Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 March	31 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music Nation

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

Other than the 2 working references, there seems to be no other source mentioning this. The "company"'s website also is down. YumOooze (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find quite a lot of news coverage about the company, but it all seems to be coverage within a few days about a single concert. This may become notable, but it would have to have coverage beyond just one week of news. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 March 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, —SW— ^gab 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Cagoul (talk) 14:52, 7 April 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. v/r - T P 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of criminology articles covered by the Crime Classification Manual

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

There is no evidence that there are any external sources that discuss the selection of topics in this book. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 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, —SW— ^converse 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book itself is the proper source for this list. Npmay (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly any book is a reliable source for its own contents. But we do not have an article on the contents of every book in existence. Is there an independent source that refers to the contents of this particular book, which might establish notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to suggest that this book's organizational structure is independently notable, nor that we are well-served by duplicating in here. Additionally, such a list appears to be one in which creative selection criteria were employed by the book's authors, and may therefore present copyright issues per User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per cusop dingles very good arguments.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that compliment, but I ought to point out that I am arguing for delete, not keep! Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as your reasoning ase basis for keeping the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, your apparent compliment was sarcastic. It's not easy to tell the tone of voice at the end of this long piece of wire. My argument is that there is no independent reliable source addressing this subject, namely the list of contents of this particular book. Of course the book itself addresses the topic, but this is hardly independent. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Category:Criminology, which it apparently intends to duplicate with no added value. No indication why this book's selection is particularly important or instructive. Sandstein 07:51, 7 April 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. Sandstein 08:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Harragin

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

Article created from a previously PROD'd version, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Other than a geneology book full of names and birthdates, every reference is a primary source, either the subject's resume or the subject's website. The only exception is a very brief mention as part of a cast that won an award, but this brief mention does not convey notability, per WP:BASIC. Sudo Ghost 18:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage in reliable sources. The article is full of name dropping. Notability is not inherited by graduating with well-known actors. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Not name dropping, she appeared in a major hollywood movie, "The Witches" two hole series of children television program wiz bang, from 1991 to 1993, including the critically acclaimed and award winning four part Channel 4 TV mini-series "G.B.H.", with Robert Lindsay and Michael Palin as well as other tv series such as "Bergerac", "Robin of Sherwood" and "Forever Green" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.8.87 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — 188.29.8.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you provide a source for this? Because the article completely lacks any reliable sources that make even the slightest mention of this; the article fails WP:GNG. Simply appearing in a movie doesn't make a person notable, especially if no reliable sources can be presented to establish such notability. - Sudo Ghost 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Compared to other articles of BLP, such as Liza Tarbuck and Mark Womack who are listed on her page, i think this worth keeping and given time to develope it could be a good article, also she is mentioned on IMDB, and to be honest there are far less notable Actors out there with articles on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coltjonas (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Coltjonas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The existence of other articles does not have any bearing on this article. IMDB is not a reliable source, having an entry there is not notable in any way, the requirements for inclusion on IMDB are much, much less than what Wikipedia requires. Having an IMDB entry does not come close to establishing notability for a Wikipedia article. IMDB also has no editorial oversight on the content itself, . The article has no reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 11:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ive got the DVD box set of "G.B.H", and shes in it alright, she features quite significantly, in episodes one and two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.50.168 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't establish any notability, doesn't meet any of the requirements at either WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. Please note that your IP geolocates to the same city and ISP as the other IP. If you are the same editor as had previously edited, giving the appearance of multiple "keeps" does not help, this discussion is not a vote. Unless the article can be shown to satisfy WP:GNG, the article has no place on Wikipedia. Saying someone was in a programme is fine, but without backing that up by establishing notability with reliable sources, it doesn't make for a convincing argument to keep the article. - Sudo Ghost 20:42, 29 March 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, —SW— ^communicate 23:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring sources which demonstrate notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. I was unable to discover reliable, secondary sources which provided any in-depth coverage to demonstrate the former and the roles aren't evidenced by reliable sources to meet the latter. ~~Doesn't appear to be nearly as famous as the auctioneer of the same name.~~ --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted my rationale in view of MQS pointing out that "the auctioneer" is the same person. Whoops. Still not seeing depth in the sources, but MQS is correct that there is at least some WP:V value in those sources. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is only one 'keep' vote that has a valid argument, but I can't find anything to back up his/her claims. I personally can't find any secondary sources for this subject demonstrating notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In looking at available sources,[1] it does seem that she and her auction house, co-owned with her partner Deba Gray, have turned up receiving auction-related coverage... some of which might verify earlier facts of her career. But for the most part, her work as an actress has not received coverage, and we rarely find those who create commercial advertisements or PSA's to have notability unless there is tremendous media impact or major awards for such... and if that were true, she might have a whack at hitting WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE even if weak on WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 4 April 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being Shaheen

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

I don't believe this album has been released but if it has it does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM J04n(talk page) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it was released. This was most likely a rumored name for what became When I Come of Age. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find coverage to indicate it ever got released. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 2 April 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messy Jiverson

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

An unsigned band of dubious notability. The article has been tagged since 2008 for possibly not meeting the GNG, and I've had little luck in establishing notability. It doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria as presented in WP:NBAND, and I can find no non-trivial references in reliable third party sources. All of the bands albums were self-released. About the only claim to notability the band has is the mention in a St. Louis newspaper, but I'm not sure if that alone is enough. Rorshacma (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Riverfront Times award/short article and the Vox article in the EL's are getting there in terms of notability, but I couldn't find anything else. Being marginally notable in Missouri doesn't seem quite enough. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 2 April 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. No consensus. However, where a BLP is strongly negative and an AFD comes to no consensus, practice is to err on the side that does the least damage to the living person. Closing as delete per WP:BLP. v/r - T P 21:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Thurman

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

I challenge the notability of this guy outside of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing investigation. This has almost no non-negative information about him, and half the article doesn't even mention him. Nor do more than half the sources. I would say this violates WP:BLP and WP:1E. Aervanath (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, my opinion is probably that this should either be deleted and redirected to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 or merged with that article.--Aervanath (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me the sources and overall article notability points toward it passing WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is absolutely nothing here that can't be (and for that matter, isn't) covered in Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. A clearly non-neutral WP:BLP, we don't even know anything about this guy (date of birth? education? ANYTHING about him aside from working at the FBI?). All that this article exists for is to point out that he might have inflated his credentials in relation to the bombing case. Very clear delete in my opinion; I would be okay with a redirect to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 but I don't think it's necessary, especially since he was apparently involved with other cases. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't think of the term at the time, but I just remembered: This is a classic example of a coatrack article. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:42, 29 March 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, —SW— ^confess 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He is the author of Practical Bomb Scene investigation which was published by CRC Press (1st ed., 2006; 2nd ed. 2011), which, in addition to receiving a second edition at a signficant publisher (alone an accomplishment), received a journal review at [2] and appears to garner a second at this journal article (via Google snippet, quote is "Thurman's book, Practical Bomb Scene Investigation, is an educational tool aimed at investigators of post-bomb crime scene investigations, homeland security professionals, first responders, and intelligence analysts. ...", I don't have journal access to check if that continues into a longer review.) Doesn't appear have the cite record necessary for WP:SCHOLAR, nor the named professorship needed for WP:ACADEMIC, however the two book reviews approach WP:AUTHOR (3), and if it doesn't meet it on that basis alone, well, the "one event" we already describe presumably provides the margin. There's a few references to him with respect to pipe bombing investigations, etc. Still, if kept, the article needs to read a lot less BLP1E than it already does, for sure. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E (nearly all coverage he reveived is about the Lockerbie bombing) or selectively merge anything worthwhile to Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Sandstein 07:57, 7 April 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. After disregarding all the sock puppets and per MQS's "not sure", we are left with a weak consensus to delete. However, if somebody thinks he can improve this article I'll be willing to userfy/incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karma: The New Revolution

