Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 October 24 October >

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 keep. Obviously notable, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Legoktm (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL)[edit]

Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a manifesto, not an encyclopedic article. Not G11 worthy, but is not WP:NPOV either. Legoktm (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The page is describing a group of politically active scholars. Some of those scholars have written manifestos and articles describing what is TWAIL. This page is not a manifesto itself. But it does describe some of those manifestos and political points of view. The way that the page is written does not endorse that perspective. It is encyclopedic because it is descriptive in style, highlights debates within TWAIL, is very well referenced, provides a history of TWAIL, has a decent number of external links, and outlines criticisms against TWAIL. Superzhango 00:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superzhango (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I disagree with Legoktm: there is a TWAIL manifesto that has been written by Professor Bhupinder Chimni (and cited by the authors of the page) which possesses a far more polemical tone. What Legoktm appears concerned with is the substance of the method / movement - a critical perspective on the body and practice of international law - than the tone of the page. In addition to explicating the movement's origins and development, the author identifies criticisms, participants and external links that provide greater insight in the breadth of the movement. The content is verifiable, as per the impressive bank of footnotes and bibliographical references 174.91.227.12 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.227.12 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Question is whether TWAIL is notable. Considering there was a conference at the University of Oregon Law School just on TWAIL, [1], it is notable. A search on Google scholar for TWAIL returns many hits. If the current article reads like a manifesto (which I don't think it does, but that is a content debate), we should edit and fix the problems, not delete it. Churn and change (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Strongly disapprove the move or redirect to 'international legal theories.' This is a separate page warranting separate discussion. There are hundreds of separate pages for particular models of football boots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Mercurial_Vapor), for crying out loud, and someone has the audacity to challenge a legitimate intellectual movement. Come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.175.83 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make a Film[edit]

How to Make a Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Recreated from another title that was speedy deleted as promotional. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google News provided absolutely nothing despite adding "film", "2012" and "Stephan Kern Seumas Next". A main Google search provided the usual, primary sources and blogs, but I found one mention here through Carissa Shereen's, one of the actors, website. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article seems like an essay or original research, and the subject does not seem notable. The references are insufficient. - MrX 02:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. I also note the primary editors are a pair of single-purpose accounts so there's likely a conflict of interest here - and the tone of the edits are blatantly self-promotional (see Talk:How to Make a Film for example).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no coverage at all of this in Google News archives despite typing in the name of the film with the directors and principal actors' names. A web search turned up the usual blogs and such, but nothing outside of primary sources and blogs; nothing reliable. There's nothing in Google Books. It's barely apparent from a search that the film exists, let alone that it had substantial coverage. Fails WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Park Mall[edit]

Sherwood Park Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not demonstrated; sounds just one of thousands of similar commercial shopping centers in North America. Wkharrisjr (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its not a commercial strip like "thousands" of others, quick research shows that its a significant sized enclosed mall. It was also called "eastgate" when constructed, so sources might also exist under that title.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sherwood Park, Alberta. Much of the information in the article may be a violation of WP:NOT, such as the size (relatively, other malls are built and demolished frequently; also malls frequently build, add on to or knock down portions of buildings) and stores (change frequently and without rhyme or reason). No comment on the GNG question pbp 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a regional mall with 464,000 sq ft of space, four anchors, and nearly 100 stores. Needs better sourcing but is of a size to be generally notable as a shopping mall. - Dravecky (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not a strip mall as evidenced in the floor plan. Not an especially large mall, but certainly not a run-of-the-mill strip mall. A mall this size represents a sizable commercial hub in a community, and should pass WP:GNG. Addendum Downgrading to "weak". Sadly this proposal was rejected. The talk page for that proposed policy includes some precedent cases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's do a search for sourcing:
    • There's a large amount of trivial coverage -- things like the mall's opening, a burglary at one of its stores, etc. But this must be discounted under WP:CORPDEPTH. This is also covered by media of regional scope, not national or international. Here's an example. And another about an arm wrestling competition held there.
    • A search under "Eastgate Mall" (its former name) reveals more similar coverage, like this. There's nothing here about the mall's founding, but there is some routine coverage of its expansion in the early 1980s.
    • There's some other similar coverage in Google Books. Here's a description of a theater that was installed at the mall. Here's something about activities at the mall. There's some discussion in this autobiography, but I'd suggest that's a primary source and doesn't do much to support notability.
    • Nothing significant comes up in a web search.
  • There has been some coverage over the years, but none of it goes beyond trivial and routine, and none of it is national or international in scope. On that basis, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG barring new evidence of substantial coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously no one has searched the archives of the Edmonton Journal or Toronto Star. Our fair Canadian cities get short shrift in these notability battles because their freely accessible online archives pale in comparison with the United States. I just want to note this in case it gets deleted in the chance it inspires someone to do old style honest research.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Many of the results in a news search were from the Edmonton Journal and Edmonton Sun, but none of them went beyond routine coverage of events at the mall, hirings of executives and so forth. --Batard0 (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the very first source I cite above is from the archives of the Edmonton Journal. --Batard0 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The google news coverage of Edmonton Journal is very sporadic. E.g., only 38 issues for 1972, 21 issues for 1984, etc., it doesn't allow for more than happenstance research of that publication.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you or somebody else can show that there's been significant coverage that we can't access online, I'll change my stance to keep. I'm just not convinced by what we can see that there's anything that demonstrates significant coverage. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There could be other databases. Is the newspaper regional or province-wide in scope? I only ask because WP:CORPDEPTH says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." --Batard0 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that we don't even have to see the sources themselves necessarily -- we just need to know that they actually exist to an extent that we're satisfied there's significant coverage. Hard to say how to do this, but the threshold is fairly low, as long as it is indeed significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeocarbon[edit]

Zeocarbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear what this is. No in-line refs. Only external links refer to the same academic paper looking at the performance of a mixture of zeolite and carbon. No evidence that Zeocarbon is anything other than a neologism or somebody's day-dream. Probably just an essay.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I found a few references, but they all seem to refer back to already referenced articles. The subject is simply not notable enough, from what I can tell. - MrX 03:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A GScholar search shows multiple peer-reviewed sources mentioning the topic, so the substance is genuine. I question whether a cohesive article could be assembled from these sources, however. Probably fails WP:GNG, due to lack of coverage.--E8 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly any cites to those articles though. We would usually expect several thousand references for an article on a subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can tell, this is a product (see this data sheet with a register trademark symbol confirmed with this USPTO result). It appears to be a mixture of activated carbon and zeolite which Pennington Equipment marketed under the trade name Zeocarbon. Although mentioned here and there, I was unable to find any significant coverage of this specific product to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are some citations in Google Scholar, but there's absolutely nothing in Google News or elsewhere on the web that's reliable and independent. If this were notable, I'd expect at least a marginal amount of coverage in the mainstream media. The scholarly sources are limited (only one of them uses the term "Zeocarbon" in its title; most are about zeolite) and in my view do not rise to significant coverage as required under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Archbold[edit]

Edward Archbold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent tragic death, but not sufficient coverage or significant enough an event to warrant an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:TABLOID, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain at this time - Although this would be a case of Wikipedia:One event, this is an interesting death and may be significant to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The essence of WP:ONEEVENT. I'd support a merge to a related topic if there was one, but this was sponsored by a pet store that does not support inclusion, rather than a radio station with an article (as in the case of KDND and Jennifer Strange/Hold Your Wee for a Wii). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abarbarea[edit]

Abarbarea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small, unsignificant subject ᶲAstridᶲ • (Let's do this!) 21:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I have to vote on a merge. This is because she is mentioned only once or twice in each source, each of which a primarily quoting Homer's original and singular mention of her. In fact, Aphrodite's Entry Into the Greek Epic, mentioned above states her insignificance on page 68; "Her function in epic is limited to producing two sons who were killed in battle...except Abarbarea (Another indication of her strictly local importance.)" Additionally, despite her appearance in Bibliotheca Classica and Bell's, she is still mentioned only briefly, and her articles in those books restate Homer's work. ᶲAstridᶲ • (Let's do this!) 21:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above in Google Books. Clearly meets WP:GNG; there are entries in various books about mythology on this. Together these amount to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Batard0 (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources at Google Books that showcase the notability of the subject. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ergiske. MBisanz talk 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aba (nymph)[edit]

Aba (nymph) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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)

Few sources, little notability, search has revealed little new information. ᶲAstridᶲ • (Let's do this!) 21:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 23. Snotbot  t • c »  22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ergiske. I managed to find a reference for the subject, The Folds of Parnassos, published by the University of Texas Press. Although she's a real mythological figure, she's a very minor character, and mainly known as part of the foundation myth of the ancient region of Ergiske, as mother of its founder.--xanchester (t) 16:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, there are more than a few references from serious sources (just do a Google book search on Aba+Ergiske), which however all do not say more about the nymph than that she is the mother of Ergiskos, the legendary founder of Ergiske. I found no source for the claim in the article that "Aba was a nymph of the town of Ergiske", so that snippet should not be merged.  --Lambiam 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that the first sentence is uncited and should not be merged. But the second sentence, claiming that Aba is the mother of Ergiskos, founder of Ergiske, is verifiable, and should be merged with the Ergiske article. The nymph, in all the sources that I've come across, only appears as part of the etymology of the name Ergiske, as mother of the region's founder and namesake.--xanchester (t) 21:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per xanchester. The subject has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as shown by a Google Books search, and thus falls short of the WP:GNG. But there is one result cited above that shows it is verifiable, and hence could be included in Ergiske. --Batard0 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mazooma[edit]

Mazooma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to be a notable product or service and feels like an advertisement. Roman à clef (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm leaning towards delete because, not only are the current references press releases, Google News archives found additional promotional results or press releases here, here and here (it's not worth continuing with the results). I should note that there is another company with the name "Mazooma", a digital gaming company. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minimal coverage by secondary sources, outside of press releases, which are not considered reliable. The subject does not meet the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 19:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I paged through all the news results; not a single one was not a press release, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source under WP:GNG. Nothing to show otherwise elsewhere. Delete for lack of reliable source coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at this time. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to dialogic. or to dialectic MBisanz talk 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectic process vs. dialogic process[edit]

