Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 August	25 August >

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hogland House

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

None notable bed and breakfast. Article created by the same single purpose accounted that created War of the Worlds - The True Story. Ridernyc (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the best coverage I could find about this place. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Whpq. While there is verifiability, there is no basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Henry Moore lived in a house called Hogland in Much Hadham. However, McNab Hogland House in Mukilteo, Washington has a one article hit:[1]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:58, 31 August 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomm Quackenbush

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

Unremarkable e-book author. No real indications of notability, no references from independent reliable sources. Google news search on "Thomm Quackenbush" shows zero results. Standard search on the same shows a lot of primary sources, social media, unreliable sources, or simple sales listings. No significant coverage or reviews found from prominent or independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - If this article is about an eBook author that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject then it definitely meets the A7 CSD (Criteria for Speedy Deletion). So therefore, this article does not need to have an AfD discussion. Interlude 65 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't follow. How does it being an E-book de-signify. More and more authors are moving away from paper books, So I'll need you bring me up to speed. Dloh cierekim 00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He actually has a paperback at amazon does that mean he has significance, a lower standard than notability? Dloh cierekim 00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, an author having an Amazon page disqualifies them from speedy deletion. At the same time, don't see him as meeting notability. Intrigued. I'll see how it plays out. Dloh cierekim 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First off, having an Amazon page does not equate to notability. Anyone that has a book published can have an author page on Amazon. Why? Because they are the ones who set one up by providing Amazon with the information. If the authors themselves don't, the publisher does. Even the self-published authors who go through CreateSpace have the ability to set up their author pages. This would pretty much fall under the rounds of WP:PRIMARY at best and doesn't show notability in the slightest. It's the equivalent of the author having a page for themselves on Lulu. I can't stress enough that having an author page on any merchant website is not a sign of notability. It just means that they're more proactive than others are. Heck, even the infamous Gabrielle Chana has her own author's page and I know for certain she isn't signed on with any official agency. To impress how non-special having an author page is, I could publish something right now and create my own author page. It's absolutely no sign of notability. Now apart from that, there is no coverage of this author in any reliable sources. There's a handful of blog reviews but ultimately this author has zero notability and by all rights should've been speedied since again, having an author page on Amazon means absolutely nothing. I'm trying to not be bite-y, but this just isn't any sign of notability enough to warrant removing a speedy.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, publishing is not a sign of notability even if it's through an official publisher or not. (Some authors create their own small publishing houses rather than state outright that they're self-published.) You need reliable sources to show that the author or their books are notable, which just aren't out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to TokyogirlNo one said having an Amazon page equated to having notability. What was said was that being an E-book writer made one suitable for speedy deletion. I would say, once again, that the subject of an article having an Amazon page indicates significance in the article. A much lower standard that notability. I was curious as to why anyone would WP:CSD this article. A published writer article is more significant than such content as say, "My boyfriend is cute." A subject having sufficient significance to preclude speedy deletion is not necessarily notable. In fact, I see no evidence that the subject is notable and never said I did. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 12:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the Thomm Quackenbush subject per A7 and no sufficient justification has been put forth by the non-admin who removed the speedy delete request. There is nothing in the article about Amazon and having an Amazon page does not show importance or significance of the Thomm Quackenbush subject per A7 even if that information were in the article. For the purpose of this AfD, does not meet WP:GNG. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:22, 31 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Maitreya

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

Independent filmmaker who has not yet reached the notability requirements for biographical articles. The references provided are self-published or listings (such as IMDb). It should be noted that the lack of references to reliable, in-depth sources has been pointed out three times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriel Victor Maitreya so if these existed, they probably would have been added by now. My own search for solid online sources have come up empty. Pichpich (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources to establish notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a complete lack of reliable and independent sources to show notability for this director. Ultimately this is just one of several articles created by a potentially COI editor that form a walled garden around this one. There's just no notability here and we can't keep an article on the basis that there might one day be notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:17, 26 August 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TREDIC Corporation