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

The whole page is basically PR with total lack of neutrality. The film has not been released and has no release date--and only an online release seems to be planned. The sources are all basically PR fluff on obscure sites that are likely just based on press releases. Half of it is PR for the Zenji Museum. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far too premature. While there is some sourcing available, there is not nearly to merit this being an exception to WP:NFF nor enough to support or allow proper cleanup of the article. Film released. NFF inapplicable. Changed to ~~keep~~ "comment". See below Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage to indicate that this film is so highly anticipated that an article is justifiable now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are numerous reference links to many credible media outlets and the article has been around for a long time so a few links have expired. However, it is possible the article should be reverted to one of the earlier versions and a new page should be made for the Zenji Museum although both stories seem to have merged in recent media coverage. Recent coverage has been included in very credible publications which are well respected in the Yoga and spiritual industry where the article is based on and so to call them "off-beat" is unfair and a non expert opinion. For example, another page on Asana Journal exists on Wikipedia and the Yoga Magazine has over 250,000 subscribers. Anyone in that particular industry would see an article there to be very credible indeed. Also, many films are in wikipedia although they are not released in theaters so that has no bearing on a self-help type film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipolice911 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the only edit Wikipolice911 has made on Wikipedia so far is the above comment. Many of the sources cited in the article make hyperbolic claims about the Zenji Museum and Zen Acharya that are suspect and lead one to believe they are not reliable sources. The piece in Yoga Magazine is only one paragraph and also makes claims that sound more like advertising than objective reporting. The link to Yoga Magazine is also likely a copyright violation. Finally, even if we accept some of the sources as reliable, the article do not satisfy the requirements at WP:NFF. Michitaro (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - First of all, if an article is complimentary to a subject, it cannot be just dismissed as PR. That is not a call for anyone to make arbitrarily. Also, the sources are very credible in terms of the demographic and subject at hand and they have a right to make a statement about a topic be it good, bad or complimentary. Also, films that are released online or via DVD are still relevant. However, I can re-write it more as a stub so that more information can be added as becomes available. Also, the Museum part can be edited and condensed in order to ensure no guidelines are broken. I'll just re-write it as a stub to address your concerns. Thanks for the feedback so that I can improve my articles in the future. Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth be known 888 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do invite others to read the sources cited in the article and judge if their manipulation of facts indicates they are reliable sources or not. But, as stated before, even having reliable sources does not help this clear the conditions regarding films that have not been released. Finally, I find it curious that the user Truth be known 888 is effectively calling this article one of "my articles," even though it was user Buddhakahika who wrote most of the article. Is Truth be known 888 admitting he/she is a sockpuppet of Buddhakahika? What is Truth be known 888's relation to Wikipolice911? Note that several days ago I opened an SPI on Buddhakahika that involves Truth be known 888. Michitaro (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your allegations to be laughable and outrageous. Please conduct an investigation as I have no idea who this Buddhak character is. I was only referring to the few additions I made to this comprising some of the entries you are referring to. Also, it is not a feature film and therefore theatric release is of no relevance. Finally since you enjoy rampant speculation, lets ask – who really are you? Are you a sockpuppet for Gene 93k? Why do you have such hostility and personal animosity in your attacks? Could you be someone with a personal axe to grind against someone mentioned in this article? A jilted ex? Or perhaps a a white supremacist who does not like "ethnic communities"? Or could you be a Christian militant who does not like "work of the devil"? Or could you be "wikipolice" yourself with a split personality? If you do not like speculative questions like this then why do you engage in them yourself? I can also open an investigation on you for wiki bullies like you with too much time on their hands are responsible for the “edit wars” that have made wiki the laughing stock of the academic world. Personally it has no impact on me if this article stays or goes. But its interesting how much racism is here on Wiki and that is what I stand against. Where an ethnic publication is considered "off-beat" but Playboy is a genuine source. Who makes this call? And how is it that you cannot even tell the difference between a complimentary article and a press release? Basic class on journalism 101! Also, many contributors only make a few changes to the topics that interest them or their communities thereby bringing a level of expertise and knowledge to the subject. 20 year old trolls working out of their mommy's basements are unable to do that although they can make many more posts. The number of posts a person makes does not add to or detract from his credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth be known 888 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to respond to the above rant. I will only note the following. 1) Whether a film has had a theatrical release is relevant because the standards for notability are different (you seem to be unfamiliar with the standards, so please refer to WP:NF). 2) AfDs are conducted to determine the consensus about whether an article deserves to be on Wikipedia and thus it is vitally important that they be conducted fairly and with no attempts to manipulate the results. It is not uncommon for users to try to defend their article by using multiple accounts to give the impression of more support for the article than really exists. This is against Wikipedia rules. Suspicions have already risen with this AfD because one user, Wikipolice911, appeared suddenly on Wikipedia to make just this one edit in support of the article. I did not mention sockpuppetry here in retaliation against comments made here. The SPI I commenced was done several days before and is based on an objective observation of close similarities between the edits of various accounts. Whether sockpuppetry will be determined is up to the administrators, but this AfD will likely serve as one piece evidence in that determination. In the end, I wanted other editors to be aware of my concerns about the validity of some of the votes being cast on this AfD. Michitaro (talk) 16:02, 30 March 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, —SW— ^comment 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have re-edited the article as a stub so that more information can be added as necessary. The story itself had garnered a lot of media attention including on Indian news channels and even newspapers as influential as Hindustan Times. It was verified by Wiki editors since 2010 and therefore obviously was note-worthy. By editing it to a more concise version, we can remove the deletion tab and invite others to expand on it. If in a few months we discover that there is not much more to expand, then it can be considered for deletion at that time. This seems to be the most fair and reasonable solution to this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhakahika (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For now, I will leave it to others to judge whether this shortened version clears the problems covered in WP:NF. But I should reiterate that many of the sources cited are still suspect. Half are dead links, and some like OfficialWire or TheStreet (the Fox Business link--now dead--is probably identical to this) are just uploaded press releases. The Scribd link goes to what is likely a copyright violation and should be removed. The remaining contain statements that are dubious and thus are hard to call reliable. Finally, length of existence on Wikipedia is not reason enough to keep an article. Old articles get deleted through AfDs all the time. In fact, in this case, the time this has been on Wikipedia works against the article because it only reinforces suspicions that the film will never get released (many of the sources talk of a 2010 release). Michitaro (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Comment With further research I do find the topic to [perhaps] have received just enough coverage to merit an article. Indeed, I have myself visited the article to further address issues with formatting and style per MOS:FILM to bring it fron stub to Start or even C class. And while yes, the nominated version[3] had issues with tone and sourcing, I think the shorter version is more encyclopedic and serves the project... and yes, it can benefit from additional work. However, an watch will needed to prevent re-insertion of non-encyclopdic or extraneous information. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just FYI, but it is still dubious whether film has been released. Its own website gives no indication of how to see or obtain the film. Another webpage (one not linked to from the first, but in the same site), says you can download it if you write to them with personal information (this seems the only way you can possibly see the film if it exists). I have not seen any reviews--or even any third-person reports from people who have seen a completed film. Two things concern me: first, that the article on Wikipedia may end up being a means for a religion to accumulate information on people to be used for proselytising; second, the fact that one of the sources cited says the film has been released (but not in this dubious way and also giving the wrong date) only underlines the likelihood that many of the sources cited themselves contain factually incorrect information. Michitaro (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to provide them with personal information in order to obtain a download link... but on their website one has only to click a link and watch any one of the film's several segments. As it is viewable, it has "release". Yes, the original article spent most of its text promotion the filmmaker and the museum. Now, it does not, which is why I suggested above that a watch be kept to prevent re-insertion of improper materials. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could specify which page you are referring to, that would help. I too found a page which seemed to offer the film in segments, but when you click each segment, all you get is a different flash html text with music, not a movie (such as here). The title of the page only says that it offers a trailer and an exclusive preview of the film. Michitaro (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even with the updates done by MQS, I am maintaining my !vote of delete. The sources are somewhat marginal, and in particular, the one used to cite the release is dated August 23, 2011 and reads like a copy of press release announcing the imminent release scheduled for August 29. 2011. The other articles also look rather like pastiches from press release. There is also a lack of reviews of the film which would indicate there is a lack of any critical notice. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change your vote. I agree that the sources dealing with a major religion-topic of do seem ornately flowery in speaking toward their religion-related topic. But as we are for the most part speaking about non-english authors writing about a religious topic, is such tone to be seen as ONLY strictly promotional, or might it be out of the source author's respect for the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, let me mention that the SPI against Buddhakahika, who created this article and voted above, has confirmed that Buddhakahika is a sockpuppetteer who has misused multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. Wikipedia911, who also voted above, is one of those accounts. All the confirmed accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Truth be known 888, who voted above (and who clearly has violated WP:CIVIL), has been determined "possibly bordering on likely" to be Buddhakahika, and administrative action is pending. While Buddhakahika's efforts to manipulate this AfD are one reason the user has been blocked indefinitely, it should be stressed that the multiple accounts were first used to litter Wikipedia with statements presenting the particular views of a single religious organization run by an individual as historical fact (and to promote the products of that individual, including this film and the Zenji Museum). I wrote a summary of these activities on MichaelQSchmidt's talk page: User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt#Karma:_The_New_Revolution. It should be reiterated that just because the person who created this page is a sockpuppetteer who tried to disrupt this AfD does not automatically mean the article should be deleted. The article can still stand if it passes WP:NF. However, given the deceptive efforts of Buddhakahika--who is likely associated with this film and this religion--we have to be very careful in our judgment. Knowing these efforts to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a religion created by an individual, one can easily imagine that the same individual has been trying to use the media in a similar way. The sources used to verify this film thus must be given extra scrutiny. Like Whpq above, I do not think they withstand that scrutiny. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, as MichaelQSchmidt argues, none of them verify one simple thing: that this film is complete and has been seen by third-parties. The sources give multiple release dates (and even one of the religion's websites gives another one: September 11, 2011)--which makes it unclear if it ever really was released--and the only way to see this film (if it exists) is to contact the religion and give them your personal information (at least your e-mail address). Without any independent sources saying they have seen the completed film, and given the peculiar way it is being distributed, I cannot free myself of the suspicion that the promise of showing the film (without possibly the film even existing) is being used as a means of getting people to contact the religion so that they can become the object of proselytization or donation requests. Having a Wikipedia article gives a stamp of authenticity to this film. I personally think the safe course of action is to delete this article. If a user can subsequently find independent RS who have seen the actual film and verify its notability, then the article can be recreated. Michitaro (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reduced my support above to only a "comment". The flash movie segments on the http://www.rightkarma.net/ website may qualify as "film", but in actually watching the available trailer and "film" segments The Defender The Abbott The Enlightened The Savior The Teacher Dharma Talks The Collection The Temple and Holy Texts it seems they are more a set of religious infomercials, than an actual self-help film... and that is of a concern. But as we do have sources speaking about it (albeit in a flowerey and ornate manner), it still might be seen to pass WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. But after watching the segments, I feel less positive toward a definite keep and am willing to say so here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Michael has said that WP:NFF does not apply here, but I think the third paragraph provides useful guidance: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I can't see any special reason that the production for this film should be notable, and most of the sources in the article seem to be variations on the same press release. If there was at least one review of the film out there then I might be persuaded otherwise, but I do not think this article is worth keeping with the sourcing that there is. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:01, 7 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Tasman

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

Doesn't seem like a notable artist to me. He did have an story on NPR, but it seems like a pretty ephemeral human interest piece. I figured I would bring it here rather than PROD to get more feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The field of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies is quite new, and the best work in the field is the most recent work. The stated goal of Wikipedia is to "bring free knowledge to everyone" so should Wikipedia include knowledge about faculty from new academic fields? Diversity23 (talk)

Response All articles have to meet our notability guidelines. There is no single metric for establishing notability, but (e.g.) six-figure YouTube hits don't really meet muster. Irrespective of how new someone's field is, that person can easily be notable with a variety of sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - Artist is notable. Several videos of his have gotten over 336,000 views (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPd44Zz6etI)

A picture of his (#2 on this link) got over 300k views (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-best-protest-signs-at-the-wisconsin-capitol) Diversity23 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree that there is insufficient prolonged coverage in secondary and tertiary sources to prove notability. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, the list of references is extensive for this article on a young contemporary artist. It's an impressive feat that in an era of dwindling newspaper coverage for the arts, Tasman's work has been the subject of numerous news stories. If the encyclopedia wants to be a good resource on all subjects, including articles like this on contemporary artists is very important. Jgmikulay (talk) 02:38, 29 March 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, —SW— ^chat 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; exhibition in Madison Museum of Contemporary Art (MMoCA), Wisconsin, USA. --Svajcr (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll disclose that Tasman is a colleague of mine at UWM, but part of my goal as an editor has always been to get more Wisconsin, South African, and new media artists on Wikipedia, and he is without a doubt a well-known scholar and maker in the Midwest and beyond. I think this discussion is great - mostly because it has gotten a few editors to add more information and sources to the page. Were it this tight at the start, it would unlikely have garnered the attention for deletion. Perhaps we can make a few more suggestions here for editing / requirements in order to make it more suitable, rather than deleting it outright? I'd be happy to, for example, add a few more sources and citations if needed. Though it seems to me that between the Routledge book, NPR, and several Journal Sentinel articles (although regional, this is the 14th largest paper in the country), it should be enough to show sustained interest in his work, even for the critical eye. NathanielS (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding to what's said above, there is a secondary source, look at Google Scholar. Someone else is writing about Marc Tasman in the context of his work. Its a short blip, but probably enough to satisfy the guidelines as it shows him "originating a significant new concept". Lord Roem (talk) 13:56, 6 April 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. This AfD has been relisted twice and, with the last relist producing no new contributions, I see no merit in a further relist. The discussion has clearly failed to provide a consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP cycles

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

Completing unfinished AFD. Doesn't seem notable or relevant, reads like a copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Putting aside the quality of the article, the topic/Halprin's book is notable:

Review in Sage's Urban Affairs Review[4]

paper in Canadian Theater Review: "Improvisation and Devising: The Circle of Expectation, the Invisible Hand, and RSVP" by Gyllian Raby [5]

Paper with substantial discussion: Galia Hanoch-Roe "Musical Space and Architectural Time: Open Scoring versus Linear Processes" International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music Vol. 34, No. 2 (Dec., 2003), pp. 145-160[6]

brief Kirkus review[7]

DPhil thesis on topic[8]

Google Scholar has other results too.--Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another system of creative methodology for collaboration, based on an acronym somebody thought was clever. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above are not valid arguments for deletion. WP:MILL isn't relevant - it says "This page in a nutshell: There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles." This topic plainly has additional sources exclusively devoted to itself. And WP:CB isn't policy, it's just an excuse for a silly picture, some poetry, and a little mild swearing; it's about student hoaxes not incomprehensibility on the level of Phenomenology of Spirit. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New management or self-help theories are indeed commonplace, trivial, and difficult to distinguish in substance from each other. This is just another one, seeking to conceal its banality behind a clever acronym. One review in a relatively obscure academic journal, and a brief review on Kirkus Reviews, a book trade publication that seeks to make some note of most printed books. (According to the article, Kirkus reviews 7000 books a year, and will review self published books for a fee. Kirkus reviews are not evidence of notability.) This would not even make the Halprin book meet the notability guideline for books; and this whole 'methodology' is apparently Halprin's baby. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 16 March 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, Sandstein 06:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Halprin was more or less reinventing W. Edwards Deming's plan-do-act cycle, which is not a bad thing to do. Given the Before Web date of Halprin's work, sources are unsurprisingly thin - suspect they'll be on paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 23 March 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, —SW— ^confabulate 21:51, 30 March 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 Gary Condit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Condit

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

In looking at this one, I'm sort of on the fence. On one hand, there's the potential for having significant coverage, and he may just well cover that. On the other hand, it seems to be more or less promotional in nature, and there's typical precedent, per my understanding, that politicians at this level don't tend to quite meet the criteria that we hold any given article to. So I bring it here to ask our community - should we delete, or does it meet WP:GNG? -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As merely a candidate for congressional office he is not notable. He did get a little coverage during the Gary Condit/Chanda Levy news story, but not enough for an independent article. At this point I would Redirect to Gary Condit as is usually done for people whose claim to fame is a relationship to someone notable. If he should get elected the article could be recreated; ~~however he is unlikely to unseat Garamendi IMO.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; the district has been redrawn and technically has no incumbent running in November, although an incumbent Republican congressman who lives outside the district is running, as well as a Democrat. Condit is running as an independent and under California's new system he would have to be first or second in the primary to advance to the November election. Still unlikely IMO. In any case my Crystal Ball predictions are beside the point; the point is that whatever notability he has comes from his relationship to Gary Condit, not his candidacy. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gary Condit, per MelanieN. Presently does not appear to be notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Suggest keeping the edit history intact should the article merit recreation at a later time (as noted by the nom., there is clear potential for that). If kept, cleanup will be necessary. As noted by the nom., seems a bit promotional in tone and style.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; subject presently fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG; additionally see WP:NOTINHERITED. If the subject is elected then the subject will pass POLITICIAN and will have sufficient notability to have an article, on those grounds it is too soon. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep"; subject is addressed in detail, no original research is necessary. Looks like submitting individual did not include all relevant info WP:Politician and WP:SIGCOV. OR *"Redirect" to coverage of that election or office not to Gary Condit. Mention of another politician in the conversation is unsettling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmetzner (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Mattmetzner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are right that there is another possible target for a redirect, namely United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012#District 10. However at this point he is better known as a son and spokesperson for Gary Condit, and more information about him could be included in that article than in the election article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Predominantly I saw reason to create this article because his actions aren't just a passive association with his father. Also there is coverage of him spanning a good length of time for a variety of issues(2001quiting Gray Davis' office- being sued for possible fund embezzling- baskin robbins lawsuit-running for election 2012). So to me he meets the primary notability criterion that makes this article notable, but I'm biased as the creator. I'm open to adding more to topics, taking out anything deemed promotional, etc. Kirkconnell.k (talk) 19:58, 30 March 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, —SW— ^{spill the beans} 21:47, 30 March 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. The coverage in reliable sources appears to be insufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Figures