Dialectic process vs. dialogic process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around since 2003, so I feel a little bad for beating up on the old timer. But this just isn't the sort of thing that we do in the modern conception of Wikipedia. The article concept embodied by the title suggests essay-style original research. But the article's actual contents don't even really do that, merely interweaving snippets of information about the two philosophical methods. We have a fairly comprehensive article on dialectic and an ... article on dialogic. the only source here is a source about dialectic. There's literally nothing being referenced to support the article's ostensible premise. There are sources that discuss both viewpoints (including quite a few that consider them compatible), but I think we would be better off using such sources to strengthen the articles on the parent topics rather than craft a novel synthesis here (especially with the terrible title). We don't need this, especially if this is the fruit of nearly a decade; the original author is banned, and the only other significant contributors outside the ebb and flow of templating were a handful of IP editors (probably the same human) in 2009. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. There is some good information here that probably ought to be folded into the article on dialectic and shown some citation love. The distinction is confusing to people just beginning to dip their toes into philosophy, and I'd hate to see it thrown out without having the information kept somewhere. --Roman à clef (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the correct solution here, I think. This is an old school unsourced original essay from the days when WP was young. The encyclopedic concepts are Dialectic process and Dialogic process, the comparison is an essay. Each of those can reasonably be modified to contrast the one with the other (technically through merger), but the unsourced comparison is not encyclopedic, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my problem here is that there's not much to merge. The dialogic article needs some love from someone who cares, but even still, I don't think there's much to add from this essay (especially without sources). The dialectic article is in much better shape. Some comparison/contrast with other philosophical methods might be a nice addition, but there's not any actual comparison going on here, either, despite the name. Just a snippet of one idea, then a snippet of the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are pretty good sources, but my problem with them is that they don't seem to treat the differences between dialogic and dialectic outside of the context of another subject they're exploring. In other words, they don't treat dialectic versus dialogic in a pure way, as a philosophic divergence. Hence arguably there is not enough coverage directly of the topic at hand in reliable, secondary sources to qualify under WP:GNG. From a purely practical standpoint, we could address this in a couple of ways. We could 1) have small sections on the difference in the dialogic and dialectic articles, with a seealso-type template to this article. Or 2) we could simply incorporate the material into the dialogic and dialectic articles, and delete this one. To me, the second option is more desirable, since it's really about definitions and there isn't a substantial amount to add in a standalone article. I can't cite a specific guideline that calls for this, but I think we can argue that Dialectic process vs. dialogic process doesn't warrant a separate article under WP:GNG, although I can see an argument that sources like the ones above establish it as having attracted significant coverage. I'm not 100% sure on this, but given the above I believe it would be most practical and reasonable to merge. --Batard0 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman usurpers[edit]

List of Roman usurpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a list of articles... unsure why it is notable. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Looks like a fine list with clearcut criteria. Usurpers and would-be usurpers of major empires are plenty notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like all lists, it is a useful "one-stop shop" for anyone interested in researching or reading about a particular topic (in this case Roman usurpers) without having to find out in the first instance who they all actually were. And if you delete this one, why stop there? Why not delete List of popes, List of Roman consuls, List of English monarchs, List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, etc, etc, etc? It is notable by virtue of the fact that all the people it lists are notable, surely. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give them ideas! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator seems to be unaware that we keep and maintain lists of articles. If this was the sole basis for his nomination, he should withdraw it upon learning that we do in fact do that. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Most lists are lists of articles. I am sure there are any number of people interested in roman usurper emperors. The list does define what an usurper means; you could quibble with the definition, but it is clear the scope can be meaningfully defined. Churn and change (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable, and the scope of the list is defined and not indiscriminate.--xanchester (t) 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. It's a list with a finite number of entries, and the criteria are well-defined. I don't see where this fails to meet our policy on lists. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman usurper[edit]

Roman usurper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically an essay about roman usurpers... makes no assertion to why this is notable apart from the general articles of the persons discussed. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- There seems to be too much of the author's own view in the present article. The list article (which has been kept already) is good, but I would have preferred that as a table with the name of the reigning emperor rather less prominent. Gibbon is certainly available, but it is a very old source now. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning (Mega Man episode)[edit]

The Beginning (Mega Man episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no reason why this episode is any more notable than any other episode, or why a single episode in the series needs to have an article when others do not. Makes no assertion of notability. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made this article years ago, but it looks like it's not really doing anything useful. Go ahead and delete it. Plainnym (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, I'd suggest redirecting or merging it, but there's little cited material to merge and the current article name is an unlikely search term.--xanchester (t) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found some YouTube videos supporting the story and Google Books found one result here from a 1995 issue of Billboard but this would be insufficient. If there had been a source supporting September 11 as the airdate, I would have supported redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found some sourcing in this Billboard article, but that's about it in terms of coverage in reliable sources. The rest is as discussed above. As it stands, this article is a plot summary and trivia, which is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and in any case appears to fail the WP:GNG guidelines unless further coverage can be uncovered. --Batard0 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly per Swister and Batard0. Megamag is notable as a hwole series, but hardly each of its episodes may be so. Although this is the first one and may prove notable, research have shown the opposite here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy A7ed, zero claim of importance, obvious self-promotional résumé. --Kinu t/c 19:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subhasom Mandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Subhasom Mandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability and importance of the person Anbu121 (talk me) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wither (Passarella novel)[edit]

Wither (Passarella novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not assert notability, and I have been unable to locate anything that would make it notable. Article also does not provide significant detail beyond that information already present in either of the articles of the authors John Passarella and Joseph Gangemi who are not terribly notable in themselves. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added sources. Shocked to uncover ancient Reliable Sources. Basing a keep on winning a major award (WP:BK #2). For a horror writer, the Horror Writer's Association is both global in scope and prestigious, as is the Bram Stoker Award. The manuscript was supposed to be made into a movie but I can't find evidence it was, but can't find evidence it wasn't, so left open with a cite needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's fairly light but does have just enough sourcing to pass notability guidelines. I wouldn't say the same for the sequels, though, but then they don't have articles. I do notice that the author's page needs work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing includes a review here, a discussion in the New York Times and something in Library Journal. There are a few others, too. Meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage in secondary sources, as well as WP:BKCRIT. --Batard0 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy A7ed, zero claim of importance whatsoever, obvious résumé, created by sockpuppet of blocked user, etc. Take your pick. --Kinu t/c 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra singh bhopal[edit]

Rajendra singh bhopal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Claims of Importance or Notability. Anbu121 (talk me) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Other than linkedin and facebook I have not found anything related to this person anywhere. Beyond that, it's written like a resume toward the end.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. We have disambiguation pages, and we have articles on file formats. This article fails as both. Electron9's argument is rejected: directory type pages are explicitly prohibited by WP:NOT and there are numerous websites that specifically address this need and make a much better job. SpinningSpark 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.clb[edit]

.clb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Useless disambiguation page. Disambiguates a single article on Wikipedia, which does not even mention the file extension. Forget that "plain/text" is not a valid MIME type, and disambiguation pages should not have references anyway. I tried WP:CSD#G6 already, but the author added two backlinks, seemingly just to make the page technically ineligible. Keφr (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm with you. --Roman à clef (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't meet policy for disambiguation pages, but could this be replaced by a redirect? --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose gives information on file extensions. Electron9 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. External links are expressly forbidden on disambiguation pages. A disambiguation page should contain no linkless lines, and no links that are not either title matches to the disambiguated term, or alternate identifiers for a term which appears in the article from which the link originates. Were this page to be made to fully conform with disambiguation page policy, nothing would be left on it at all. bd2412 T 12:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This not useful as a disambiguation page, nor do I see any possibility of turning this into an actual article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Mimicry Srinivos. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V.P.Srinivas[edit]

V.P.Srinivas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An Indian mimic. Lots of pictures but no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Bobson (film)[edit]

Jackie Bobson (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect a rather elaborate hoax. IMDB page appears dodgy (as this purported $90,000,000 film has only one actor and no crew -- that's one well-paid actor!). No other sources found to confirm this dodgy source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a Declaration of Rights Held by Future Generations and Bill of Responsibilities for Present Generations[edit]

Towards a Declaration of Rights Held by Future Generations and Bill of Responsibilities for Present Generations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a webhost. Yunshui 雲‍水 17:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attorneyfee[edit]

Attorneyfee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads very much like an advertisement or promotion, as if it is trying to establish notability by having a wikipedia article, but provides nowhere near enough sourcing or references as to why it is notable enough to warrant an article, as per WP:ORGDEPTH. Given that it is now over a year old, and the vast majority of editing done to it so far (including the original article creation and all content of any note) is from a user with a clear COI (user "Komaiko" is almost certainly "Richard Komaiko" - or a relative - who is listed in the article as one of the founders of the business), I'm inclined to nominate this article for deletion, since I see no point or value in trying to find sufficient notability where there likely is none. Besieged (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This company is scarcely mentioned among the reliable source in this article; the other sources are blogs from those in the law practice (or industry, as they'd put it). I found this article here about the company, but it is again, just a blog. With no success, I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. These people are clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their business. --Roman à clef (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE For anyone else examining this issue, the user account that created this article (with significant COI concerns, as that user is apparently an executive in the company/org in question) also created a (recently deleted, as per my nomination for Speedy Deletion via A7 and G11) article for a very similar business entitled The Lawyer Market, which appeared to be a nearly identical business with similar officers. Additionally, there seems to be some small amount of sockpuppetry going on with the User:Komaiko123 and (recently deleted) User:Attorneyfee accounts. By all accounts, this page is merely shameless promotion. Besieged talk 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Besieged on this on. This article was obviously made by an executive, and lacks notability.Bizarre carl (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaving aside the NPOV issues, here's what I see for notability: A passing mention in the ABA Journal, a mention of a startup being launched, and then this blog post, found through the ABA Journal article, which passes it off as one of many in the "cottage industry," to use the blog's term. Similarly, this post lists the service as being one of many new legal startups. A look through the first 10 pages of results for "attorneyfee" in Google's "verbatim" mode only shows more of the same. In short, it seems to be a non-notable legal services startup. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious shameless self-promotion by a non-notable company; WP:SNOW. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. Troubling indeed that it took us a year. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Computer Science & Systems Biology[edit]