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

Another article copied from a company web site for which they gave proper OTRS opermission. None the less, it is an unsourced article for what is at best a dubiously notable business. We need to find some way of discouraging people from being doing the fruitless work of donating permission for unsatisfactory material. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom is a little snarky, and does not call out any strong reasons for deletion. --MoonLichen (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Unsourced obvious advertising is obvious Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this company. The article reads like an advertisement and if this hadn't been donated with an OTRS ticket, I'd nominate if for speedy deletion as pure advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS only confirms permission to use copyrighted material and so rules out G12. If it's still blatant enough advertising to qualify for G11 then there's no reason to not tag it as such. (Disclaimer: I'm the OTRS agent who handled the article.) VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Google News gives no results, and Google only returns directories, LinkedIn pages, company websites, and other non-independent/non-RS sources. Regarding MoonLichen's comment, although the proposal isn't terribly helpful - unsourced is not reason for deletion, "dubiously notable" isn't the same as "not notable", and we consider articles on their merits rather than deleting them to set an example - we can judge this as not matching policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 27 August 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. Der yck C. 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Gilson Irving

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

He gets a few mentions here and there[2][3][4] and was (I assume) the Livingstone Irving in the Lafayette Escadrille [5], but he fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written because of his participation in the Dole Air Race. If his military service is not noteworthy, it would not be reason enough to delete all references to his other aviation activities.FlugKerl (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've recently written bios of two early aviators and had no trouble finding lots of newspaper coverage. For Irving, not so much. The DSC is nice, but what are his other aviation accomplishments other than crashing at the start of the Dole Air Race (twice)? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Col Irving was the first person to enter the Dole Air Race, lending validitiy to the contest and the new airport built specifically for the race attempt. His support and purchase of the first Breese-Wilde Model 5 was critical to the success of the company, and it's founder Vance Breese who became one of the most important test pilots of the time. Irving and his family are also noteworthy in thier home communities for thier business and political backgrounds. While a successful completion of the race would have been more of an accomplishment, I doubt that we should remove biographies of aviatiors that crashed on signifigant aviation attempts. As an accomplished pilot, his accidents were an indication of the difficulity, technical challenge, and danger that each racer would face. There are plenty of national newpaper mentions of Irving as both a WWI pilot and Dole Air Race Contender. The article is cited from multiple soruces, and provides a framework for those interested in his history to fill in detail with better prose. Please apply to Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications if you want access to more newpapers for additional citations. FlugKerl (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have full access to Highbeam, and having run a number of different searches, can find no mention of the subject in the archives there. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient significant coverage found from non-primary reliable sources for the subject to be notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, & WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with RightCowLeftCoast there is insufficent coverageWP:GNG , also fails WP:SOLDIER --Cameron11598 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been copied to User:FlugKerl/sandbox without attribution. It should be looked at when this discussion is resolved. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:06, 28 August 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shade and Shadow