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

The article was previously speedy deleted in the midst of its previous AfD. Since that time, there has been no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. There is a single blog mention from the LA ~~times~~ weekly.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability. Sorry about accidentally reverting you (TheRedPenOfDoom) and creating a third nomination, I got really confused when the AfD notice linked me to the original nomination. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The one reliable source is recent and of good quality (although it's the LA Weekly, not the Los Angeles Times); if someone could find another one like that, the case for notability starts to become pretty good, but I looked and couldn't. This may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This channel has over 2,500,000 views on many of their videos on Youtube and nearly 100,000 subscribers and has been listed on this animation site [9] and this [10] major gaming site online . --User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The gamespot is actually zero coverage about the topic, just a link to "an exclusive episode"-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - i think your first link meant to go to [11] . If Animation Magazine.net is in fact a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, then I change my nomination to a weak keep. but our article on Animation Magazine is rather lacking in verification of the credentials of AM ( the sourcing consists of an announcement from a con) -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good coverage in secondary sources, in searches for "dick figures" along with term, "skudder". — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROVEIT that the hits are actual significant coverage about the subject of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 25 March 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, —SW— ^speak 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the award mentioned in the article text, no other secondary sourcing exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above this is a well "Liked" series on YouTube. Also they are apart of Mondo Media a company that supports freelance artists. They also have a website and are on several social media sites. --ESF36 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — ESF46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Leaning toward delete... the award and distributor speak fairly well for it, but then again both are generally aimed at small things and small themselves. And this lacks much of anything else at this point. — Isarra (talk) 08:33, 6 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElectionMall Technologies

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

Cloud computing services provider focusing on political campaigns. The article relies exclusively on press releases, blogs and similarly questionable sources, and I see no reliable sources on the topic in the wild. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and note also WP:Articles for deletion/Campaign Cloud, its not notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Service Cloud Computing for political campaigns exist on two servers: Nation Builder (http://nationbuilder.com/) and Campaign Cloud (http://www.campaigncloudos.com/), the latter was developed by ElectionMall. On the other hand, took it as such other items to re-edit this. - Gaville Sahavit (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would make sense if the article was about the tool, but it is about the company instead. Per WP:PRODUCT the notability of companies isn't inherited from products, so your rationale simply doesn't apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was re-write not like a press release or a product, everyone can re-read and cheack this point. - Gaville Sahavit (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.60.90.125 (talk) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^confess 21:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, not neutral. Reads like an advertisement. Unreliable sources.DocTree (talk) 23:15, 31 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Novakovic

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

Contested PROD. The actress fails WP:ENT. She was a student before she got the role of Natasha Williams in Neighbours and, as it states here - [12], it is her first acting job. - JuneGloom Talk 20:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of multiple significant roles to meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She clearly fails WP:ENT with her one and only television role. Looking on google news etc - she hasn't gained any status in the public eye aside from commenting on her role. As she had limited experience, no "innovative contributions" to her field and absence of any cult following - There really is no scope for the subject at present.Rain the 1 14:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth redirecting to Natasha Williams (Neighbours)? Jenks24 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 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. Can be restored if somebody really wants to merge anything, but I see nothing of interest or importance that is not already in Cannabis Law Reform. Sandstein 07:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Reynolds (politician)

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

This man has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." His sole claim to fame is that he was the leader of a party that has now removed him for attacking medicinal cannabis users and threatening members of the public. [I should disclose that I was one of them, but I still feel that objectively Peter Reynolds is not notable] Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CLEAR campaign. The party probably passes as notable (although the article needs some serious re-writing to stop being a reprint of their website), so as leader or former leader he had a place there, but no sign from GNews that he qualifies as notable in his own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The subject is not given in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources (WP:GNG), nor does he readily pass WP:POLITICIAN as a former head of a minor political party. As to merging, only the CLEAR article and a disambig currently link here. There doesn't seem to be any need for a redirect. Perhaps just a mention with the refs in this article to support. JFHJr (㊟) 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. I don't think it's even entirely, erm, obvious, that CLEAR passes GNG. If there's anything worth passing over from this article to that, it should be done. But I don't get the impression that we are handling any information that the world really needs to know in this case. FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a lot of information online, in articles that often look well-researched if not always very ... conservative. The problem is, who knows what is and is not a reliable, impartial source for detailed information about the UK cannabis legalization movement? As I read through the Google hits I don't know who I can really cite. This uncertainty is a problem, not just for this article, but for the cannabis legalization movement in general. It would be very helpful if people knowledgeable in this arena can come up with a go-to list of high quality sources for this and other related articles. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 2 April 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. v/r - T P 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Florin Şandru

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

No verifiable sources establish notability. There's a deliciously negative review of his poetry, but little more substantive. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's also apparently a better review of his work in a local magazine, but the more notable source who quotes it simply notes that MFS is not really a talented poet. Sorry. Dahn (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 13 March 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, Sandstein 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, you can find verifiable sources here:

1. Laurenţiu Ulici, „Literatura română contemporană, I – promoţia ‘70“, Eminescu Publishing House, 1995

2. Marian Popa, „Istoria literaturii române de azi pe mâine“, Publishing House of the Foundation "Luceafărul", 2001

3. Mircea Zaciu, Marian Papahagi, Aurel Sasu (coordonators), „Dicţionarul scriitorilor români“, vol. IV, Albatros Publishing House, 2002

4. Aurel Sasu, „Dicţionarul biografic al literaturii române“, Paralela 45 Publishing House, 2006

5. Eugen Simion (coodonator), „Dicţionarul general al literaturii române, literele S/T“, edited by the Romanian Academy, Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 2007

So, Wikipedia articles should not be interpreted with axiological criteria (he is a good writer or not - that is a problem of literary critics, not ours, right?). Only criteria that is valid on Wikipedia is notability and for that, please see the books from above. --FeodorBezuhov (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FeodorBezuhov, I don't doubt the truth of what you say, but a blind bibliography isn't that meaningful. In the Wikipedia of 2012 (as opposed to that of, say, 2005), sources are cited. Information drawn from a particular source, even one edited by the Romanian Academy, is cited as coming from that source, together with the page number(s). A mere list of works lacks the credibility of a properly cited article that shows the author actually went through the sources and examined their contents. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not make the comment to stress that he is a bad writer (I don't care either way, and would not assume that wikipedia needs my own opinion), but that the slim coverage he gets is also negative - people who read his works make brief mention of them so as to say "erm, no". They may or may not be right, but they're professionals in the field, and they are a good probe into Şandru's standing in his community. And, as Biruitorul says, just because the article has a vague list of works that may or may not mention Şandru (and, more importantly, to say what?), it doesn't mean we should casually assume that they also verify the text, or pretend that they stand in for real citations of said sources. Sending Biruitorul to buy himself the books and verify the references for the author is not a substitute. Dahn (talk) 18:21, 27 March 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, —SW— ^{spill the beans} 18:34, 30 March 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 Thirty Years' War. v/r - T P 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 30 Years War

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

The band fails to meet ANY of the requirements for notability (see WP:BAND). Wikipedia is not about having pages for every garage band in the world. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article makes no attempt to provide evidence in support of notability, and after trying to find it myself, I can see why. StandardSwan (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 30 Years War. The band is not notable, as StandardSwan says, but the name is a plausible redirect for the conflict. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. StandardSwan (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be sad to see this article go. Possibly have it simply redirect to The Fall of Troy Mongeese (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete then redirect to Thirty Years' War--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above suggestions, I agree, this page should become a redirect to Thirty Years' War, something completely unrelated to this band.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Keep The subject is notable per section six of WP:BAND, despite ARTEST4ECHO's assertion to the contrary, and almost meets section five. I do not currently have time to do deeper research, but they clearly are not 'some random garage band'. At the very least, this should be merged with The Fall of Troy, with the redirect going to Thirty Years' War.143.92.1.33 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass section 6 5, they are self released eps not albums on an important label. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." You're thinking of section five, which yes, they do fail. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, fixed now. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass section 6, The blue linked members' notability relies on their membership of this band so are not independently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does pass. Thomas Erak was a member of The Hills Have Eyes and was nominated guitarist of the year in 2007 by Alternative Press. Andrew Forsman's notability is a little harder to track down, but I would say that https://popwreckoning.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/interview-with-andrew-forsman-of-the-fall-of-troy/ and http://www.drummagazine.com/features/post/andrew-forsman-young-prog-warrior/ suggest individual notability for him too.

EDIT: Apparently The Hills Have Eyes aren't notable enough to have their own article (though I may do some digging to check for notability, I suspect they may qualify). The Alternative Press Guitarist of the Year nomination still stands. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 1:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

[13] A sputnikmusic staff review. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per band notability discussion above and more sources at [14][15]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 30 March 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, —SW— ^talk 17:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The links provided by Trevj are not useful. The first is not coverage of the band, it is a video aggregator. The second is a copy of this wikipedia article. That site just steals wikipedia articles without attribution and claim ownership of copyright. Compare this with an earlier revision of Post hardcore. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:55, 31 March 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. v/r - T P 20:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crveni Ðavoli

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

Non-notable fan/supporters' club - fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Most of the article content is about the football team anyway.TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a little more time. I will improve the site and explain everything. I am not finished. Please. Thank you!!!--Nado158 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crveni Ðavoli (English: The Red Devils) are supporters of Radnički Kragujevac. They are one of major football fan groups in Serbia and Radnički one of the known Sport Association. Besides football the Devils support other sport sections of the Radnički Sport Association like Basketball, Handball and Volleyball). Al clubs play in the first Serbian liga, the Basketballklub play also in the Adriatic League(importent Basketbal-Liga in Europa). FC Radncki is expected to participate this year in the UEFA Europa Liga. The Red Devils have a long history in Yugoslavia and Serbia and was always importent part in the fanscene. They are one of major football fan groups in Serbia a known in the fanscene in South-east-Europa and over his borders. There are many important things to write about this supporterse (not the club). A deletion here is totally inappropriate.This is written only about the fans, I do not understand why it should be deleted?I will improve the site. I am not finished.Thank you!!--Nado158 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I cannot specifically cite instances I remember the Red Devils from at least 2 TV documentaries in the UK, I think dealing with anti-social behaviour. If these programmes can be tracked down, notability will probably be found lurking alongside. Lonesometwin (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a whole other generation. With families, children and real fans.You confuse something. There are 1-2 fan groups in the wolrd who call themselves Red Devils but these call themselsvs Ðavoli not Red Devils (Ðavoli pronounced in English: Jawoli).They have nothing to do with the UK fan groups. --Nado158 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sourcing. Article in Blic (Blic has the largest circulation among all newspapers in Serbia) is very relevant, and I think more sources can be found.--В и к и T 13:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per В и к и, not forgeting the importance of improving sourcing and keeping the aricle NPOV and wikified. The main reason I favour keeping the article over merging has to do with the fact that more and more supporting groups have their own articles, and there has existed interest on behalve of editors to contribute to the subject. Having this in mind, I find much more appropriate to have separate articles where the subject could be expanded in more detail, rather then having a over-sized supporters section in club articles, which is what often ends up happening when we lack a separate article but we have editors willing to contribute on it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 23 March 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, —SW— ^yak 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say there is a great deal of information to back its notability, its references are there and appear to be reliable, there is just one problem, most of the references are in serbian, however after translation with google they appear to be accurate and relaible. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe references are from the homepage of the club and one of the most important newspapers in Serbia. Blic has the largest circulation among all newspapers in Serbia.Nado158 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to FK Radnički 1923; worth a mention there in a 'Fans' section but cannot see the worth of having a seperate article. Giant Snowman 21:18, 5 April 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of alumina refineries

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

Delete per WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No comprehensible nomination.

Alumina refineries are significant pieces of engineering. They will (as does any construction of such scale) be fairly easy to demonstrate notability for. Each one also consumes considerable electrical power, has large quantities of raw materials shipped to it, and has a risk of environmental damage from their effluents. The locations of such plants are entirely proper topics for encyclopedic coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy at WP:NOT should be a comprehensible reason enough reason for deletion in both specifics and in "spirit". I am not denying that alumina plants are significant although how significant is the question. It is interesting to note that none of the refineries have their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liefting, you need to actually explain your reasoning to the community in this (and all your other "edits") rather than just say "per X" where X is a guideline that covers a multitude of sins. It's not up to the community to work out what you're saying, it's up to you to you say it. And say it explicitly. The onus is on you to prove why anything should be deleted or moved etc, and in doing that you have to be explicit in the guidelines or policies or consensual discussions you're referring to in order to back up your position. If you continue to just claim "Per WP:X" you may end up becoming the boy who cried wolf. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am still an a last name basis Mr Man. Can I call you The? I like to keep things informal around here. Anyway, I had vowed not to rise to the bait that you keep throwing my way but that last statement really got up my goat. As an atheist and a rationalist I would never say "Per WP:X". WikiProject Christianity does not usually come into deletion discussions... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like "per WP:X" Although it was obviously intended as a placeholder for blank appeals to any policy, its accidental monotheistic invocation highlights the point that this is all you're doing. WP isn't a theocracy. It doesn't_(sic) operate by either prayers to the thunder-block wielding Olympian Jimbo, nor even to just citing verses by their placeholder. Instead we're supposed to use some fluffy schoolroom version of Hegelian dialectic.

So far you've cited one of the broadest of policies, with no detail or explanation. Then you did it again. Then you switched to name calling (that wasn't even an ad hominem).