Journal of Computer Science & Systems Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal: no independent sources. Despite what the article claims (since then removed, see edit history), not listed in any selective major databases (see www.omicsonline.org/indexingjcsb.php[predatory publisher]). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chalo Trust School[edit]

Chalo Trust School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been bare of content of any value for over a year (since its original creation), and no editor of it has made any attempt to denote why it is notable, nor provide and references or links, and a quick search does not reveal any such reasons for notability. WP:ORGDEPTH is not readily met here. Besieged (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: have found, and added as External Link, a profile of the school at website of the US-based Kucetekela Foundation, which refers to it as among "Lusaka’s best secondary schools". PamD 21:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lokanatham Nandikeswararao[edit]

Lokanatham Nandikeswararao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. I can find exactly zero reliable sources supporting anything about this person. The stated sources are a blog and another Wikipedia article in Telugu. A search both in English and in Telugu yielded nothing helpful. Doesn't meet BLP notability; recommending deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unfortunately, I believe any useful sources are not English and thus a proper English article can't be written. Hopefully, a user with good English skills can clean the Telugu article and translate. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To judge by the pattern of paragraphs, this is probably a reasonably good translation of the Telegu article. Certainly the Telegu contains no more references than the Emglish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This author has a sound track record indicating that he thinks references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism[edit]

Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Legitimate topic, but the article is a point of view essay. Only in-line citations are to an unreliable source published online without peer review. The only salvageable content is the list of references. WP:TNT causa sui (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, but needs serious rewrite to fit in with Wikistandards. – Richard BB 20:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the article survives the sourcing policies. The sourcing policies don't say "if something is unsourced, don't delete it, clean it up." --causa sui (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which sourcing policy says "If something is unsourced, don't clean it up, delete it."? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard BB and Cirt. It is sourced; see the list of sources at the bottom. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Avenue (Band)[edit]

Park Avenue (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure of notability of band through lack of reliable sources. Apparently it was deleted before, too: see User talk:Vianello/Archive 3#Deletion of Park Avenue (band) - was speedied A7. If kept, this article requires a page move to meet Manual of Style. Raymie (t • c) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but with slight uncertainty - I searched with Google Italy and found links here, here, here and here (minor mentions) and here (music profile). Google News Italy archives found a detailed article here but that would probably be insufficient. However, this past link questions my vote because it mentions that they performed at several festivals which may be notable. Users fluent with Italian are welcome to comment if any of these are enough for notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Youxin[edit]

Yang Youxin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has a strong hoaxy feel to it. The IMDB entry was written by "anonymous." There is a book about her available by Amazon -- but the book was self-published by the author (not her, at least not using her name). There are Web pages that appear to be genuine about her exhibitions -- but almost all of them repeat the exact content, almost word by word. While given this much somewhat-independent coverage I would be hesitant to ask for deletion, something just doesn't smell right to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning toward delete because the claims in the article (which might make her notable if true) do not have adequate verification. There is an article at Google Scholar with her (presumably) as lead author, but not enough to qualify under WP:ACADEMIC. The existence of her film is verified by the New York Times listing, but all the awards it supposedly won are either dead links or incredibly long lists of films on which it is impossible to find one film. Google News has nothing significant - a couple of press releases - so fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an odd one. The book listed in the Bibliography section is on Google Books [7], but it doesn't appear to be of great quality and may be self-published. Other than that there are PR announcements ([8][9][10]), a very brief New York Times mention ([11]) and an exhibition listing from the Vancouver Observer ([12]). The lack of significant and demonstrably independent coverage inclines me towards deletion. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The book mentioned above is indeed self-published. It, along with the press release-style sources, can be discounted. The NY Times mention is barely even a passing mention, one of four works name-dropped from a "series of more than 300 feature films and shorts". And I don't think the awards are sufficient. The Platinum Remi is not the highest award given at Worldfest, but the highest in a subcategory. Platinum Remi < Special Jury Award < Remi Grand Statuette. This isn't a hoax by any means, but just an artist who does not quite rise to the level of our current inclusion standards at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMOsite[edit]

MMOsite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Site does not appear to be notable (I have looked for significant coverage via Google news and found nothing beyond name-drops). Sources are alexa hits (not a sign of notability), and the primary site itself. MASEM (t) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How would a review website be determined as notable? I would think by the exclusive interviews they get. People in the game industry do interviews with them, and some of these give exclusive interviews. A well funded company with a costly MMO game wouldn't ignore all others, and agree to just do an interview with this one site, if they weren't notable. Alexa says they get 13 million hits a month, and obviously, a review site that gets millions of people reading the reviews is far more notable than one who gets none at all. Remember, the guidelines are not the only way to determine notability. You can think for yourself, and determine what is the right course of action. Dream Focus 16:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For full disclosure, MMOSite is also being discussed if it is to be considered a reliable source. I want to stress that notability and reliability are two distinct things; we can have non-notable but reliable sources for supporting notability in other articles; we can have notable unreliable sites that have been discussed at length in other reliable sources (eg like IMDB). If this is deleted, it should not impact the discussion of whether the site is reliable or not, though certainly there may be common sources (that I can't locate) that work towards demonstrating both aspects. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability has not been established; hits are not a measure of notability; article has no reliable sources, even to establish hits figure pbp 16:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Review on MMMsite specifically [13], [14], some additional info [15]. There really should be a section about their annual awards ceremony. This site is difficult to research reviews on because their entire site is about reviews. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first two of those links don't appear to be reliable sources pbp 17:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TopTenReviews has it's own article. There is nothing indicating unrealiability in its list of awards. AlteredGamer is used as a reference elsewhere on wikipedia. It also appears to have editorial oversite, which meets the criteria for a RS. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notability and reliability are two separate facets. We have articles on unreliable sources, and we have reliable sources that don't have their own article. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, so please enlighten me. The winner for Website Excellence in Education is considered an unreliable source, per your own words. What exactly does a website have to do to become a reliable source? Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are ones that have an established history of editorial control. This does not appear to be the case of MMOSite. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently talking about TopTenReviews, though. That site has a detailed review on MMOsite, which adds to its notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, at least as I understand it, TopTenReviews is not a reliable site (at least for WP:VG/S, our concern is that it a site design to boost game sales and thus lacks neutrality). It's notable (per its existing article) but again, reliability is not the same as notability. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT, the main determinant for notability here. I want to believe, but I'm not convinced that the linked articles are RS that would count for notability. (Also, see WP:VG's RS talk page for previous discussion.) czar · · 19:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources; how we always establish the WP:GNG. The "Exclusive Interviews" argument is extremely weak, not only is that not a rationale I've ever seen work, but come on, every other fansite on the internet gets "exclusive" interviews/content; that doesn't make them notable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Alexa rank is similar to WP:GHITS in that it could bolster notability, but not create it. The Google Book hit sourced provides a trivial, one paragraph mention. Other three sources are primary. WP:GOODFAITH creation, but it just doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT. --Teancum (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a couple blog-type sources that come up in a web search, but their reliability is doubtful. There is a book source here, but it's literally one sentence, and far from enough on its own to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Aside from a couple trivial mentions in French sources, all news results are primary; they're the site itself. Doesn't meet the relevant criteria, unfortunately. I can't see where it could be merged. --Batard0 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Judas Kiss novel by David Butler[edit]

The Judas Kiss novel by David Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is probably another case of WP:TOOSOON but I would have expected, at least, one other source. A search at Google News, Google News Ireland and the Irish Examiner provided no additional results. I must say though, at least the book gained somewhat attention through The Sunday Times. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, this should be redirected to the parent article, David Butler, but the current article name, "The Judas Kiss novel by David Butler", is not a likely search term.--xanchester (t) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has one review and I can't find anything else to show that this passes WP:NBOOK. I agree with Xanchester in that this isn't going to really be a viable search term. I've done some cleanup on the main article for Butler, as much of it wasn't properly sourced (being mostly primary and merchant links) and somewhat non-NPOV.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eru Potaka-Dewes[edit]

Eru Potaka-Dewes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, only claim to notability is small parts in a few films. Ridernyc (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He had significant roles in multiple notable films, e.g. Rapa-Nui, Maori Merchant of Venice and The Piano, besides press coverage on his death also showed that his work as activist was notable. Honestly, what is this all about? I wrote the same article in German where we have quite stricter notability guidelines and even there no one doubts the relevance of this person. Quite ridiculous. --NiTen (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderfull simply provide us with independent sources that establish notability and we can move on. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF will not work for articles on here so it really won't work cross wiki. Ridernyc (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists at least three independent sources, how many do you need? --NiTen (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that cover his life and career before his death and not simply obituaries would be a good start. To be clear articles that were written and published while he was still alive. Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So obituaries on the websites of Radio New Zealand, The New Zealand Herald and the Anglican Church of NZ are not indicating notability? Anyway, you may find further sources here. E.g. here he is called a "experienced Maori actor" and here he's quoted on his activities for the indigenous people. Roger Ebert praises his acting here. --NiTen (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The obituaries cited do cover the subject's life and career before his death. The fact that they were published on the occasion of his death doesn't detract from their status as independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's worth remembering that just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean that they're not notable. --Roman à clef (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The three obituaries listed as sources in the article (which all clearly appear to be journalist-written rather than paid family obits) give him the depth of coverage in reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. And the nominator's insistence on deleting this adequately-sourced and brand new article (first by prod and now by AfD) strikes me as more than a little WP:BITEy, although the article creator is not a newcomer. In any case the nominator's claim that he was only known as an actor (not exactly a strong reason to delete) is also not true: he was also known as an activist. See e.g. [16] (Highbeam access required) which mentions him in the context of a set of 2007 police raids on known activists and in the context of a 1987 speech in parliament denouncing him for his activism. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above reasons. Cavarrone (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily enough for notability, although the article needs expanding. NealeFamily (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ella_Spira#Achievements. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters Grimm (Ltd)[edit]

