer)

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

Seems to be non notable. Nothing in there which makes him unique. Just like anyother photographer. GAtechnical (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the sources in the article he is a notable photographer here in the U.K. Many of the notes are from prominant U.K institutions including Bishopsgate Institute. He's given lectures and had photographic work feautured in the big U.K photo-festivals and photo-features in National Geographic Magazine amongst others. I've also just found out he was in a Channel Four (U.K) television series on photography in the U.K Picture This (Channel 4) and have just added that to the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootographer (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I can see how an argument could be made for notability, but on closer examination the sourcing is relatively poor (most include his work or are photoessays by him, but do not give reliable info). Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. dci | TALK 01:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Poorly sourced, promotional and non-notable. Fails WP:ARTIST notability guidelines. - Mr X 02:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

KTWO Enlightenment

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

Incoherent, unsourced article about a type of enlightenment that probably does not exist, and is likely a hoax or a figment of someone's imagination. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. - Mr X 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Heaven Knows (Rise Against single)

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

Should be speedy deleted as empty, but my speedy deletion tag was removed. RNealK (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh, redirect it to the article on the album from which it comes: Revolutions per Minute (Rise Against album). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to Revolutions per Minute (Rise Against album). I'm not finding any evidence of this single meeting NSONG. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)