So what's your point? I've given you my thesis, refute it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default as incomplete nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Andy says, "Alumina refineries are significant pieces of engineering", so it looks like a valid list to me. Also have to agree with Andy and TRM that the nomination is incredibly vague. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I think the nomination is sufficiently inadequate to warrant a closure on procedural grounds, I also believe this article should be kept on its merits. I consider Andy Dingley's arguments to be persuasive; furthermore, many types of facilities of similar complexity and import also support lists of this manner (cf. List of oil refineries, List of nuclear reactors, and the four lists disambiguated at List of hydroelectric power stations). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:11, 4 April 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. After consultation with User:TParis (see history). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Shaped Object

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

Non-notable neologism. Sources (those that are admissable) confirm that it's in use in the cycyling community, but provide no significant coverage. Might be appropriate for Urban Dictionary, but not for Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging with Bicycle or Bicycle performance. Biscuittin (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It has something to do with bicycles, but I don't think this information is encyclopedic. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Delete - seems to be an obscure British cycling-related neoligism/joke. As an English cyclist I've never heard this phrase used. The article content is a mostly unhelpful essay about cheap bicycles. The links are mostly WP:SELFPUB or non-notable sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is perhaps more of a US term than UK. It's certainly widespread on Usenet news:rec.cycling There's scope for a good article here, but if anything, it's WP:NOTHOWTO that would be the biggest problem for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are you sure? - perhaps Google is biasing my search results but most references to this phrase seem to be in British cycling-related message boards. I still have not seen it used in anything that we can reliably reference. I still do not think it passes the WP:N test, but I'd bet that it probably will do in a year or two. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an essay on cheap bicycles titled after a neologism. -Drdisque (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's basically just an essay on what might be wrong with a cheap bicycle. (Also, as it says "Usually between AU $80 to $200 (Australian Dollars)", maybe it's more of an Australian term?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be made into a proper article. I've certainly come across the term in the UK, as indicated by the references below:

If the decision is keep, then I'm prepared to try and improve the article over the next month. Murray Langton (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sources do exist that show that the term is being used on a more widespread basis, however this article doesn't really discuss the term itself. Rather, as others have said, its just an essay about what might be wrong with cheap bikes. The whole article would essentially have to be completely rewritten, and even then, there's the question on whether or not this neologism actually passes the GNG at this point. As Salimfadhley said, its possible an article with the same title could be eligible to be created at a future date, it should be deleted for now. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, above sources from Murray Langton and [21][22]. -- Trevj (talk) 10:40, 30 March 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, —SW— ^gab 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep after move. There are some reliable sources on the topic. The BBC and Guardian articles are productive, among others. However, the primary problem at the moment is a failure of NPOV. I suggest a move to the neutral descriptive term flat pack bicycle and inclusion of industry sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all BSOs are those that arrive as flat packs for home assembly. Some are sold "assembled"_(sic) by shops, but they're still just BSOs.

(I was out for a ride in the good weather last weekend, met a parent and child out riding too. Poor kid had their front fork on back to front - it must have been terrifying to ride. So these things do happen out in t'real world.) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both I, and the sources, would suggest that a flat pack bicycle is still a flat pack bicycle whether assembled by the end-user or the vendor. If we're going to have an article on the topic, WP:NPOV is probably not ideally served by locating that article at the current title. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've a couple of flat pack bicycles here. There's nothing wrong with them, it's a pragmatic approach to shipping retail products - so long as they're good bikes, assembled competently. A BSO, in contrast, is a poor sort of bike to ride afterwards, as described by a community of experienced cyclists. This is a subjective POV judgement, but that's not a problem for WP, as it wasn't WP's judgement to describe them so.

WP's NPOV task here is to describe the behaviour of the cyclist community in identifying this class of problematic "wheeled artifacts", in applying the label to them, and in their critique of how such things happen to exist and what can be done about fixing them. We (as editors) can do that much objectively. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 5 April 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 Agent Vinod (2012 film)#Soundtrack. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raabta (Kuch to hai)

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

No information that this song will be released as single. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:50, 21 March 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 March 21. Snotbot t • c » 01:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails GNG? Possibly no. Just try a google news search for this, you get plenty of notability. And otherwise, "No information that this song will be released as single" is not a valid reason. See Chammak Challo, Criminal, and lots others. If the rule was what you said, these articles would have been deleted long ago. I'm really very sorry if I sounded harsh. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 10:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS And a beautiful 16 hits on Google News? Not convincing. On the other hand, you can also add sources in other languages then English and other scripts then the western one. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Agent Vinod (2012 film)#Soundtrack. Maybe same goes for Pyaar ki Pungi --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the movie article. With due respect IMO we have thousands such songs, not encyclopaedic. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 07:59, 24 March 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, Sandstein 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Already repeating info from the film's article. Not notable for standing alone. -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:25, 3 April 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Lim

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

Doesn't establish notability adequately Monni (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ENTERTAINER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, doesn't seem to meet one of the three criterion. Additionally, (and probably more relevant) is the music guidelines. None of those twelve items seems to fit here. Lord Roem (talk) 13:59, 6 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peta Murgatroyd

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

as per WP:ONEVENT. only known for her appearance on Dancing with the Stars [23]. and she was eliminated in week 1. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being in the background chorus line of a dance tv show is barely more notable than being an extra in a movie --which is entirely not notable (not even for IMDB!) one appearance on the same show as a dance contestant and being voted off immediately is not notable. being the lead dancer in a show that reached broadway is perhaps somewhat notable maybe. barely. does a lead dancer get to speak any lines? the article sentence which begins "Peta is currently dating..." is actually funny: as if grasping for notability by mentioning her slightly barely notable current boyfriend. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the above, the subject was promoted from the dance troupe on Dancing with the Stars to become one of the professional dance partners for the last two seasons. While she and her partner were eliminated in the first week, she has nevertheless returned to compete as one of the professional dance partners again this season. With only two exceptions, it appears that every other professional dance partner on the U.S. edition of DWTS has an article on Wikipedia (or at least their names are blue links). I believe her involvement as a professional dance partner on DWTS for two seasons is sufficient to qualify the subject as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Frankly, the nominator not having the right facts at all puts in question whether they would even nominate if they had the right facts. LibStar, could you please be courteous and add a link to this discussion on the article talk page along with teh AFD notice, so people actually come here to vote? Thanks in advance. This person has been a multiple time star on a massive top 10 TV program, and a lead dancer in a Broadway show. The multiple DWTS appearances alone generate massive secondary press on this person, if one cares to look. 76.95.213.142 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP*** Current Rising Fame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.7.26 (talk • contribs) — 50.55.7.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - Seriously, what would be the point of removing this article? Are we trying to save electrons? Are we afraid the Wikipedia is going to run out of pages? The Wikipedia currently has nearly 4 million articles and I guarantee you that many of them are less relevant than this one. Who cares? If you don't like the article, then don't read the article. Truthfully, the fact that she placed 3rd in the world at the world famous Latin Championships in at Blackpool, England (2006) would probably be enough for her to have a Wikipedia article, even if she wasn't on a TV show watched by nearly 18 million people, but wait, she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceMount (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — BruceMount (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - currently in her 2nd season of DWTS as a pro and as stated above, promoted as part of their troupe dancing group swinquest (talk) 12:46, 28 March 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, Sandstein 17:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's something like 270K google hits for this distinctive name, which is a big enough iceberg to net a reliable sources snowcone. Most of the hits are empty calorie pop culture blogs, of course. Here's one that looks worthy for our purposes at AfD, LA FASHION WEEK. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. Chicken banana also reveals numerous hits. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave ya a source and you snip and chip at at my thinking... Do you care to comment on the source I cite or do you just want to run random Google searches about nonsense phrases??? The principle is simple: the bigger the mass of possible sources, the higher the likelihood of sources that pass muster. Even if it's 1 out of 10,000 hits being "good," that's still 27 winners in this case. It's a pretty simple principle, called sampling. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voting again to keep. Tristan MacManus, also from the 'troupe' has his own article, and he also doesn't have much of a career listed (DWTS) making up over half the article swinquest (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination cites WP:ONEVENT with claims that the single season 13 DWTS professional appearance is insufficient for notability. Whether a single appearance as a DWTS professional conveys notability need not be addressed, however, because the nominator's claim is false. Her season 14 DWTS appearances, role in Burn the Floor (which need not be a redlink) on Broadway, and performance at the 2006 Latin Championships are certainly adequate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 4 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chembora

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

No citations, so it's difficult to tell if it's at all notable. JoelWhy (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article and my search found nothing that supports the claim that this is "an ancient martial arts center."

Comment: Is there a spelling mistake here. "Chembra" can be seen on map here -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since a WP article already exists for Chembra and this article is unsourced, this might even be a speedy delete. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and no sources provided (WP:BURDEN). Janggeom (talk) 11:19, 6 April 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. Sandstein 08:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 hour rule

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

This page was proposed for deletion due to being a "neologism". I however, as the author, think that the page has potential. I learnt about the term in media class at high school, and was surprised nothing had been written about it on Wikipedia. I would like the wider community's opinion on this. — This nomination and rationale by Coin945 (talk) 04:51, March 22, 2012‎ (UTC)

Comment. I'll look for sources, but I'll be bluntly honest: NONE of the sources on the article are usable as reliable sources that show notability for this idea. A comedic article on Cracked is not considered to be something that would show absolute notability or even legitimacy for the idea. They're a known site, but not considered to be a WP:RS, especially not in this context. The other sources involve pieces of movie scripts and forums, none of which are RS either. This just comes across as a lot of original research.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. The thing is, there aren't any reliable sources to show that this term is used in Hollywood or that this article is anything other than original research. None of the links in the article are usable at all per WP:RS. Here's my rundown on the articles used:

[24] This is a Q&A forum similar to Yahoo Answers and isn't considered a reliable source per WP:RS since anyone can answer it with whatever they wanted and claim to be whomever they wanted. It's just not verifiable.
[25] This does mention a rule, but this isn't considered to be a reliable source. It's a random "buy this product" merchant site and isn't considered to be an absolute authority on the subject.
[26] Cracked isn't really considered a reliable source as far as verifiability goes. Notability? Sometimes. I just don't think this really proves it in this situation.
[27] See the rationale above for MovieOutline.com.
[28] This didn't even come up for me at all.
[29] (I think you meant to redirect to this [30]) This is a link to a forum. Forums are not usable as reliable sources for much for much of the same reason that you can't use number one as a RS.
[31] This is a link to a download site for a script. Even without the obvious legal repercussions of linking to a potentially illegal script download, merely linking to a script does not prove anything.
[32] A link to a blog by a non-notable person. 99.9% of blogs are completely unusable as sources unless they're by someone notable or considered to be an absolute and complete authority on the subject. By this I mean that they're the type of person that magazines, books, and scholars quote.
[33] A link to a Disney travel blog. See above reasons.

In the end none of these are reliable sources that prove that this term is anything other than a neologism. I can see where it's in use and where it'd be considered "obvious" but in the end there just aren't enough reliable sources (newspaper articles, books, etc) to show that it's anything other than a neologism. I did a search under all of the different terms and only found one thing that looks like it could be used as a RS and we need way more than one source to show notability. [34]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a recentish meme amongst scriptwriting types. It's hardly a rule. It's hardly even a convention. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the editor who originally tagged the article as a PROD, and I still stand by my initial reasoning, that this is a neologism that has no indication of widespread use. While I have no doubt that a convention like this does exist in screenwriting, I can find nothing to indicate that referring to it as the "1 Hour Rule" is a commonality. In fact, at the time of my initial PRODding, the only three sources didn't even mention this concept by that name. A couple of the sources that have been added since mention the rule, but not only are none of them reliable third party sources, but several of them aren't even talking about the same thing. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term used in traditional formulaic Hollywood-style screenwriting for this pivotal point, in which the protagonist's endeavours are thwarted by a seemingly unsurmountable obstacle or suffer some other major setback, is "first culmination", also known as "midpoint culmination", as it is supposed to occur halfway into the film (which for a two-hour film is indeed after one hour). While I had not encountered the term "1 hour rule" before, incorporating such a dramatic event is indeed considered one of the fundamental rules for writing successful screenplays, as shown by the Google book search hits. --Lambiam 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, I'm fairly certain this concept exists, just not under the name given here. I would see nothing wrong with an article being created on the subject using the proper name, assuming that it is properly sourced, and doesn't take a large portion of its content from a Cracked article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a valid reason for deletion when the content of an article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. However, that does not seem to be the case here: essentially the same content can be found in reliable sources; if the title is a problem, the page can be moved. I do think, though, that this should be part of a larger article on the Hollywood formula for screenplay structure, to which the current page could redirect. An issue with the current text is that it does not recognize that the formula is not suitable for all film scripts. --Lambiam 23:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree with Lambiam. It did occur to me while researching that the amount of info on the internet was miniscule compared to how global and wellknown I assumed the concept was - but I plowed on regardless. It makes a lot of sense if there is a much more common term for the concept. I like the idea of having an article on "the Hollywood formula for screenplay structure" - we can talk about the formula that, say, every rom-com follows - why hollywood wants it every time & why it works everytime. I support a redirect to First culmination or to something like: Conventions in Hollywood with more reliable sources. (Can't help feeling that it's a rather obscure name for the term. Are you sure that's what it's called?)--Coin945 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm fairly sure that the most common name used in studio sessions discussing a screenplay is just "the midpoint" – in that context everyone around the table knows what that refers to. So a possible article title could be "Midpoint (screenplay)". But I see now that we have an article Three-act structure that mentions the concept, calling it "the first turning point", but does not define its position on the time axis as being at the midpoint. With suitable sourcing, the essence of the current article's content could be merged there, essentially stating that the common advice is to have it occur at the midpoint. --Lambiam 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect: This term probably fits into a wide range of articles and likely has multiple names, depending on who you consult in the film industry. At your film school or media class it might be called the "1 hour rule" but in a studio or stage it might be called the "first culmination" or even have no name at all. The article topic is too small to warrant a whole article, so this topic should be found in a section of an existing page and/or be a redirect to an existing/nonexistent page. First culmination sounds good, it sounds like an industry name of more appropriate tone, we could write it up so it fits the definition of "1 hour rule". BlowingTopHat 06:02, 23 March 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, joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes sense but no good sources are provided to establish notability. Borock (talk) 04:09, 31 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayha Exchange