Sisters Grimm (Ltd) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company fails WP:CORP - the sources currently in the article are IMDB and the company's homepage, and I couldn't find any other sources online. Note: there was a recent AfD discussion about one of the co-founders of this production company at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella Spira. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ella_Spira#Achievements where the company is mentioned - It appears that there has never been any reliable third-party sources. I found the company's website (the article's external link is dead) here and provides reviews at the "press" section but they appear to be insignificant. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until referencing can be found. Masses of non-reliable stuff out there, but I couldn't see anything that looked like RS. Peridon (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's nothing out there. A simple google for '"Sisters Grimm (Ltd)" -wikipedia -wordpress -facebook -answers -youtube' actually returned only 48 results (though promising thousands). Many of those are publicity feeds; nothing usable. Great name for a company though, I wish them well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon This Dawning[edit]

Upon This Dawning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Group has yet to release their debut album, so throw a little WP:CRYSTAL on top. Almost all references are to their record label, Fearless Records. The one reference that is more than a track listing is all of three sentences announcing their signing to said record label. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the zero in-depth coverage in independent sources in the (updated) article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see The following in-depth coverage references. Two interviews with the band cited as sources in the article:
The Band Does not fail WP:BAND. They fulfill articles 1 and 10.
New Information and references have been added that cite outside sources which are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician(10/9/2012)
If the article is not sufficient I would suggest the Wikipedia:Article Incubator over deletion as a possibility.
This article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time; Sufficient reliable sources may be found, though they may not be readily available online at the moment.
Achitchcock (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at the many new refs, most of them are to itunes or the band's record label. The only one that comes close is [17], which has a whole two paragraphs is text. My !vote remains Delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the references are verifiable. I personally can't see the issue with most of the references being iTunes or the record label as those would honestly be the most verifiable for the information given. My vote is to keep the article.
    XyphynX9 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're judging the notability against the WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Neither iTunes nor the record label are independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Qworty (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's look at the sources:
    • A one-sentence article plus video in AP, which I judge to be reliable.
    • A two-paragraph profile plus video in noisecreep, which I judge to be less reliable.
    • An inteveiw in Groovebox.it. Hard to judge how reliable this is, but it's formatted basically as an interview, which isn't quite a secondary-source since it's primarily the band talking about itself.
    • A one-paragraph summary at musicalnews.com, which I judge to be unreliable.
    • Nothing comes up in a books search.
    • Other sources cited in the article are routine track listings and news about its signing, none of which rises to significant coverage.
Overall, I don't think we're quite at WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. It doesn't meet NBAND criterion 1 because the coverage is uniformly trivial even though there are multiple sources. I'm not sure where there's a possibility it meets criterion 10 of NBAND, as asserted above. They haven't won awards; they haven't even released an album. There's an element of WP:CRYSTAL here that also should be taken into account. Once they get going and attract some significant coverage, I think this can easily be recreated. --Batard0 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Batard0 said "they haven't even released an album" which is incorrect. They have released 2 full length albums. Achitchcock (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" -
  • WP:BAND 5 -two full length albums,1 major label release , 1 independent label release
  • On Your Glory We Build Our Empire (2009)
  • To Keep Us Safe (2012)
  • WP:BAND 10 -performed song for a notable compilation album
  • Punk Goes Pop 5 with "Call Me Maybe", originally by Carly Rae Jepsen(Fearless, 2012)
  • WP:BAND 7 - one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city
  • one of only two notable Metalcore bands from Italy
  • Category:Italian metalcore musical groups

Achitchcock (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkuro[edit]

Wilkuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non-notable brand name of overshoes/galoshes. Article is basically an advertisement with references and links to press releases, the company website and other sites where you can buy this brand. I would be happy with a redirect to galoshes (I had originally done this, but the redirect was reverted multiple times and I was accused of vandalism), but if this is not thought to be a helpful redirect, it should be deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editor Stygmah would seem to be affiliated to Wilkuro as per 1. I quote: "Wilkuro Safety Toes is still working with the initial brand created by Big Vox, then known as Stygmah Design Consultants..." I'm just looking to see what sources there are for this. Mabalu (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 The problem is that there are SO many retail sites in Google (that site really needs to offer an option to filter out all commercial/selling sites). Thought I'd found something at 1 but it turns out to be a re-posted company press release. This is a tough one though because I can see their products seem to be widely distributed and sold. I've tried various searches to try and filter out the commercial sites, but not really had any luck other than a blog which turns out to be affilated to a commercial site itself now I look again more closely. If they are so successful though, there MUST be something out there. I hesitate to recommend delete, but I can't really say keep either. Mabalu (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promo and for lack of reliable independent sources. Peridon (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansions (band)[edit]

Mansions (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable music project lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. It appears the release on an independent label does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC, I see evidence of only a single Album and an EP, not multiple albums. reddogsix (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined the speedy and the prod for this as the band have some releases on Doghouse Records, namely the Mansions EP and the New Best Friends album. It appears there was a further album, Best of the Bees, released by the label too, though this looks like a collection of previously released tracks and not a "proper" album. I found a couple of reviews online, which do look to be independent of the subject, but I can't vouch for their reliability. That doesn't add up to very much in terms of meeting WP:MUSICBIO, so I'm !voting for a Weak Delete, unless a more convincing argument for inclusion is made. Thanks. — sparklism hey! 10:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Changing to Keep, per the sources found by Michig. — sparklism hey! 07:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 10:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jones (Australian Road Racer)[edit]

Michael Jones (Australian Road Racer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page copies a lot of content from http://www.mikejonesracing.com.au. I raised a CSD for this page but the creater is simply deleting the Notification without giving any reason. I suppose this is vandalism but I will update the noticeboard after I see the reaction to this AFD Wikishagnik (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can see the only copied content is the list of results. My understanding is that such a simple list of facts with no accompanying prose is not subject to copyright, but I am not a lawyer. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That copied content is 70% of the article. The article does read like a fan page (WP:FAN) with weasel words but in most AfD's there is no consensus on what exactly is a fan page so I am ignoring the policy on that. -23:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If content is not copyrightable then it doesn't matter what percentage of the article it constitutes. I removed half a sentence of promotional material from the article yesterday, and I can't see anything else that looks remotely like a fan page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aztecing[edit]

Aztecing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable neologism; can't find any coverage in reliable and/or mainstream sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • maybe keep/stub Searching for this makes it clear that this is a term-of-art for modellers of sci-fi/techno vehicles and machines. I didn't find any book references but it looks to me as though it's just a matter of time. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the results are similar things. Some how-to guides, forums and blogs, but absolutely no coverage in anything I'd consider a reliable source. It's probably a real term in the modeling community, but it hasn't attracted any significant coverage in reliable sources and hence fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alizée iTunes Essentials[edit]

Alizée iTunes Essentials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no WP:RS which would otherwise indicate WP:N, and it probably fails WP:Notability (music). Izno (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This release is not mentioned in the artist's main article or discography page, and I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for it; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 16:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in news results, nothing in web results beyond unreliable sources like blogs, etc. The artist is very much notable, but this release is not under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS, as above. --Batard0 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XCloud[edit]

XCloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. Also Wikipedia is not a manual and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:ADVERT - Just another random, non-notable piece of software.  -- WikHead (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADVERT can be resolved with a broom, not deletion. And when there's a fair share of sources for xcloud on the net (though written in mandarin), what do you mean by random and non notable? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." The company is not even notable enough to have it's own page... so unless the product is absolutely ground breaking then it should not have its own page. If Wikipedia MUST have this product listed, then concerned parties need to create a page for the company who makes it, establish notability for that company, and list this info in that page.ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Hua[edit]

Gu Hua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for biographies. The user who created the article supplied [22] & [23] as references for notability. I'm not sure on the first one, but the second is an encyclopedia article, not being aware of the inclusion criteria I'm unsure whether it proves notability or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chiswick Chap --정과 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with Callanecc.--Zananiri (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Added sources and expanded article. Winner of prestigious Chinese literary award. Works are best sellers in China. Novel adapted to major award winning film (the top film award in China). I could add more sources to increase notability, but figured it was enough for a keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 and the Mao Dun Literature Prize. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, kudos to Green Cardamom for doing such a nice job on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Green Cardamom has indeed
shown why this should be kept. I wish to withdraw my earlier objection.--Zananiri (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If he won a literary award and his book was adapted into a film that then won a film award, he is clearly notable enough.ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been significantly cleaned up by Green Cardamom. Secondary sources demonstrate notability. Subject has won a major literary award, the Mao Dun Literature Prize, and a film adapted from one of his novels has won a major film award, the Golden Rooster Awards.--xanchester (t) 19:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Billboard charts#International charts. MBisanz talk 01:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Digital Songs[edit]

Luxembourg Digital Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
List of Luxembourg Digital Songs number-one hits of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Luxembourg Digital Songs number-one hits of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a minor chart with Billboard magazine relegated to a simple top 10 list, not easy to find on Billboard.biz and published bi-weekly on the back pages of the print edition. The chart itself has zero notability outside of Billboard and there is no third-party coverage of what songs reach number one on this chart. Billboard is a trade magazine and publishes a lot of charts, and I don't see a need for an article and lists for the non-notable ones. A mention on Billboard charts would seem to suffice here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Billboard (magazine), the parent article. Not notable enough to warrant separate articles, but redirects are cheap.--xanchester (t) 16:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only think a redirect is appropriate, per xanchester, if the Billboard article is going to actually mention "Luxembourg Digital Songs". Otherwise delete an article not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article for its parent magazine. SpinningSpark 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Should have read more closely before relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith_Gleklen_Gardner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Meredith_Gleklen_Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wrote this article at the time I thought it was needed. here are the main reasons we would like to have it deleted. 1. poorly sourced, misrepresentation of the individual after research and review. 2. Article vulnerable to vandalism due to ongoing court case. 3. no need for notability article on living persons. Perhaps in the future an AFC on individual would be written about. Please proceed with AFD JuneHazinek (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) JuneHazinek[reply]

  • Delete - Fails GNG. A failed effort at self-promotion or something... Carrite (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Marketing Awards[edit]

Performance Marketing Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ceremony. Only referenced to non-independent or promotional looking sources. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above comment. The ceremony is the biggest award ceremony in the Affiliate Industry and deserves recognition. There are many internal links. The references listed are factual pages. Davidmorgans (talk) 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That could be the problem - if it needs recognition, it's not notable enough for an article. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My quote is "deserves recognition", not needs recognition. The results for 2010-2012 are from the official site, but its not a promotional page, just a historical factual page. 2007-09 are independant company pages. If this is a problem remove the reference but that doesnt mean the page has to be removed. You could also try and improve the page yourself. Davidmorgans (talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I can see why the given references are as they are. If anyone else thinks of having a go at improving the references, I couldn't see a reliable independent source in the first 25 pages of ghits for "Performance Marketing Awards". What I found was companies that are involved, lists of winners, blogs and press release material. I normally give up around page 10, but went further as there was nothing remotely interesting in the range 1-10. The only vaguely interesting thing in the rest was an article by Sarah Bundy, but I would hardly consider it 'in depth' and I am dubious about her independence from the subject. The promotionality of the references I referred to above is down to their gushing 'celebrity gossip' style (this is a made up illustration of celebrity gossip: "We expect to see the gorgeous Ethelfreda Bogg at the Festival - which Festival? Oh come on! THE Festival!!"). Peridon (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I posted the page without any references to the results and no one raised an issue. I only added the references a few days ago because I thought it would be better. If the only issue is the refences simply tag it as citation needed for each year, but to delete it seems churlish and half the articles on wikipedia could be deleted for a lack of quality or no references. Davidmorgans (talk) 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.54.6 (talk)

Sorry, I mightn't have been clear. The listings of the winners are fine. It's the notability of the whole ceremony that I'm questioning, and can't find any reference for. Not every awards ceremony is notable outside the participants (and the unsuccessful hopefuls). The Oscars and Grammys - no question. Miss World, yes. When you get into the specialised areas, it's maybe down to no. Outside affiliate marketing, who has heard of this? Come to that, outside the AM business, who has heard of affiliate marketing or, if they have, know what it is? This is why we want the independent reliable sources to show that something is notable. For the winners, yes, the official site will be OK. But for notability, no. All the official site can show there is existence. Sometimes, that doesn't even apply. We had articles about a chap and his multinational corp a while back. The website was the only sign of its existence. Given what else we found out, we treated that one as a hoax. I'm not saying this is a hoax - only that there isn't any sign of independent reliable coverage. And without that, there is no basis for an article. Quite often, people reading these discussions get down to it and do a rescue. I've tried to find refs. Read WP:RS and have another go. These things last a week usually (unless speedy deletion comes in or WP:SNOW is invoked - no sign of either at present). They can go on a lot longer if consensus isn't reached. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Peridon, above. I've taken a look at what's out there in the way of coverage of these awards, and I'm not finding enough to justify an article. Could that change in the future, as the awards gain prominence and notability? Sure. And, if they do, an article might be appropriate. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case as yet. Do we have an article on the Affiliate Industry in the UK? Some of this info might be merged there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you have searched for A4U Awards which is what the orignal name of the ceremony was for the first 5 years. Here are some 'external' references to the ceremony, New Media Age in particular is a respectful publication in the media industry so I doubt they would make mention to a non notable ceremony.

Econsultancy

  1. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/7539-debenhams-wins-award-as-affiliate-marketing-gets-more-integrated
  2. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/6062-vouchercodes-co-uk-wins-four-a4uawards
  3. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/9912-performance-marketing-awards-the-winners

New Media Age

  1. http://www.nma.co.uk/news/travel-and-retail-brands-win-at-a4u-awards/3026553.article
  2. http://www.nma.co.uk/a4u-awards-shortlist-announced/3024623.article
  3. http://www.nma.co.uk/a4u-affiliate-marketing-awards-reveals-nominees/3000719.article
  4. http://www.nma.co.uk/news/a4uawards-shortlist-announced/3012997.article
  5. http://www.nma.co.uk/a4u-affiliate-marketing-awards-reveals-nominees/3000719.article

Internet Retailing

  1. http://internetretailing.net/2011/05/debenhams-best-buy-and-red-letter-days-win-a4uawards/

Davidmorgans (talk) 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogs don't count for notability (unless personal blogs by persons with established Wikipedia articles - that is, not Bertha Hogg, age 14, whose best mate Kay-Leigh has just posted an article about her). NMA is pay to access, and I'm not prepared to do so, so I cannot comment about the content. I'm dubious about the validity of such things for notability purposes, as only very interested parties will pay. The IP link is possibly one step in the right direction. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NMA is behind a paywall making it difficult to judge reliability, but superficially would seem to count. However, a google search of the site threw up this snippet "The shortlist for this year's a4u Affiliate Marketing Awards, for which new media age is media partner, has been unveiled." NMA are thus not independent of the subject and do not count towards notability. SpinningSpark 18:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. The article has been speedy deleted as A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subhasom Mandal[edit]

Subhasom Mandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think so far as it seems this is self-promotion (written by Subhasom himself). It fails criteria for notability. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_40001-41000#201. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(40271) 1999 JT[edit]

(40271) 1999 JT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article adds nothing beyond what the associated List of minor planets: 40001–41000 already gives, nothing in the article establishes notability and I was unable to find any reason why this particular minor planet is notable. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. These seem to be coming up a lot, and it generally ends the same way: redirect. AstroCog (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect in the absence of publications giving detailed and particular attention to this particular minor planet, per WP:NASTRO. All we currently have is a database entry, and that's not enough: "Just because an object is listed in a database does not mean it is notable." Possibly snow redirect because I don't think we should really have to go through this same discussion for each of the many non-notable robot-created articles like this that we already have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of minor planets: 40001-41000. Redirects are cheap, and the convention has been to redirect non-notable minor planets to the parent list.--xanchester (t) 19:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per Xanchester. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg M. Sarwa[edit]

Greg M. Sarwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. Three books, which have received notice in some minor blogs. Awards listed are of questionable notability and dubious verifiability. (The USA Book News award is only verifiable through a Google Docs document of unknown authorship -- the website itself does not list awardees.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published author, non-notable awards. Lacks independent reliable sources that show notability.
  • 1. USA Book News is an organization which charges a fee for submissions. "These awards are specifically designed to garner MEDIA COVERAGE & BOOK SALES for the winners & finalists". More info about the award at selfpublishingnews.com
  • 2. The Forward Book Award is another artificial award: "For only $99, ForeWord’s Book of the Year Awards program gives you one more opportunity to promote and sell your book to a captive audience of industry influencers."
  • 3. Ampol Publishing Inc appears to be a company created by Greg M. Sarwa because they have only published two books both by Sarwa ie. self-published books.
  • 4. The library catalog entries are sort of impressive that a self published author to get that far. But not enough for Wikipedia notability for a number of reasons. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Strachman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David J. Strachman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic David J. Strachman stems from WP:ONEEVENT - the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar. The information on that murder and its aftermath can be sufficiently covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. The source information available on Mr. Strachman is not a written account of Strachman's life - e.g., it's not about his early life or career. Rather, the available source information on Mr. Strachman details some of the cases he has had as an attorney, primarily the lawsuit where he represented the Ungar estate. The first AfD was close because the nomination was based on security/safety of David J. Strachman.[24] However, as a biography, the Strachman biography topic does not meet WP:GNG and source information on the Strachman topic can be covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Several of the comments in the previous AfD dealt with notability and should be taken into consideration by the closer. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we make a mistake when we do things like claim "the author has a notable book, therefore he is notable". Such arguments used to be regularly challenged and ridiculed, but seem to have somehow gained legitimacy in recent years with the rise of the (mis)application of subject-specific notability guidelines to exempt subjects from the general notability guideline. If we ignore the subject's notable work which should be irrelevant to this discussion, we are left with coverage of one event. The fact that the subject is an otherwise low profile individual that doesn't want this article to exist punctuates this BLP issue for me. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (emphasis in original) So, yes, subject-specific notability is sufficient, even when general notability is unproved (the "also presumed" means the conditions are connected with an "or," not an "and.") And WP:AUTHOR does state authors inherit notability from their books ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work"). I am not voting, and can't debate this futher, since I don't have time to research and dig up more reviews of his book. Churn and change (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Levendusky[edit]