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

Previous Prod with rationale "Unreferenced article whose only claim to notability is a local award which falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH.". An IP removed the Prod along with the maintenance tags but failed to provide either Edit Summary or article improvement. So bringing to AfD on the original rationale. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, not claim of notability. Unremarkable company lacking coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google News or Book hits, 2 Google search hits and neither cover the company at all. RadioFan (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I notice a COI situation. I also wonder that they don't seem to have pages on Facebook, MySpace, AboutUs and the others - if they do, they're not coming up on Google. For an outfit in online advertising, they seem very reticent about themselves. I've seen non-existent companies with a greater web presence. Otherwise, per RadioFan. Peridon (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD notice restored after an IP removed it RadioFan (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the first time: I count 5 AfD removals by the article creator plus by 2 by IP editor so far. AllyD (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-corp. Hairhorn (talk) 02:32, 3 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Shaima Alawadi

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

Non-notable death; Wikipedia is not the news; LedRush (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided :The death is quite recent, and most articles are linking this with the Martin death. Therefore independent notability of this event is questionable. But, most importantly, WP is not the news. However, the death is covered in tons of news sources, just not in great detail and not independently. This one could go either way for me.LedRush (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. While it is too soon to tell and coverage may indeed drop after a while, I suspect that it will prove to be notable and continue to be discussed in both news and, after a while, in scholarly books on sociology of the USA; among other things, if it's prosecuted as a hate crime it will be the first murder of a Muslim woman that's officially a hate crime in the United States. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - as always with these kinds of AfDs its to early to predict future non-notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted it is news, but there is enough news to write an article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps rather than delete this story, it should be featured. Then maybe it will be notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. we do not create articles in case something is notable in future as argued by keep voters. Every murder creates a spike in media coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I argue that it is notable now. If it isnt recieving the same attention in a few months time then yes I agree with you an AfD should be done again. But unless someone here as a crystal ball to see into the future with the article should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, being notable means long term notability as per WP:EVENT. it is in fact too early to predict future notability. You cannot assume media spikes now are notable in future as per WP:CRYSTAL Unless you think every murder, fatal bus crash deserves a WP article. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally have a very strict view of WP:EVENT and !vote to delete most news-y stuff, because (just as you say) a spike of coverage now doesn't indicate lasting notability, but I do think this one will stay notable because of the uncommon circumstances. Attractive white women go missing and rockets hit Israel all the time, and there's always a flurry of coverage that rarely lasts beyond the original case (I mention these types because we have loads of articles on them when they're completely non-notable), but this may be the first of its kind and even if it isn't it's likely to be an example case in sociology studies and such. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notable in the future, comment I am not !voting on this afd, as I have not done WP:BEFORE, but I would say that "it might be notable in the future" is not a valid keep reason. That type of logic is an open door policy for every article anyone could ever want to make. They all could be notable in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is very notable and should remain!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.215.2 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for merging to Islamophobic_incidents#United_States_of_America for now. I don't think there has been any persisting coverage of this event yet. This article can always be re-created if the crime keeps popping up in the media. VR _talk 05:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT, all cited sources are from within two days of each other (WP:PERSISTENCE), and it's unclear what the wide geographical scope of this could be. Can be recreated if this is still in the news a few months from now. Sandstein 08:03, 7 April 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. As for the "don't delete" !vote, having independent reliable sources is a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia.Rlendog (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viancey Taveras

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

Promotional article created by SPA who keeps removing maintenance tags. Subject has no GNews or GBooks hits, and the small number of Ghits are either mirrors of the Wikipedia article or the subject's own, self published PR. No reliable sources. Subject fails all relevant SNGs as well as the GNG by wide margins. Previous versions of the article, under the title Viancey, have been repeatedly deleted, and this may be subject to speedying as a repost, as well as calling for a bit of salt. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are his Myspace and a directory entry. No evidence of notability. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly no notability demonstrated. Go for speedy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete He is a signed artist and has some notability. Just needs more source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info247 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 April 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Beširović

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Jared Preston (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:50, 30 March 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 redirected to Drunk on Love (Rihanna song). Alternate capitalizations are perfectly legitimate uses for redirects. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk on love (Rihanna song)

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

The title contains the wrong capitalisation and the article has since been created in mainspace here: "Drunk on Love (Rihanna song)" Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:13, 30 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Demo

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

This page should be deleted as demo recordings are generally non-notable.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had an admin have a look at the version before it was deleted in 2006, he confirmed that the versions were different enough to not be eligable for deletion via {{db-g4}}. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced album of unclear notability, apparently an unreleased demo. Dialectric (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this demo; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 21:16, 31 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Demo

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

This should be deleted as demo recordings are non-notable--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had an admin have a look at the version before it was deleted in 2006, he confirmed that the versions were different enough to not be eligable for deletion via {{db-g4}}. I can't answer for the 2009 deletion discussion though.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced album of unclear notability, apparently an unreleased demo. Article has been afd'ed as delete twice already. Dialectric (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this demo; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator claims that demos are inherently non-notable; this reason is invalid; Blink 182's Buddha is most certainly notable, for example. It is true that demos are frequently non-notable, but it is not because they are demos, it is because demos frequently fail to meet notability criteria due to their underground nature. Unfortunately, in this case, he's right for the wrong reason, and the demo is indeed non-notable. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the nominator, I am aware that there are exceptions (especially for demos from some bigger bands) but as a general rule, they are presumed to be non-notable unless proven otherwise, and that is what I meant in my nomination comment--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 5 April 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. AfD closed as out of process. This Afd arose from a request from a legal authority to delete an article and should have been referred to the WMF, whose legal counsel can determine whether or not it is legally necessary to comply with the order. The advice from the WMF was that no order had been made, this was just a request from a UK police force. Closed without prejudice to a further nomination relating to Wikipedia policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sian O'Callaghan

AfDs for this article:

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

Law enforcement in the UK has requested deletion of this page in order to mitigate pre-trial publicity and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The page can be restored later if the event remains notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This request seems reasonable. Specific details may be both wrong and prejudicial. I note no editing of the article for 6 months; it seems public interest in the matter is negligible. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your nomination counts as your !=vote, so you should strike your second post of support for the deletion. Edison (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reading through it for a second time I see there is information that could cause issues which I missed during my first pass, so I completely agree it should go. I know here is not the place for such a discussion, but I wonder if we shouldn't have some rules to cover this sort of thing as a lot of these types of articles tend to get created, and a good deal of them appear while legal proceedings are still ongoing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can be discussed in some appropriate forum, whatever that is. I did not feel comfortable simply stiffing them when it is a perfectly reasonable request. If it involved political corruption it would be an entirely different, and unacceptable, thing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and strongly object to reguest. Thank you Fred Bauder informing us of the the request.
<rant> I did not know British law enforcement had the right to censor the Internet. Or, in fact I did: just recently an article that used a photo by me disappeared from the on-line version of Daily Mail. I have been wondering how the request, most likely originating from Mart Laar, reached the editorial staff of Mail Online. I now see that "British law enforcement" was part of the chain. I am not arguing against censorship, I can well imagine living in a world where censorship is the rule of the land. What I most object to is sneaky censorship done under a imaginary cover of "freedom of speech." For this freedom we have given up a number of other rights. Let's stick to it! </rant>

An Estonian war veteran is an entirely different subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the suspect is convicted, this would be a case of a serial killer. British serial killers are notable. I cannot see this story going away anytime soon.

Britain places sever restrictions on reporting of crime cases before or during the trial. A moral dilemma often encountered is when foreign media publishes details that would be illegal to publish in Britain and this information reaches Britain over the Internet or by other means. I can see no such problem in this case; all the sources used are high quality British sources.

If something really needed to be done in this case then a possible solution would be courtesy blanking with possibly locking of the article or even hiding the version history for the duration of the trial. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy, that would allow deletion of the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What they actually requested was removal of information about the investigation during a certain time frame. I've put it up to the community for consideration. Blanking and protection is one possibility. Hiding of the history goes beyond deletion, even administrators could not see it, but like deletion is reversible following trial. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia should never fall for pressure from outside requests for censoring of material. Also its notable and within WP:GNG so to delete it would go against Wikipedia policys that has been placed there by the community. And is the user who placed this AfD here really suggesting censorship of sourced information already available all over internet? Soon we will have thousands of requests by people who are mentioned on Wikipedia wanting to do some censoring about their lives.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Tough if someone outside WP wants it removing. Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lugnuts has it right. If this alleged "law enforcement" (sounds fishy to me) has a real reason, they'd be contacting the foundation. Nothing in policy supports removal of this article. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The authenticity of the request is unquestionable. They contacted the Oversighters. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wait, what? Seriously "Law Enforcement"? Juries are directed not to read up on cases, and if they do then there are untold sources for which Wikipedia is not responsible. If there was prejudicial material, it should be removed, and if it was being edited by those pushing POV then it should be protected / locked - no more. Koncorde (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing in the policy supports removal of the article. It should not be "censored" David J Johnson (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not a deletion rationale. It is possible that there are problems with specific details in the article, but these should be brought up individually. It is also more than possible that the event is not notable, but that would have to be discussed in a new AFD, I believe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the suspect is charged with another crime I wonder if this is not an issue of the need for a news blackout so as not to prejudice the outcome of a second trial - if, indeed, they intend to try the two cases separately. Previous similar instances of this have meant a ban on reporting until all legal proceedings are complete so the suspect is seen to receive a fair trial. As Wikipedia is a media source like any other the same rules must surely apply, and if I am right then presumably they'll be asking all British based media with online content to take it down.

I know I appear to be in the minority on this, but my gut feeling is that we should remove this content as requested with a view to restoring it at a later date, perhaps also liaising with the agency concerned for advice in that respect. We can either do that by deleting the entire article, or at the very least the information they are concerned about. However, I understand this would set a precedent and potentially open the floodgates for other similar requests.

This is actually the second high-profile suspicious death to attract controversy recently, so as I hinted above there may be a need to develop a long-term strategy for dealing with articles of this nature, though I have no firm ideas on what we could do. I think the place for that could be BLP, though I'm not entirely sure. I'll investigate today and perhaps open a discussion there later. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators would apply. I would hate to see this guy go free because he can't get a fair trial. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators does apply. The article and its talk page have been edited to conform to its requirements. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have opened a discussion here so feel free to add your thoughts guys. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey so you just simply censored this article without considering not doing it until a consensus had been reached on this discussion? It makes me wonder were Wikipedia is heading.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People may also find this and this of interest. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No gag order, no secret injunction. However, once there is a secret injunction there is a much harder problem, including our inability to discuss the matter even in our confidential forums. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would make things more difficult and I wasn't suggesting either of those are currently in place because, as you say, we wouldn't be able to discuss the topic. But I think that everyone who's screaming censorship should read these articles because there are very good reasons why information is sometimes suppressed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing happens quite a lot. By way of example here are a couple of recent cases that have been subject to reporting restrictions. [35] [36] Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore previous text. The original article remains accessible through the Google cache function, and spot-checking of the references, including some from the BBC, indicates that UK news media reporting of the case remains online. Absent some credible explanation from the party requesting this suppression of factual information here while comparable local media accounts are not suppressed, the request appears unsupportable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the 20 references in the previous version of the article, five of them have just recently gone off-line; two from the Guardian two from The Telegraph and one from SKY News. The sources that are missing seem to be the ones that suggest link between this and another murder case. It is of some concern to me that the article on Censorship in the United Kingdom makes no mention of the mechanism at work here. It should certainly be covered in that article. <rant>An automatic mechanism that enables the government to take down any story could easily be misused, and I believe it has. </rant> -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and futher objection to the way this is now handled. The locked and censored page now states This page has been indefinitely protect in order to conform to the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators, giving at least a very strong impression that this is community decision or at least follows community guidelines. This is NOT the case. The policy cited does not mandate this drastic form of censorship nor does it make any mention of special treatment of British crime suspects. Do we start bowing to legal demands form every country? Should we delete Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 because it is a collection of criminal hate speech and misinformation? The hat note on the page should clearly state that the decision to censor the page lies with Wikimedia Foundation of the oversighters. It should also explicitly mention the request with a reference number or at least a date, so that the censorship could be challenged in a British court of law. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article history is not oversighted. Any administrator may view it. There is no English court order, only the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators. British law enforcement courteously requested, but did not demand, removal of prejudicial information in order that the defendant could receive a fair trial. Originally, I thought there was no way within policy to remove the material, but Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators allows it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that you acted here in a double role: first you acted as an oversighter, but then you instead decided to act a normal administrator. For transparency it would have been far better for you to wait for some other administrator to take the necessary action. I cannot see how you can site community support for the level of action you took. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone ever goes on trial for the killings associated with the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 we can help with that too... User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you are unable to even understand the point makes me feel that you would be willing to use censorship to enforce of one POV but unwilling to do it for a different POV. How sad. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully restore article - I would suggest that Fred Bauders last edits are undone. Now is not the time to start censoring information on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted.^[1]Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators

User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that currently there is no information only speculation, innuendo, and bullshit ... Oh wait a second ... a perfect combination of wikipedia BLP material - carry on. John lilburne (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Fred and Paul. --J N 466 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per above (including Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid aggregator). —MistyMorn (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Wikipedia is not obligated to follow UK law and it's highly disturbing to see this proposal for deference. Since lack of notability is not being asserted here, there's no policy basis for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar shenanigans occurred following the Murder of Joanna Yeates, after large amounts of nonsense appeared in the UK tabloid press. This resulted in a series of successful libel actions and contempt of court proceedings by the Attorney General. This is probably the driving factor behind the current police request. The real problem for Wikipedia is that there is not enough to say at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no valid argument for deletion presented. Would restore to most recent, cited, version as well. Reso lute 15:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no valid argument for deletion presented.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and restore per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If there is something that needs to be removed, we can solve that on talk page.--В и к и T 15:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law_enforcement_requests_article_removal. J N 466 16:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And ANI discussion regarding whether full protection is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are they kidding? There's no policy or guideline reason for deleting this article. Can anyone see the damage that could be done if we delete this article for that reason? We'd have dozens of articles being nominated on the whim of the nominator based on non policy arguments. Unless there is a good policy reason why this article should not exist, then this should be dropped. JOJ ^Hutton 17:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / keep but without restoring content. We shouldn't be slaves to our policies and guidelines. The reason to temporarily remove this article (either completely or at least the majority of the content) is a matter of common sense. Ensuring someone gets a fair trial is important. We don't have to remove the content, we don't have to acceed to the request to do so - but in my opinion it's still the right thing to do. WJBscribe (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a BLP article running during a UK murder trial or police investigation is fertile ground for disaster, as Murder of Joanna Yeates and Death of Baby P have shown. These articles survived despite all the attempts to add material with libel, privacy and contempt of court issues. At the moment, the deaths involving the man CH are probably not notable enough for a full article, but the UK police request to suppress material available in reliable sources is unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles are worthless. Night Ranger (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the opinion that "allegations" make for very bad encyclopedia articles, especially when they impact living people (WP:BLP). And with the hope that this will be a precendent dor other such "allegation" articles entirely, especially ones which attract POV editing. Collect (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is silly. The coverage on this subject is very, very more than enough to meet notability requirements. And the request from the police is pretty much worthless. We're getting our information on the investigation from reliable sources. Us putting that information here or not doesn't affect the fact that the information is still being stated in those sources, so it is already out there and everyone is already reading it. Silverseren^C 19:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the information is stated in those sources – as in yesterdays newspapers or as in WP:RS. Many of the on-line versions of those sources are however fast disappearing because of this censorship action. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're not censored and we should not encourage requests like this by acting on them. If we do, we're going to get people wondering what's been deleted, and trusting us less. And Fred Bauder takes too much on himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restore, unlock in whatever order you like. Information can be suppressed on WP either by WP:OFFICE or by community consensus. But, since barely any information has been given to the community about who is asking for this action and why, a community consensus can hardly be expected. FormerIP (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore There has been according to Fred Bauder, a request from some officials in the UK to censor a Wkikpedia article, which was previously sourced to reliable sources. The servers are not in the UK, and I have seen no indication that such requests have the force of law. There is no more reason to comply with it than if officials in any other country made a request to censor some article. BLP concerns can be handled by requiring reliable sourcing of any controversial statements, and by using terms such as "alleged" rather than making factual statements of guilt. Edison (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are not answerable to those who requested the article's deletion. There are not reasonable grounds here to censor WP in order to quell the unreasonable fears of trepidatious officials. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had not heard of this murder until I saw this discussion, and I have since poked around on the internet and learned a lot about the accused--so this has the potential to kinda backfire, as censorship usually does. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. BLPCRIME applies to low profile individuals and not to well known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.

Comment Raised at WP:AN Death of Sian O.27Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 1 April 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 and salt. Already discussed twice at AfD, both resulting in a consensus to delete, and nothing about the latest version changes the validity of the reasons given in those two discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpark Villa

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure if this location is of any significance JoelWhy (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as CSD G4. —Al E. ^(talk) 13:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 March 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 King of Limbs. v/r - T P 20:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Codex (song)

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

The article has little content. The song is not a single or otherwise notable enough to warrant its own page; it is already covered in the King of Limbs album article. The article has only one citation (to a YouTube video) and makes nebulous claims of little value: "received positive feedback from Radiohead fans", "has received over 1 million views altogether on YouTube". The article claims it is the "second best selling song" from the album; this is confusing, as no singles were released from the album, unless this is counting individual iTunes downloads or some such, but there is no citation listed and this alone is not grounds for notability. Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good song, though. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination --Kristjan Wager (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod removed with no reason given, and inclusion criteria for this article are not met – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially convinced per nom statement that no singles were released from album. Checked it, seems correct. Not notable in its own right. Lord Roem (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King of Limbs, per WP:NSONGS for non-notable songs. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 6 April 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Sin

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet notability, especially as per WP:BAND (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again. tedder (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Tedder - nothing seems to have changed since the last time this was deleted, the available sources are all still unreliable, lots of first-party stuff or social media cites. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:52, 2 April 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ClarkHuot/Cocoon

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

No suggestion anywhere of notability, even under WP:CORP. As it sits, it's barely a business directory listing, contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only possible way for the sources to be less reliable to establish notability, is if they were written in crayon. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. tedder (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the “What Wikipedia is Not,” rules, the article is written a neutral tone; all information is verifiable through the citations provided; third-party sources listed are perfectly credible, including Marketing Magazine, the Winnipeg Free Press, Design Edge Canada, and more; with an office in New York and in Winnipeg, Canada (the largest agency in Winnipeg), ClarkHuot is not a “garage” company. With regard to relevancy, the article is perfectly relevant to businesses and organizations in Canada and the U.S. The article is also on par with other current Canadian advertising company pages, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleublancrouge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_North_Communications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampoline_(advertising_agency) Open to productive suggestions on how this could be improved. 209.177.103.146 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — 209.177.103.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Should probably be noted that the account that created this is now confirmed as a sockmaster, and a paid group account. 86.** IP (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's helpful if you provide the links/diffs when you give that info ;) And yes, you are 100% correct. User:Expewikiwriter, who created it here [37]. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:46, 3 April 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 Cathy O'Brien. —SW— ^soliloquize 15:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch programming

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

WP:Original research; referenced only with external links to blogs making unverifiable claims of a sub-program of Project MKULTRA and Project ARTICHOKE. Can't find any coverage online of the subject from WP:Reliable sources. See also Cathy O'Brien#Project Monarch: currently Monarch Project and Project Monarch redirect there. Proposed deletion was contested by article's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Redirect: Redirecting to Cathy O'Brien would be more useful than deleting. K2709 (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I understand it, the article's not specifically about Project Monarch, but the mind-control technique from which the Project took its name. Whether or not this has any place in an encyclopaedia is another matter, but I don't think redirecting to either Cathy O'Brien or Project MKULTRA would be appropriate. Perhaps some info on Project Monarch could be added to Project MKULTRA, though, if reliable sources turn up (which doesn't look likely). Anyway, I don't know how this sort of thing is normally handled, so I'll hold off from !voting for now. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's the project to develop the mind control technique or the technique itself seems largely irrelevant to me; both are essentially fictions with no discussions in any real sources - just blogs, online fora and other unreliable sources. As far as I am aware Project Monarch isn't believed to actually exist, at least not by anyone with a shred of credibility, and thus inclusion in Project MKULTRA is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purge and rinse, and wipe the minds of all users who may have seen this. This forbidden knowledge must not be revealed to the unIlluminated masses. --Lambiam 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to Cathy O'Brien. Subject doesn't have the level of notability to support a standalone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect : Unintelligible gobbledygook, notable only in regard to Cathy O'Brien's delusions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; in fact, any objections my snowball close and a bold redirection? [38] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 30 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food Valley

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

Contrary to what one might think, this is not a geographical name (a Dutch region with an English name would probably be weird enough to be notable). FoodValley is according to its homepage a collaboration between 8 municipalities. The only (non-independent) sources available are two different homepages, a page on the website of the province financing the collaboration, and an abstract of a 1-year research project in a database of unclear importance/relevance (Narcis). No indication FoodValley has any notability whatsoever (note that the Dutch WP does not have an article either). Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNews turns up quite a few references to the Food Valley project in Dutch publications, especially De Gelderlander.[39] In a New Zealand paper I found a couple of related articles about a regional plan there to establish a similar collaborative organization, "Based on a project in the Netherlands known as Food Valley".[40][41] GBooks and GScholar also turn up substantial coverage of the Food Valley around Wageningen,[42][43], this one for example[44]. Some references also turn up in Italian, apparently about a similar project for a "food valley" (also named in English) around Parma. [45] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Arxiloxos. Added article from De Gelderlander. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable, even though I suspected it was a hoax at first. Borock (talk) 04:12, 31 March 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. v/r - T P 20:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maynard (Australian media personality)

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

Seems to be some obscure local DJ. Very few references can be found. Only one on imdb.com. Not notable. A significant contributor to the page was the subject himself. Check the history page for user Maynardox. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nationally broadcasted Triple J DJ back in the pre-google days, so no real surprise that he isn't well covered online. The-Pope (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, if he was notable then, you'd think I could find more on the guy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that between 1987 and 1995 (when he was the on air as doing the breakfast or sunday arvo show on the Australian national youth radio network) that Google didn't exist? Australian newspaper archiving is very poorly covered online between 1960-2000, especially the 1990s. Since then, if you only measure him on his recent work, then he may not be notable (although the foxtel hosting stuff probably is). The strange name syntax of "F#" (F-sharp) may not help in the searches, but I've asked someone with access to a non-google news archive service to help search other databases. The-Pope (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT doesn't cut it as a reason for keeping. There is nothing wrong with giving offline sources. 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was countering your "obscure DJ" reason for deletion. Ironically WP:IDONTKNOWIT redirects to the same section and could sum up the opening line of your nomination. I also gave a specific reason why WP:GHITS should not be used in this case and also mentioned that I've asked another editor to try to find offline sources. If you want to know how he may qualify to be kept (assuming that the offline search doesn't easily meet WP:GNG), then WP:ENT #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" would easily apply for the late 80s early 90s period and we are working towards getting refs to prove it. The-Pope (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly received plenty of quality coverage during his Triple J years, though as The-Pope points out, not an awful lot is online. Here's a couple [46] [47] Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Just checking the two sources supplied, they seem to be close, or if not close, at least somehow related to the subject's place of employment. 2JJJ is a radio network owned by the ABC, and both of the sourced articles are from the ABC website. Just wondering if this may have some baring on the sourced articles integrity? Whitewater111 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really doubting the integrity of the Australian national public broadcaster? Would you do the same to the BBC or NPR? Yes, they aren't independent sources (as stated above we are looking for offline sources for that), but the online ABC sources absolutely confirm his employment details and are absolutely reliable. The-Pope (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much doubting the integrity of the ABC it self, but I was more concerned as the articles being sourced from the place of the subjects employment, they might of been written in a somewhat embellished manner. If more online and offline sources can be found independent of the place of employment such as the one you noted with the Sydney Morning Herald, then I'd be happy to withdraw my vote Whitewater111 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known DJ at the time on a national radio station. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tunn - Maynard was a Triple J DJ shortly before Tunn, and the availability of sourcing through the Factiva database should be similar. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources I found are below. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doherty, Ben (21 September 2001), "Maynard To Replace Lavaring", Newcastle Herald

SQUIRES, TONY (16 September 1994), "RETRO-CTIVE GIT", Sydney Morning Herald

HOWELL, ANNE (7 September 1989), "MADD, MAD WORLD OF MAYNARD", Sydney Morning Herald

I'd be interested to read up on those sources, I've just never heard of the guy. Any chance these articles can be scanned and placed online? I just done a search on google, and the National Libraries "Trove" project, and couldn't find the articles there, I thought they might of at least scanned them in there. Whitewater111 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 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. Hit 'relist' when I meant to hit 'keep' by accident. Sources, it should be noted, appear to establish notablity, but really need to be added to the article itself... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bílinská Kyselka