Matthew Levendusky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the original author of this article and I would like to make the case for its deletion. First, if Professor Levendusky is notable and truly meets the criteria for Wikipedia, it suggests that nearly all professors are notable. This standard seems untenable. Second, Professor Levendusky is not, in fact, a public personality. He does not do TV or radio and his work is not discussed widely outside the confines of peer reviewed political science journals. In that way, I do not believe that he is a "publicly known personality". If that changes, I would be happy to put the page back up. in the meantime, however, I think it is better to be safe and take it down. Third, as the original author of the page and the person that has done the most research on Professor Levendusky, I am very familiar with his work and feel extremely comfortable with this recommendation. Greg Kite (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The only thing is that peer reviewed journals actually do count towards notability and I'm finding quite a few that discuss his book. You don't have to be Snooki to gain notability. Thank God. So far I'm seeing that he would merit an article, or at least his book would. I do think that the article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article and a lot of the stuff on there as far as research goes isn't covered by any independent sources. I'm thinking that if I can't find anything on him, we should create an article for his book and redirect there, if that's what he's mostly known for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create a separate article for the book Partisan Sort and redirect. Prof. Levedusky is a notable author and scientist, which is well documented in the reviews published by peer reviewed journals (currently present in the article). The information is publicly available and verifiable and there's no reason to delete this article from Wikipedia. @Greg Kite: In your initial request, you stated that the subject requested deletion. Could you elaborate, please? I'm sorry, maybe I confused you with my claim that he's a "publicly known personality", it was a bit vague and ambiguous. You can check our notability guidelines for scientists, authors and also our general notability requirements. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Levendusky is requesting deletion then the best course of action would be to make the book article. I'll try to create one at some point tonight.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think making the book an entry on its own is a great idea. If Tokyogirl79 does not have time tonight, I will do it tomorrow during the day EST.
  • Speedy Keep There's no substantial argument against Levendusky's notability here – being "publicly known" beyond academia does not feature in WP:ACADEMIC at all. Per the above, it looks like the real reason for this AfD is that the subject of the article has asked the nominator to delete it. That isn't grounds for deletion, and AfD isn't the appropriate place to address the issue. joe•roet•c 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Scherer (engineer)[edit]

Axel Scherer (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims of importance can be seen in the article. The references are just passing mentions Anbu121 (talk me) 11:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. EE is a trade mag, if you take an ad out you get to write an article. If you send them a press release you get mentioned in an article. Greglocock (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some arguments[edit]

On the talk page of Axel Scherer (engineer) [25] there are some arguments and more links Kiu77 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Time article says 500 people were turned down. It still doesn't mention Axel Scherer. 500 people might have been rejected for the job I do - that doesn't make me notable. All the rest are passing mentions of something reported in his blog - nothing that would confer notability. SpinningSpark 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes nosodes[edit]

Herpes nosodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This commercial product [26] fails to meet WP:GNG. Per User:Scray's comment on the Talk page:

As noted in the Homeopathy article (already a redirect from Nosodes), the term "nosodes" just refers to any homeopathic remedy derived from disease-related material. The Homeopathy page is the right place for dealing with these pseudoscientific concoctions that are actually water. Any therapeutic claim requires support from reliable medical sources (WP:MEDRS), which are completely lacking [27] [28] (current content is based on a primary study [29] which does not meet WP:MEDRS). This article's subject is otherwise non-notable, and inclusion provides undue weight for quackery. MistyMorn (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources on Pubmed. A few articles happen to mention "nosodes" in passing, but nothing that could be used as a source; none are secondary sources. With a Google search, there are many retailers selling these products but no suitable source to establish notability. Nor does Google Books provide a source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not appear to be sufficient reliable sources to support either the notability of this topic or of the content of the article. Peacock (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dilute until no trace of the article remains. Homeopathy is bunk, but it's notable bunk. It's plausible for some specific homeopathic "remedy" to acquire enough notability to warrant independent inclusion. That's true for Oscillococcinum, but not true here. Wikipedia is not a homeopathic repertory or materia medica. No shortage of linkable justifications: WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No merit as a standalone article. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only one book source (by convicted fraudster Kevin Trudeau) and no google scholar hits at all. Would require a fundemental re-write to become encyclopaedic in any case, very promotional towards a homeopathic view medicine.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably evident from my comment included above. -- Scray (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve. Wikipedia is a neutral resource. Our personal beliefs on homeopathy do not need to be reflected here. Herpes nosodes benefited 82% of genital herpes patients in a clinical trial conducted in France and this study was published in peer review scientific journals. Google scholar link is [30] presented here. Homeopathy is bunk to people who only consider a newtonian molecular view of the universe. Numerous new scientific studies like those on the memory of water and nanotechnology support homeopathy. Either way our opinions on this are not what counts. I am new to Wikipedia and such opinionated opinions are driving many editors away. Please show some wiki love :)[31]. This product needs mention as herpes is now a pandemic and this study of herpes nosodes was one of the most promising till date. [32] shows many scientific references to studies on herpes nosodes like [33] and [34] Why does this not meet WP:MEDRS? One most also consider that homeopathy and natural medicine in general cannot be patented and therefore is never put through drug trials like chemical medicines are. This is leading to a world where chemicals have crept into our food and medicine and are soon becoming the only notable option. Let's please keep wikipedia as objective and neutral as possible.NatureisScience2 —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Homoeopathy is bunk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain IF Homoeopathy is bunk, why is it that these herpes nosodes benefited 82% of patients with genital herpes? I would like to remind you that placebos work 40% of the time and this nosode study outperformed anti-viral drugs in terms of percentage of users that had no or reduced outbreaks for 5 years. Either way lets be objective here. Regardless of our personal beliefs, people have a right to this information and the right to choose between chemical or natural remedies. Just as there is no state religion, there ought to be no preferred state medicine system. NatureisScience2 —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The British Homeopathic Journal is not a reliable source for citing medical claims, as contemplated by our policies on sources about medicine or sources about fringe material. You are correct when you say that individual editors' personal beliefs should not direct the contents of articles; however, that includes your personal beliefs as well. We seek to represent mainstream, consensus viewpoints, and the mainstream, consensus viewpoint regarding homeopathy is that it is pseudoscience, with purported mechanisms that are in contravention of established physical law. Accordingly, topics internal to homeopathy (such as this one) would need coverage from reliable sources from publications not dedicated to the homeopathic viewpoint in order to warrant inclusion (you can see such an article at Oscillococcinum). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites pubmed, google scholar and sciencedirect and not the British Journal of Homeopathy. Furthermore it simply states the results of one study without claiming a treatment or cure. Hence this article does not bring in an opinion on whether nosodes work or they don't. What is states is one study where they were used and the actual scientific results of those studies across 53 participants. Deleting the article would be opinionated, leaving it would not. Maybe the unbiased thing to do here is add your mainstream, consensus viewpoint regarding homeopathy is that it is pseudoscience. As far as purported mechanisms that are in contravention of established physical law I would like to remind wikipedians that science has long shifted to the view point that "matter exists by virtue of vibration" - max planck, and field theory has long replaced Newtonian ideas on molecules. NatureisScience2 —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but reporting unblinded and uncontrolled results in some journal doesn't make them "science". Without a control group, we really don't know what would have happened to these people had they been given a placebo and the study correctly done. Not all placebo effects are the same, and there is evidence that the herpes placebo effect is particularly strong since herpes is strongly influenced by mental stress (think of your cold sores). For example, here's an article on the effect of an ether treatment on genital herpes, where the treatment group experienced 75% relief, and the placbo group got 77% relief! See PMID 6243714. In the face of results like this in a well done trial, it seems particularly strange to want to pay attention to an open study where the single treated group reported 82% results. So what? And that's not even getting into the problems of what the baseline disease attack rate in this group was before they were treated, and how we know what it was. Supposedly the intake group all had more than 4 attacks per year: PMID 11055774. So how do we know they did? We took their word for it?? Apparently so. After that, their attack rate went down (supposedly). How do we know? Is this from doctor's exams or are we taking their word again? Without blinded here, the results are meaningless. Doctors need to be blinded, or else they may see what they expect to see, and the patients likewise. There must also be an untreated control, due to the very large treatment/placebo effect for herpes, which is strong for anything you do (including putting distilled water on it). Which (all in all) is a lot cheaper than homeopathy.SBHarris 01:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot "cite" Google Scholar, PubMed, or Science Direct. They are search engines, databases, and compilations, but are not publications in and of themselves. In fact, every link in this article is derived from the same publication, a 2000 paper in the British Homeopathic Journal, which is very much not a reliable source for medical claims, as per WP:MEDRS (which also warns against over-emphasizing single studies). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's impossible to build a neutral article about snake oil like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and numerous other persuasive arguments above (primarily WP:MEDRS).--E8 (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Alabi[edit]

Ola Alabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested on grounds that this player had played in a professional league in Cyprus; however, that claim remains unverified and I cannot find any sources which prove this player meets either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No player named "Ola Alabi" has made a league appearance for Alki Larnaca in 2010–11: [35] The only player named "Alabi" I could find by looking up the Greek variant of his name ("Όλα Αλαμπί") is Rasheed Alabi, so it's possible he wasn't even signed to any Cypriot club. Thus, he fails WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the page of his actual club [36] the cleary say that he play for Alki Larnaca, so I think we need to recheck all the ref because all the ref that cite him they said he played for Alki (e.g. his linkedin page), but no one ref that told about the Alki said that he played for them. For example I found this page: [37] that said that he was in the team. Stigni (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that he definitely wasn't signed to Alki, only that I cannot find any sign of him in Greek-language sources. If he played for a club in the top-level Cypriot league, at least a namecheck of him would certainly exist, even in web portals of questionable reliability. ;) Cheers. – Kosm1fent 13:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the PROD only for run another check on all the source about him, because it is clear that he signed for Alki but it is not clear if he played for the first team. Stigni (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as unverified. Unless someone can provide reliable sources to show that he actually played for Alki, the article fails WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this reminds me of a discussion on Talk:Christian Nzinga, where the player's current club stated that he had played for clubs that he never played for. If Alabi's only claim for notability was that he played for Alki Larnaca in 2010–11, as it cannot be verified if he passes WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Traoré (French footballer)[edit]

Mohamed Traoré (French footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence in the article that he has played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Do we keep the article until such time or delete it? Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as noted above fails notability on several fronts.Righteousskills (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to West Coast, Singapore#Education. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qifa Primary School[edit]

Qifa Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Convention with schools such as this primary school is that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article, per WP:OUTCOMES. Appears to be another random, non-notable school, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in reliable sauces sources in google news and google books. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice. Also see this. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As mentioned by Bonkers, most of the sources are small mentions for events and such but I found one different news article here where the school joined a children's counseling program, but this would be insufficient and provides little useful content. I retrieved the first reference here using web.archive.org but it never mentions Qifa Primary School and Google Books provided directories. I haven't found anything useful to improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, if this is a long standing precedent, can I be bold and just redirect the page now?? Or do I have to wait till tis afd's over? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after the AfD has closed. Editors may vote to delete. Bgwhite (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Toddst1 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Lesson[edit]

The Art Lesson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book, failling WP:BKCRIT Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm having a hard time finding sources for this given the time period it was initially released in, but I'm finding things that suggest that this book is heavily used in various classrooms.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's hard finding sources for this given that it was published back in the 80s before the Internet became a thing, I was able to find some decent sourcing for it. Even if this isn't enough, the book does seem to pass part four of WP:NBOOK in that it's the subject of instruction at multiple schools in the US. It's lighter than what I'd like, but technically this does pass notability guidelines for books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business augmentation services[edit]

Business augmentation services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I dont think this phrase is notable, and is apparently just a corporate phrase used to cover the field of support services for business growth. the main book is [58], which is Wikipedia articles. NONE of the weblinks reference the phrase (except the 2 i added). If someone can find this phrase critiqued or mentioned outside job ads in the Economist, et al, bring it forward. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning towards delete as a spammy essay. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If BAS were genuine business terminology, I would expect it to be used in a number of books on business, but gbooks has nothing except for Wikimedia-derived material. Of the references, virtuous.com is sales spam (and this is the only place the term BAS is used, leading me to suspect that the whole article is disguised spam for Virtuos), Times of India links to a directory, not an article, fn#1 is a deadlink, fn#2 is deadlink, fn#3 fails verification of the fact cited...at this point I stopped checking. SpinningSpark 17:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbi Losh[edit]

Barbi Losh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't come close to passing GNG. Name really doesn't google. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced for having won a local pageant. Did't find sources for notability as claimed model, actress and dancer ... also chearleder. Per WP:BASIC.--Ben Ben (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Milowent. I don't think, on balance, that the subject is notable just for winning a state-level pageant. But if there's precedent that such a win is sufficient notability, then I defer to consensus. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep there's definite coverage of her prior to and actually winning the event, but the actual coverage itself is pretty weak. I'm not really enthusiastic about keeping the article, but I suppose given consensus about state-level pageant winners, I will support keeping. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Under the current standards for major state level pageants, Losh is notable. However I did have to remove a bit of the article that wasn't sourced by any of the articles linked. I did add one that mentions that she competed in the 1985 Miss USA pageant, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Scant coverage of a single event and no lasting coverage means that the subject of the article fails WP:ONEEVENT. Not every winner of a beauty contest is notable, especially when coverage of the person begins and ends with the contest itself. Notable enough for inclusion on a list of Miss Florida winners or in the article on the Miss Florida contest, but not by a long-shot for a stand-alone article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SpinningSpark 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Pfefferle[edit]

William C. Pfefferle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an article, it's a résumé or CV. It appears to have been created by a single-issue editor—only this man and one of the products he worked on—perhaps in an effort to drive traffic (work) to an individual working as a consultant. Mr. Pfefferle appears to have been a prolific inventor in his field, and the "Professional career" section includes links (of dubious permissibility) to the companies where he's worked, but there is zero support for any of the glowing praise for the man, nor is there evidence of notability as we define it on Wikipedia. —Scheinwerfermann T·C13:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one presents an interesting challenge. A publication on a Department of Energy website states, "The earliest work on what is now termed catalytic combustion was conducted by Pfefferle at Engelhard Corporation in the 1970s and introduced the use of both catalytic and non-catalytic combustion reactions in a temperature range amenable to both." But Pfefferle may be a co-author of this publication (it's hard to tell for sure).[62] Search is also complicated because there's another Pfefferle who's a Yale ChemE prof working in similar areas (perhaps his daughter or other relative?)[63][64] Seems indeed to be connected with important work; it remains to be seen.whether there is enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to cross the notability threshold.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article appears as a CV, and we have a reliable Obit. Do the patents (reliable in their own way) show some kind of notability? They certainly prove Pfefferle was inventive - it seems remarkable with such major work on fuel catalysis that he's not a household name. Would be happy to cut down/copy edit the article if we have enough sources to make it keepable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: [65] may provide something relevant, though yet again the subject is one of the authors. Star Garnet (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's what I had suspected: Pfefferle was highly important and seen as such by the company. Ironically they took no thought for Wikipedia's Notability criteria, and in this document simply, frankly and I am sure honestly tell it like it is: Pfefferle invented the field of catalytic combustion, and it's amazing the rest of us never heard about it. The famous fellow we forgot to remember. I think we should keep this topic, somehow, if only by including the core invention and his name in Catalytic combustion or something. Remarkable guy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am always frustrated in knowing what the right thing to do with inventors is, exactly. I realize that patents in and of themselves are not indicators of notability, but Google Scholar does show a number of them cited a nontrivial number of times: [66]. He also seem to be coauthor on this paper, which has about 50 citations and this with about 40. I'm not sure if someone can speak to whether that is a high number of citations in the field at the time of publication, but it sure seems so. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it ought to be enough, specially as WP:BLP no longer applies in his case. I have boldly gone ahead and created Catalytic combustion today, with brief mention of Pfefferle. I guess I still feel we should keep. One thing: the paper cited is on the Department of Energy website, which ought to be a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if further reliable sources are forthcoming. Claims were made that offline sources exist, but these have not been identified either here or in the articles. I will undelete on request if sources are available. SpinningSpark 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Just Fate[edit]

Not Just Fate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating two entries, neither of which have any or enough reliable sources to show that these books pass WP:NBOOK. Not Just Fate has one sole link whereas Suicide at Seventeen has none. The original sources on the articles were not usable as reliable sources, being linked primarily to unreliable sites such as personal blogs, mass review sites such as FlipKart, YouTube pages of the author, and sites where people can submit their own articles to be published. A search did not bring up anything that showed that either book passes notability guidelines. Since these books were published in India, I'm open to the idea that there might be foreign language sources but given the limited amount of chatter for the authors I'm somewhat doubting it. PROD removed by article creator. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed above:[reply]

Suicide at Seventeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Suicide at Seventeen" has a write up in DNA. It's an article devoted about the book and author by a signed journalist (A. Singh), more than trivial coverage. Cite:
  • Singh, A. (2011, Oct 18). "Suicide fight puts boy on write track." DNA: Daily News & Analysis, ProQuest document ID: 898698946 (I have access to the text of the article).
It's more sympathetic to the author than the Hindustan Times article. It might be possible to merge these two books into a single author article, but would need a longer article than the Hindustan Times for a second source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, neither of the books are by the same author. They're by the same editor and published by the same company, but the books are by two different authors and we'd need more than two links to really prove that the author passes notability guidelines even if they were by the same person or if we were to go by the publishing company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand why this has been proposed for deletion, it doesnt fall in any of the below criteria in order to get removed: Neither a duplicate entry, No copyright violation, Non-notability. Just because this book is an Indian book doesnt make it short of notability. In India, a lot of magazines which contain the reviews do not have online presence and hence those references cannot be placed here. This book is present on almost every online store which delivers in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplihs (talk • contribs)
  • Sources don't need to be online. If you know the name of an article published in a magazine or newspaper along with title and author and date, it would be considered a source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I do want to warn that not all magazines are considered to be reliable sources and that a lot depends on whether or not the material submitted to the magazine was provided entirely by the publisher or author, such as a press release. A well-established and well thought of magazine would help, but if the magazine is one of the home-grown ones that never get widely distributed and are the equivalent of an online book blog, odds are it won't be seen as reliable enough to give notability. You'd also need to have multiple sources, so one or two won't cut it. I'm not trying to be harsh and I'm well aware that the literary coverage of Indian authors and books is more limited than in some of the other countries out there (such as the USA, where every publisher is mugging for the camera), but the books are still held to the same standards as every other book entry on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my initial prod, where I wrote "Promo article about non-notable book that doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. According to WorldCat, it is not available in any libraries. Article's sole source is a video about the book's release in the context of a book fair, i.e., no reviews of the book are currently referenced." Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do you think the prominent News paper of India would review something which is non-notable? No Way! Hindustan Times receives thousands of Books for review and it covers only 3 per week. The notability is not in question at all. I had placed an interview link of a prominent website which talked about the good sales of the book but that link was removed!!! The Best Sellers Chart results are announced at a specific period of an year, which is not now. Other Book reviews were added due to comments from DoriSmith which are also removed. What I mean to say is that this book has made its presence in the market in India. No doubt its notable. As far as DoriSmith's argument is concerned, if you look at the article in its present state, there is nothing promotional. So keep. Abhishekjindal12 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Abhishekjindal - can you review Wikipedia:Notability (books) - the criteria when speaking of "notable". You are correct, the Hindu Times is "reliable" coverage. Although it is so brief, a few sentences, it's arguably not "significant" coverage. But we also need two sources. Is there is a second? I looked in the article and just see the one source. You can post sources here too. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a side note, but if anyone is interested in userfying a copy of the articles up for deletion and working on them until they pass WP:NBOOK, I have no problems with that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are separate. It was just a bit of confusion since I'd grouped two books by the same publisher and editor together in one AfD. As far as the link goes, I'm not really certain that TechGoss would be considered a reliable source for notability, especially considering this: "Hopefully, you will use this as a forum to tell others about the clever, interesting and gossipy things happening in the tech industry. Please be assured that your contributions will be totally anonymous if you chose so. Your identity will be known only to the Editor at Techgoss." When you consider that the "contact us" page has instructions for people submitting articles, I'm kind of leaning towards it being non usable as a RS because it's the type of site where anyone can contribute. We can run it through the RS Noticeboard but I don't think it'd pass muster.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DesignCrowd[edit]

DesignCrowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources listed are an interview with the founders, an article saying they got venture capital, and an article saying they purchased a failing site. I am seeing some coverage of this company/website, but I'm just not finding significant coverage, which is a requirement for WP:ORG notability. --Breno talk 11:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dari (Java framework)[edit]

Dari (Java framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Creator has admitted (by e-mail) their COI. Prod removed with: "this is a new Java framework announced at the recent JavaOne 2012 conference". To which I simply say, "so what". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is Dari less credible than Hibernate or Spring? They're all Java frameworks. I'm wondering what's missing that makes it less credible or if moving it to another section might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.236.154 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of notability for the Dari (Java Framework) article can be found in the fact that several companies currently use the technology to power their websites. Several of those companies have agreed to be mentioned in the official press release announcing the open source release of the Dari framework: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/perfect-sense-digital-to-unveil-dari-an-open-source-java-development-framework-at-javaone-2012-171508231.html
The press release is a promotional document, but it includes an independent quote from Bill Bell, Vice President Web Technologies at HealthGrades, stating: "We have been using Dari and Brightspot CMS at HealthGrades for well over a year." Bill Bell's profile can be verified at http://www.linkedin.com/in/bbellcolumbia
The Dari framework was extensively demonstrated live for 3 days to a large number of Java developers. The source code is available on GitHub under a BSD license (very permissive, limited interest for original owner). Further evidence of notability should arise in the coming days/weeks. An independent podcast interview should be available shortly @ http://basementcoders.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.236.154 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Twitter is not a reliable source as an indicator of notability for anything, including APIs. A search came up with lots of Indonesian articles (apparently because dari is an actual word in the language). However, attempts to work around this didn't turn up any useful sources in books or news sources for this subject. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is a new framework that doesn't seem to have attracted independent coverage in reliable sources. Hence fails WP:GNG. Twitter isn't a reliable source, nor are the others cited and found in a search. --Batard0 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Social media sites like Twitter are not reliable. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything outside of press releases. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 17:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The framework is responsible for powering websites that get millions of views a month - see the notable sites on the wiki page. How is it not notable? It's a technology, that has been utilized widely by tens of millions of people. I feel it deserves to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.236.154 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future. This may be a framework for which an article is being created too soon. If it really is as popular, the coverage in reliable sources will appear, and then would be the time for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Register[edit]

Shannon Register (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A real estate broker who has been in the business for four years. She founded her own firm two years ago. Article says, "Her innovative business model won her national, state, and local acclaim" The national ref is an interview, state ref doesn't mention her and the local ref magazine allows people to pay to get an article about themselves or company. Article is nothing but an advertisement. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the notes from the nominator about the references seem accurate. The whole thing is written like an advertisement and it's not hard to see why - the original author is User:Mattregister - coincidentally, the name of the subject's spouse. I'm struggling to see where the assertion of notability is... my main concerns come back to the fact that Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that the spouse wrote it does not mean it needs to be deleted. As far as the references, this was not a paid honor. The magazine offers vendors the opportunity to put ads in the magazine, not the agents. There is a committee of 24 that picks the cover agent. The national association of realtors article was an article that went to every agent in the country about a "stand out" broker. As far as the state reference, fair enough, they didn't put it online. That link is as close as I could find. She is a media personality and rapidly rising industry fixture. Please don't delete and move on.mattregister (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.200.50 (talk) [reply]
Have changed your vote to Keep for the sake of consistency and counter-bot-things. To be considered "notable" and thus appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, a subject must meet the criteria outlined at WP:GNG. That fact that an article was created by someone with a very strong conflict of interest (see WP:COI) does not mean it should automatically be deleted, but conflict of interest editing is always strongly discouraged for a range of reasons (see WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:PROUD). Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to advertise your expertise in a particular field (see WP:PROMO). Notability must be verified by independent reliable sources. The argument goes that if a subject was truly notable, one of the many thousands of regular editors here would have been prompted by overwhelming reliable sources to write an article. That is not always the case, and we do have the Articles for Creation system as a back-up. Would strongly suggest you have a read of most (if not all) of the policies above and make your argument on the basis of policy, backed up by multiple reliable independent sources that meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal Keep but needs a massive rewrite to eliminate the COI. If it can't pass with a rewrite then delete it. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 18:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:RS whatsoever to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and just about any relevant policy you care to name. Her husband freely admits he typed up the article himself. He also created an article about his wife's real-estate office [67] that was speedily and appropriately deleted. I don't know what gets into these people's heads, thinking that Wikipedia is a free web-hosting service for their WP:PROMO efforts. Why don't they just go out and spend the cash to get their own website? Qworty (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find a single independent, reliable source on this person, and certainly nothing that rises to significant coverage under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the "competent professional" rule, which probably exists somewhere on here -- but basically the idea is that just being a highly competent professional does not qualify you for a wikipedia article. The self-worth of the individual is not at issue, its just a fact that most competent and successful people (top 10 lawyer in Croatia, top 10 doctor in Kansas City, etc.) won't meet WP:GNG, unless sourcing proves it.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article with no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything about the real estate agent. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 17:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Kohli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Armaan Kohli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An actor. The article was deleted before via an AfD. Article was re-created and the speedy was declined for, "not the same article, previous discussion doesn't seem to apply, given increased sourcing". One ref in the article is about a hit-in-run accident he was in. One ref is about the father and the movie, not about Kohli. Other ref is short and about the father "re-launching" his son's career. The relaunch didn't work. Most of the parts were not the leads as far as I can tell. Unable to find any independent, reliable refs that don't involve his car accident. Bgwhite (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the above refs are just sites that list actors. If you are an Indian actor who has done any films, chances are you will be listed, but that does not mean you are notable. Several, such as IMDb, Movie talkies and Gomolo, are unreliable as they allow anyone to edit. Bollywood Hungama and Raftaar list almost any actor, just like IMDb. To pass GNG, references have to be reliable and go into detail about Kohli, thus none of these refs meet the criteria. Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep: Most of this guy's coverage has come thanks to his famous father, and not because he himself is notable. At the same time, there's no denying that there have been multiple articles in reliable sources that dealt with him in some depth. I don't put too much stock in the ones about his hit-and-run, but the ones that cover relaunching his career are somewhat substantial and focus squarely on him. I feel this meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, but by the thinnest of possible margins. --Batard0 (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a search of Google news reveals several news pieces that could be added to the article. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Edgefest lineups[edit]

List of Edgefest lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG as being an unsourced, collection of bands that played at Edgefest. Any notable performances (and possibly headliners) can be worked into the main article, but a list of all bands that have ever played is, and likely never will be, encyclopedic. Ravendrop 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an example of what NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT PROGRAM GUIDE are meant to keep out of the encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not a WP:DISCRIMINATE situation because the information is coherently presented as a group of like things. But it still fails WP:LISTN because while I can find coverage of lineups in a Google search, they are not treated as a group in reliable and independent sources. The lineups are invariably on 1) the festival's own website, which is not independent or 2) on blogs and other websites, which are not reliable. There's no evidence that there's been substantial coverage of Edgefest lineups in multiple reliable, independent sources as under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It would be too challenging to find sources for the list especially for individual bands. Edgefest's website would probably be the best to support all of the schedule. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:CactusWriter under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Hill Massacre[edit]

Snow Hill Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason ProjectXRay (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC) The sole source for this article is a website: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/[reply]

The text on this Wikipedia page is copied verbatim from a page on the site: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/the-snow-hill-massacre/

The site, although supposedly that of 'Snow Hill Historical Society' only contains an account of the supposed massacre and it's background and aftermath. Googling this supposed massacre only supplies links to this Wikipedia page the afformentioned 'Snow Hill Historical Society,' and pages dedicated to the 1968 'Spaghetti Western' 'The Great Silence'. (which features a massacre at a Utah 'Snow Hill' as part of the plot).

The site: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ contains, as part of the story a doctored version of the British Music Hall poster featured on Wikimedia Commons, with one of the so-called massacre protagonists' name 'Mr Josiah Savage' inserted in to it (in place of the original name 'Mr John Douglass') as proprietor, and the theatre's location changed from 'Shoreditch' to 'Smithfield' (alleged location of the fictitious gangsters' lair).

The original image can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1867_NationalStandardTheatre.jpg

The doctored version can be viewed here: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/national_standard_smithfield1.jpg

Googling the web address: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/ brings up several references to it being suspected to be fake. So far I've been unable to find any evidence supporting this supposed event ever occuring,despite the fact it allegedly concerns one of the most violent mass-murders ever to have occurred in the city of London, alledgedly occurring in a crowded marketplace in front of many witnesses, with all eight bodies recovered by the police. The original source website for this article goes on to say that there was a riot directed against the alleged perpetrators of the crime on Friday 18th November 1887 (see: http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/the-return-of-cutter-savage/ ) which apparently resulted in at least 23 deaths. I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever of this riot, although there is substantial evidence for the 1887 'Bloody Sunday' riot in London on November 13th of the same year, which was notorious for the killing of only THREE protesters against coercion in Ireland. No article I've seen about the 13/11/1887 'Bloody Sunday' riots makes any reference to any subsequent riots the same week.

In short: This article on the 'Snow Hill Massacre' seems to be too good to be true because IT IS! Believe me, I was intrigued when I first read it and believed it to be true, but the moment I scratched the surface, it became obvious it was a hoax. There's no evidence to support it, and quite clear evidence of materials having been doctored in order to provide fallacious evidence to support a false story. I don't know the motive behind this hoax but it's definitely fake. There never was a 'Snow Hill Massacre' (ProjectXRay (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Not the best hoax I've ever seen, but a hoax nonetheless. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Hoax alarm buzzing. Carrite (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of German-language authors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of German-language authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can be replaced by a category— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorjohnas (talk • contribs)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_October_23&oldid=1142633751"