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

Non-notable mineral water. No reliable sources to show notability. G-searching turns up a lot of WP:SPSes and trivial mentions, but nothing reliable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've noticed this image. It is an old advert. The inscription says that Bílinská kyselka won a Gold Medal in an exhibition in Dresden in 1911(!). The book Města a městečka v Čechách na Moravě a ve Slezsku: díl A-G, (1996), p. 120 (Cities and Towns in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, part A-G) has following information: "In the 17th and 18 century, Bílinská kyselka was a well known mineral water in many cities in Europe, where it was delivered." Another book, Sborník geologických věd: Hydrogeologie, inženýrská geologie: Svazky 4–5 (1966), 27 (Proceedings of Geological Sciences: Hydrogeology and engineering geology: Volumes 4-5) says: "Bílinská kyselka is one of the most renowned mineral waters in Czechoslovakia; it is produced for more than 200 years." Bílinská kyselka is mentioned in the Masaryk's Encyclopedia: People's Encyclopedia of General Knowledge and in other sources, including medical publications. I found the information on the first page of the G-Books result for "Bílinská kyselka". Btw, the word kyselka in the title shouldn't be capitalized. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This mineral water is sharing the notability of the town Bílina (for its spas), not by "borrowing" notability, but by creating notability. In this sense, the user Vejvančický provided some reliable sources. Yaratam (talk) 16:38, 25 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Masala

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

Open mic nights at local clubs aren't intinsicly notable. If anything the club should be the notable part, but this one doesn't seem to have an article, which is telling about the notability of its open mic night. Obviously some coverage will exist regarding the existence of it, but we don't have an article about The Purple Onion's open mic night.... tldr is not notable, no reliable coverage out of normal nonnotable stuff in normal channels. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This open mic is notable because, among other reasons, it is the subject of a tv show in Singapore.Gchuva (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the TV deal might make it notable...except that I can't find any RS to verify it. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I have sourced this. See the updated article.Gchuva (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verifiable then, but the source itself (WATSinside Singapore) doesn't lend itself well to establishing notability. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:01, 29 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Hayes

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST Ariconte (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge I can't find any usable sources which aren't already in the article, but of those, the Chicago Tribune article is definitely suitable for WP:GNG, and the Politico and Today Show ones just about scrape through. However, I think the most appropriate solution is to create an article for the Miss Liberty America pageant (which does pass WP:GNG) or Rutherford B. Hayes (politician) (who might pass the guidelines; having the same exact name as the USA's 19th president makes it ridiculously hard to find sources) and merge the content of this article there. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now created the article Miss Liberty America, I'm not convinced it does pass the guidelines - WP:TOOSOON may well apply, since the pageant hasn't actually taken place yet. When it does, I suspect more coverage will appear, but for now... well, there isn't a great deal; probably just enough to pass WP:GNG but not by much. I won't contest an AfD or PROD applied to that article, if other editors think it appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL - may not be ready yet for prime time. The references are truly weak. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 9 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 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) 10:18, 22 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 20:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patalesvara Siva temple – I

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

No proper sources provided. Fails notability-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 05:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:33, 15 March 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) 10:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added one reference, if that helps. Thanks. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 09:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Patalesvara Siva Temple – II and Patalesvara Siva Temple – III. The article quotes a book as a reference. Although sources may be insufficient, I feel that shouldn't be a reason to delete an article on 13th century temple. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:07, 26 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Patalesvara Siva Temple – II and Patalesvara Siva Temple – III. Someone should give a helping hand to the the editor who is contributing material to Category:Hindu_temples_in_Bhubaneswar. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:56, 30 March 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 Free (Dani Harmer song). v/r - T P 20:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes (Dani Harmer album)

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

Albums which were never actually released are only notable in exceptional circumstances, and there is no evidence this is such a case. Nothing worth merging to Dani Harmer#Music that isn't already there, and title is a very unlikely search term. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask what the notable in exceptional circumstances are? Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unreleased album can be notable if it has received exceptional amounts of coverage in reliable third party sources, but this only happens in very rare cases -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Merge the information in Background into Dani Harmer; there's a little bit there that isn't in her main article. The rest of the article on the album is the tracklisting, which is entirely non-sourced and not likely notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or how about merging the page with Free (Dani Harmer song) it could go on the bottom of the page titled unreleased becuase the album itself is related to the single becuase the album contains the single. Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 20:28, 6 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:42, 15 March 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) 10:21, 22 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Empire Club

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

Speedy delete? Total nonsense. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's hardly nonsense, but it does seem non-notable - there are a ton of mentions in the media (books, news), but nothing approaching significant coverage that I can find. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a United Empire Club on Piccadilly in London, which the 1915 edition of Baedeker (!) describes as for tariff reformers. There is another book source which apparently confirms that it was founded in 1904. There was also a United Empire Club in Toronto founded in 1875, and probably others. I can see no evidence of continuity between these and the body now going by that name, and the ideas of the clubs have nothing in common. I'm sure that there is a lot that could be written about the original United Empire Clubs and the politics of empire which would make interesting reading, but we cannot start from here. The present club has no evidence of notability that I can see, not even its own building. --AJHingston (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In what way is it nonsense? Notable gentlemen's club, many of whose members have listed membership in Who's Who. No idea whether the current club is notable, but it certainly has been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:08, 18 March 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) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nearly nonsense, it talks of "noble families from the United States." And titles of nobility may not be given by other countries the US without Congressional approval! The page is discussing a non-notable topic. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 23:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a London gentlemen's club. It is certainly not nonsense. The reference to "dormancy" perhaps refers to the club having had periods when it had not premises. Such clubs have played an important role in the upper echaelons of London society. The article may well need some tidying up. Please follow the link to its website. Since it is a London club, and admitting only landed gentry and above, the question of what Americans are eligible is a problem for them. Like Necrothesp , I have no idea whehter the present club is notable. The fact that it was notable at an earlier period should be sufficient for keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty, though, is in determining whether it is the same club, and not one sharing the name. Despite the assertions on the website that it was founded in 1904, there is actually nothing at all there concerning ownership, constitution, etc of the present 'club', nor can I find any trace of that online. If the original club were defunct there would be nothing to stop a private individual or company trading under that name. There is always a reason to be extemely cautious about a website engaging in trading activity which gives no clue as to ownership and which is operating via a company that specialises in web marketing and consultancy even down to the processing of payments. That is true even if everything is legal and above board. The possibility of WP being used as a means of legitimising unproven commercial claims is an important reason why safeguards exist and we have this process. --AJHingston (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever its present status, if it was notable in the past, then the article should remain. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument, but we have to be careful. Take the hypothetical case of two restaurants. One famous and award winning. It closes. Some years later another opens with the same name, but not otherwise connected. We would not be happy with an article about the new restaurant claiming notability on account of its predecessor, and would say that notability is not inherited. Nor would we be happy at an article about the original making reference to the new beyond a statement that they were different establishments. I may be unduly cautious here, but the fact is that we have a case where we seem to have no information about the current 'club' from reliable sources independent of the subject. The situation is even worse than usual, because the website is operated by a third party through whom financial transactions are processed, so we lack even reliable first party information. If the club is indeed based in England there is even a further unusual circumstance since it is normally a legal requirement that those engaged in trade should identify themselves to the customer, yet any statement about its legal status, ownership etc, let alone company registration, seems to me also to be missing. It may be that I have overlooked it, the information may be omitted in error, or there may be some other innocent explanation. But we have to be very cautious because there are occasions when statements are made in BLPs or in reference to companies that prove not only to be unverifiable but actually untrue, and we have to suspect that they were placed in Wikipedia with the deliberate intention to give those claims a degree of veracity. I think we have two choices, therefore. We can retain the article as a stub, but deleting any information which is not known to relate to the original foundation, or to redirect to the List of London's gentlemen's clubs on the grounds that this contains just about all that can reasonably said, unless anyone can come up with more. I favour the latter course, not least because I am concerned that further efforts might be made to introduce information into the article which actually relates to the present entity. For example, I do not see any evidence at all that the original free trade club was composed wholly or mainly of members of the nobility or was particularly secretive, but I can see why it might serve the interests of the operators of the present entity to present it in that way. --AJHingston (talk) 23:37, 26 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Fisher & Co.

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

A quick Google search comes up with about 15k hits, the total of the searches in western and hebrew script. Looks to fail WP:GNG Notability is not inherited from mr. Eliyahu Winograd.No article about the Parlex Group. The article gives me the idea of an advertisement and selfpromo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the firm is notable. Yes, one partner is, but, as we discussed on the prior related AfD, notability is not inherited. This article was created by the same editor who had created (or perhaps was the primary editor of; with the article gone, I cannot check) the now-deleted Gideon Fisher article, and created it immediately after the Gideon Fisher article's deletion, after being one of only two individuals arguing for its retention. He or she is a WP:SPA editor who has made no contributions outside of promoting this firm and seems determined to have an article on either Fisher the firm or Fisher the individual. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are three factors that justify this article: 1. The firm’s founder is a judge in the ICC court. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is the largest business organization in the world so this directly impacts the notability of the firm. 2. Eliyahu Winograd is a key figure in the firm which directly impacts the notability of the firm. I acknowledge that notability of a person does not transfer to another individual but being a key figure in a firm does directly impact the firm. 3. The firm is the only representative from its country in the Parlex group which is also a large international group. Re your comment about me-I am a new wikipedia editor but do have already several of articles that I created in non-english wikipedias. After the debate about Gideon Fisher it seemed to me that it would be more appropriate to have an article on the firm rather than on the individual and that is why I created this article after the personal one was deleted. Please note that I have no connection to this firm (other than knowing it). Malevs (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. So the fact that one partner is notable, says nothing about the company. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly as Night of the Big Wind says. Malevs's first first point argues for notability inherited from its partner Gideon Fisher; the second point argues for notability inherited from its partner Eliyahu Winograd; the third point argues for notability inherited from Parlex. Because notability is not inherited, none of these are good arguments. The second argument fails on this basis alone, but the other two arguments are on even worse footing, because even absent WP:NOTINHERITED, these arguments are based on claims of notability that have either been refuted (in the case of Gideon Fisher, deleted on notability grounds at AfD) or never established (in the case of Parlex, which has no article and has been twice-deleted, once as a PROD and once as a Speedy WP:A7). TJRC (talk) 18:08, 21 March 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) 10:36, 22 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm wondering why this is continually relisted. Only the editor who created the article seeks to keep it, and all of his arguments are based on a faulty belief that notability is inherited (where in a couple cases the supposedly inherited notability is either not established or refuted). TJRC (talk) 20:56, 5 April 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. v/r - T P 20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bench Rules

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

This is a book about a college basketballer. I'm not convinced it meets the notability requirements for books, doubly so due to the fact that it's self published. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NBOOK Zad68 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 30 March 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 deleted (author's request). Peridon (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Drew

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability criteria at WP:BIO. The sources given are related to the subject and clearly promotional. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Page has been blanked by creator. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 30 March 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. The one "weak keep" !vote does not provide a Wikipedia policy-based rationale for keeping. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Youth Brass Band

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

The notability for this just isn't there. A Google search gets mostly trivial entries, which are often more about the Black Dyke Band with just passing mentions of this one. I think that deletion may be a better choice than the proposed merged, and at least one person at Talk:Black Dyke Band agrees. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently unremarkable brass band that doesn't seem to have even received much local coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considered the merge proposal but there only seems to be one sentence in a Telegraph article sort of linking the two bands. Might be worth redircted to an article of Nicholas Childs if someone creates an article on him, but his claim to notability is at best iffy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- There are lots of county youth orchestras and the like, which are a measn of providing education to young musicians. Some haqve a long organisational endurance, though the personnel will change from year to year as the members move on in age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 30 March 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 Flanders Recorder Quartet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Beets

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

Page was already deleted yesterday via CSD Seduisant (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might be best served as a redirect to Flanders Recorder Quartet, as the band itself seems to have notability but I'm not sure that Beets himself does. I'll look for sources, but a redirect is usually the best idea in these situations.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protected redirect to Flanders Recorder Quartet. I did a search and while the band itself is very notable, Beets is not notable outside of the span of the group. I didn't see any reliable sources that covered him individually outside of the band. I recommend a protected redirect since I have a feeling that the original editor might try to swiftly revert or recreate the article after its redirected, as evidenced by the swift re-adding of the article to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. It also looks like the article has been deleted and re-created three times, not including this current incarnation, if I'm not mistaken, all within the span of about 24 hours. I just wanted any closing admins to be aware of this and that it's highly likely that there will be an attempt to recreate the article if it's not protected.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the quartet. No individual notability. I have removed part of the article which had clearly been copied from the source cited. The article only appears to have been previously deleted once. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never See Tomorrow

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

The subject of this article, an unsigned band, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The three weblinks given as sources are not reliable sources; they are user-generated content that can be created by anyone with internet access. My good-faith search for better sources has not turned up anything substantial. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability found.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but found no sources that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 3 April 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 defunct airlines of Europe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air Italica

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

Fails WP:GNG on its face, even assuming what it says is accurate (cited to unreliable source). An airline that existed for a few years that had one plane? Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to List of defunct airlines of Europe It's true that this will never be more than a stub but the basic facts can be verified and keeping at least a redirect makes most sense. Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 29 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a reliable source and fails WP:GNG.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sourced reliably and dubious notability....William 01:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of defunct airlines of Europe. Failing the GNG doesn't mean that we shouldnt cover it - we should - just that it shouldn't be a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 7 April 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scosche Industries

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

1. Notability not est. in years, 2. Advert Widefox (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's definitely some advertising here, however it might be better to fix the article rather than delete it.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; subject appears to meet requirements set forth in WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search of Google finds only social media and sales sites. Search of Google News finds a few product reviews in the technical press. Nothing at all ABOUT the company. The article has an advertising tone and style but that could be fixed. The lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources cannot be fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 21 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Impact

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

I've looked for WP:RS citations for this and not done well. It might just pass WP:GNG on the basis of the psychological study made on participants by Warwick University, but I find it lacking. The sources I can find seem to be pretty much self referencing and self reverential. So I'm suggesting we delete it as a non notable, albeit large and popular, gathering. It feels to me to be like a particular annual rally for a set of classic car enthusiasts where the car is notable, not the particular event. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have no idea whether this is notable or not, but I do not see the relvance of psychological study made on participants by Warwick University or the allusions to classic cars in the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my search for references the only quasi notable on I found was the psychological study. The classic car rally reference is a simile Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you need to do better than just say it should be kept and mention a general guideline. hat about the article tells you it is notable and verifiably so? Please be precise. WP:BURDEN makes that your responsibility by implication. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the one who did this page and the problem is that there is very little in the way of sources because it is an event that is planned every year by the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches. So, all of this is History that is not really written down anywhere. But it is all accurate. I am just not sure where I can get more sources. To delete it would be a mistake because all of this information came from the original sources. The people who planned and created the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.50.212 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then by definition it cannot have a place here. The sources, such as they are, are all primary sources. Wikipedia does not accept facts unless they are cited in reliable sources. The sources need not be online. Paper based or broadcast media sources are acceptable, but they must be citable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if I can cite this in the places that call for citation the page will stay up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.98.7 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also how long do I have before this page gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.98.7 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guarantees. Consensus is important here. Citing WP:Reliable sources increases the probability that the article is not deleted. But cite poor or primary sources and it is likely to fail. There is very little time left. Work well and methodically, but work swiftly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 6 April 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. v/r - T P 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd's Lunchbox

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

Not notable. I found a few passing mentions in newspapers, but not the significant coverage required to meet the general notability guideline Pontificalibus (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend redirecting it to Gregory Ecklund's entry then. Bluerules (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of East Coast Wrestling Association alumni

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

Unnotable, unsourced listing of an independent wrestling promotion's alumni BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm fully aware that I have been a strong contributor to the article. In hindsight, I just don't see the point of it.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 30 March 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. v/r - T P 17:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Ritz

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

Apparent promotional writing for non-notable business owner. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Bridge Homes NW. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On which subject, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter, on the article's creator. 86.** IP (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability anywhere. Apparently a spam article written by a professional spammer. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No notability. COI-writing. Fails any test for remaining on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - entirely non-notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two good sources showing in the footnotes, I will observe. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources, yes, but two "good" sources? The one by Phil Favorite on the OregonLive blog is highly promotional in tone, and all of Phil Favorite's other posts to the blog are also promotional. It does not look to me remotely like an independent reliable source. The "source" in Builder Magazine is more difficult to assess, as it has been removed from the online version of the publication, and I have no access to a paper copy. However, everything I can see at http://www.builderonline.com/ looks to me substantially promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per above comments.--Aspro (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The motivation behind creation of the article is irrelevant, but a few passing mentions aren't the same as depth of coverage per WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical businessperson, fails WP:BASIC Ms. Ritz or her promoters should wait until she becomes notable enough that a completely independent person writes about her or her business using multiple, substantive, independent, reliable sources. The Oregonian citation is by a "special writer" for the paper's special advertising publications. Usually the Oregonian would be a fine citation, but this citation would only work to establish notability if the article also had a set of multiple independent write-ups about the person. (edit conflict) Also ditto what Ted said. Valfontis (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 5 April 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. v/r - T P 17:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour District

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

A completely unofficial name for an area of the city. The entire article is based on a poll ran by a free newspaper, and has nothing to do with the official naming of a neighbourhood. The name has no connection with any official naming by the city, it's simply a casual vote run by a single paper on what some people would like the area to be called. Canterbury Tail talk 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made an argument as to why the article should be deleted though. There has been coverage in newspapers, not just gridto. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A neighbourhood based on a poll two weeks ago in a free newspaper. While neighbourhoods, and their respective boundaries and names, are always evolving, this has not yet been shown to actually be commonly understood as a separate neighbourhood or as a commonly-used name. Before an article is created, a neighbourhood should be shown through a variety of reliable sources to be widely recognized as a separate and distinct area. I didn't see any of the other sources referring to this as the Harbour District, unless I missed something. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if we can find reliable sources 'reliably'. Take a look at all the neighbourhoods of Toronto articles. Many of them rely on unofficial designations, and are mentioned in the map of neighbourhoods of the Toronto Star. That map was made by user contributions to the Toronto Star. But there isn't any other reliable source. Do we go and delete all of those? The official designations of the City of Toronto are specifically only for government reasons and often conflict with local usage. Our practice to this time has not been to challenge those. Don't see why we have to challenge this one, except to say that 'South Core' could be the appropriate name instead. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point to this Toronto Star map that includes the neighbourhood, as I can't find any reference to it on the Toronto Star site, unless I'm misunderstanding the comment and you mean it's used as a source for other neighbourhood names. Canterbury Tail talk 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is at the bottom of the List of neighbourhoods in Toronto. The map is here. Actually, I think I was going on several years-old memories. A quick check showed there are sources found for neighbourhoods I had concerns about. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides pointing out WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, at least many of those neighbourhood articles rely on more than a two-week old internet poll.Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe the best solution is to take the existing content and add it to the Harbourfront article. Make this and 'South Core' redirect to the section in the Harbourfront article. If more sources are found, we can fork it later. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been shown as a different neighborhood and is developing as such. "South Core" is based upon a real estate moniker. This article is supported by the Toronto WikiProject, and other articles have been written to designate neighborhoods based upon similar information. Wikiworld2 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "supported" by the Toronto Wikiproject, other than the fact someone slapped a tag on the talk page? As for other neighbourhoods, please read WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST -- junk articles don't justify more junk articles. And I am unsure of what sources you are basing your other conclusions. We ca't just go creating articles for every unsubstantiated theory about new neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods are unofficial, but are recognized because they are commonly recongized as such and the monicker has stood the test of time. This one satisfies neither of those principles. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a little ludicrous given that "CityPlace" has been given a shot.i'm sure at first that entry was just as concerning to some people, albeit not of the seemingly thousands who voted for the name in the first place, versus one or two who complain here. the area is clearly referenced in the articles as included - CBC, The Star & The Grid. this s a newly developing part of the city and I wonder if the Wikipedians complaining have even been to this part of the city. definitely a keeper, there are real buildings here being built by real developers. the article on the cbc reference clearly states that this is part of efforts to create a new neighborhood and satisfies for me an entry into Wikipedia. Do the others here complaining even live in the city abecause i can confirm the reality of this new area with my own eyes. Grapejuicedrink (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - New user with no edits other than this deletion discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 03:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - from the article in The Grid; "Nearly a thousand of you [voted], and with one-fifth of the votes, crowned a clear winner: The Harbour District." This area name was voted on by about 200 people in poll in a free newspaper. The name has no merit - certainly there's no indication that the city endorses it. Additionally, the area appears to overlap with Harbourfront. PK T(alk) 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither the CBC article nor The Star article make any mention of this name for the area and are nothing to do with naming a new neighbourhood. Incidentally also in the area being touted in this article as a new neighbourhood, most of the buildings in that area are 10 years old or more, not new builds. Also what is being claimed in this article as this new named neighbourhood may want to check with the rest of the Harbourfront neighbourhood that is clearly labelled all over the area as Harbourfront. Walking by the Harbourfront signs just today there was no indication they are being changed to say Harbour District. Additionally even if it was a new official neighbourhood being created, it doesn't encompass the harbour, it just has what 2 quays into the harbour with the vast majority of the harbour being outside this "Harbour District." 200 people voting in a free newspaper poll and no other references to it as the name of a neighbourhood, officially or not, does not a name and new neighbourhood make. Do any references actually exist of this name outside this newspaper poll? I can't locate any (doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I can't locate them.) All articles must be verifiable, this isn't. Canterbury Tail talk 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the dispute that arises is here is with the name Harbour District - unfortunately, the argument is being misdirected. This is UNDOUBTEDLY a legit new area in Toronto. it might be easier to merge the original post with Harbourfront and fork it as was suggested earlier. I don't agree with this approach. A poll was held, and that certainly outnumbers the three or four Wikipedians here arguing for delete. A poll was held, and the new name was decided. I will agree that the content should be forked at a later date if that's what the general conscience decides. South Core now redirects here. Should the redirect be set up to redirect from this page AND South Core back to Harbourfront (despite that being a verifiable different part of the city)? Wikiworld2 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's hogwash, Wikiworld2, because of the numbers and facts I cited. Less than 0.04% of the city's population (2.6 million people) participated in the poll, and about 0.01% of the city's population voted for the fabricated name. The city doesn't endorse the name, either. The poll was held by a marginal, free newspaper. It counts for nothing. PK T(alk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld2, I think you have completely misconstrued people's comments. It isn't just about the name. And it isn't "undoubtedly a legit new area" - a few media mentions does not a recognized neighbourhood make. It's an area that is effectively a couple of blocks wide, part of Harbourfront, with the South Core office buildings arguably being an extension of the Financial District. And your comments about a silly internet poll taking precedence over consensus here are directly contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 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. The only rationale for deletion was that the season did not exist; it does now. No prejudice against a merge, if contributors should decide that this is actually an extended Season 5 or that iCarly needs only one article. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly (season 6)

AfDs for this article:

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

Season does not exist. Repeatedly re-created. – Confession0791 ^talk 12:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The season is supposed to start on March 24th, a week from now. I'm not as familiar with episode listings, but considering that the season will be starting soon, would that mean that it should be kept? I'm not making a decision one way or another since I'm not very aware of this particular thing, but wanted to voice that the season will be starting incredibly soon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ I'm very confused, here it says that all the episodes from Season 5 are actually from Season 4? Someone needs to get this sorted out first. JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay nevermind Season 5 has not ended yet the two episodes are completely wrong, iApril Fools is actually Season 5 plus the airdate and episode number in series is wrong. JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The show's seasons are very complicated but it's labeling is apparently different in both the filming cycle and airing cycle from Season 3 and onward. There's evidence supporting the network's decision to split the 45 episodes produced in the show's second production cycle into two airing seasons. So this upcoming season while being produced as and being the real Season 5 would technically be airing as Season 6 as other websites have it listed as. - Jabrona - 17:30, 19 March 2012
- Comment on the comment Jabrona, don't tell people that this is definitely the case. I know you care about it, but the fact is, you don't know for sure. Instead, point people to the discussion at talk page. Don't continue trying to push your viewpoint on everyone else. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP didn't the new season already start *weird* AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All of them into a List of iCarly episodes article. There is a huge amount of fancrufty bloat on all of these season articles. Delete the season synopsis openings (my god, it is a 30 minute kid's show, not something deep and arc-worthy like Lost) and cut the episode plots down to 1-2 sentences. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Crystal Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've about had it with all this crap surrounding iCarly. Page protections don't help a bit, because the majority of it is coming from existing registered users. A merge is desperately needed, as it would make everything much, much easier to patrol. Tarc is right. Cut down all of this cruft. Get rid of all of the pointless notes and "absent" labels in the episode summaries. Leave it at 2–3 sentences. There's absolutely no reason for all of the "trivia" in them. An episode summary on the season 3 article even makes a note that Gary Coleman grills were featured in Drake & Josh. Is that really so important? Just merge all six of them and get rid of all the unimportant stuff. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree something has to be done about this. I see that there is no season 6. there is a discussion going on here [48] if we can get an Admins help here I think it would be a good idea. As far as merging all the season into one page, I don't think its a very good idea. The main page was getting to long and thats why it was split to begin with. with all ready 100 episodes it will just be too long. I think it is fine a the monmment. Like I said the season &3 issue has to be solved or 4 & 5 need to be merged into one season.141.110.189.29 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the new season's about to start then there's no reason to delete it - keep it. Unreal7 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 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, —SW— ^chatter 01:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. It was officious silliness to AFD this 6 days before the new season began, and now that the season has begub, there's no earthly or unearthly reason not to have an article paralleling those for the first four, five, or whatever seasons. This isn't the place to sort out the numbering issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz states. Each season should have its own article, its a well-established organizational scheme for TV shows of this duration on wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:51, 30 March 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.

[What_is_a_conviction?-1] Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. BLPCRIME applies to low profile individuals and not to well known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.

[1]