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

This film does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for films. The references (IMDb, Amazon and the director's website) are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. The article also mentions three reviews two of which I was able to track down Film Threat and Amos Lassen. Film Threat is not a particularly good source and while Lassen has some exposure (in part for all the wrong reasons), his short blurb is more of a plot summary than a review. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addressing article format and removing improper references is a matter for regular editing[6] and does not usually require deletion. Any decent article archived on the director's site is acceptable, as are articles in Film Threat and Fangoria, even if they pan the film, just so long as they are not merely trivial mentions and deal with the film directly and in enough detail so original research is avoided. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly my nomination is about the non-existence of solid references, not solely the fact that all current references are bad. Also Film Threat isn't a reliable source and doesn't indicate notability especially since you can pay them to write a review of your film. Pichpich (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film Threat IS a reliable source for reviews of independent films per consensus decided eldewhere. That you found and offered a link to the page where Film Threat gives instructions for how a filmmaker might send them a screener is fine. The quite minimal $10 or $12 handling fee they request (as do many reliable sources) that a filmmaker pays does not make them unreliable. Film Threat is not a charity. Requiring their own time to be minimally compensated does not invalidate them for being expert, secondary, indepenent, and unbiased. Editors are welcome to examine that page you linked to see that under "Film Submission for Review Frequently Asked Questions", Film Threat explains in some detail that they DO have costs that must be covered, and that paying the minimal cost associated with their time cuts down on frivilous submissions and does not affect editorial content... only that it will receive an unbiased look-see. Period.[7] That reviewers be paid for their work is standard and expected, and does not lessen reliability. Relatedly, I certainly do not think that New York Times or Variety writers work for free. That Film Threat clearly explains the reasons behind their quite minimal fee is to their credit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cannot use Film Threat to assert notability. Wherever that consensus was established, it has to change. The whole idea of evaluating sources is to determine if something has been worthy of notice and noticed by independent parties. If you can pay a third-party to notice you, then coverage by that third-party is meaningless. The Film Threat page actually says "You’re paying to use the service, which is getting your film in front of professional writers so they can review your unsolicited project." In other words, you pay to get noticed. Variety writers get paid but not by directors who want their obscure film to be noticed. Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is being misunderstood here is that a reliable source is determined by its neutrality, reputation for editorial oversite, fact-checking and accuracy, and recognized expertise within their field... and not by how they pay their own bills. A comparison to Variety or New York Times, publications fully supported by advertisement revenue, is apt. What IS expected of any reliable source, just as is explained carefully by Film Threat FAQ page, is that article content be neutral, informed, and unbiased... and most specially that filmmakers have no expecation of any special treatment after paying that whopping $12 handling fee. We do not expect nor demand that reliable sources do their work for free. They are not non-profits. It is reasonable that they be allowed to charge a minimal handling fee. If you disagree, fine... but a discussion about whether or not a sources is reliable enough in context to what is being sourced belongs on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As they are all not non-profits, please ping me when you take Variety, New York Times, Film Threat, and other "for-profit" reliable sources to discussions at the proper venue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But reviews are seldom used to get reliable information on the film since they seldom contain much objective information and are focused on a subjective assessment that we, as an encyclopedia, don't care about. Case in point, what exactly is the reliable information in that Film Threat review? That the film is"so fucking long [the] audience will hate [the filmmaker]"? That it "has some truly disturbing “Ring”-esque moments"? That it has "some full frontal female nudity"? That it has "some interesting acid-trippy camerawork"? No, all this is entirely subjective and is unusable (except perhaps the female nudity bit, more on that in a sec). What we do use reviews for is to establish notability with the assumption that if a film is reviewed, then it has been noticed by a neutral observer. Film Threat destroys that. Note also that the reviewers of Film Threat are typically not "nationally known critics" (the kind we require for WP:NFILM). In this particular case, the reviewer seems to have a written a dozen FT reviews. Furthermore in a reply to the review, the film's director blasts her (8 years after the fact) and though I don't really care to repeat his insults, I do find it interesting that the one piece of objective info about female nudity in the review turns out to be (according to Maitreya) misleading. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're making my point for me. That the filmmaker did not like or agree with the Film Threat review underscores that despite his having paid their quite minimal processing fee, he had no editorial control over what Film Threat would eventually write. Common sense tells us that it is reasonable to expect that a great film would recieve a positive and inciteful review, that a mediocre film would receive a mediocre review, and that a crappy film would receive a scathing review... all reflective of a reviewer's opinion of those film. Acknowledged as experts in offering their opinions, reviews in reliable sources are welcome as significant coverage under WP:GNG. The point to remember is that per policy and guideline we do not judge the truth or not of a source, but instead acknowledge that for good or bad the topic has recieved significant coverage by that source. In agreement with User:Tokyogirl79, and in light of the similar series of poorly sourced articles about the filmmaker and his projects, two reviews and two reviews only (only one being searchable online) are not enough to meet the bar set by WP:GNG and WP:NF. If there were more, we'd be having a different discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point which is that it's likely that some films reviewed by Film Threat would have received no coverage (good or bad) had they not paid the fee and this is what's at stake. Hey, I'm all for articles on mediocre films that get multiple awful reviews (and WP:NFILM is clear) but I think it's reasonable to exclude awful reviews that you bought. Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as New York Times or Variety are incapable of reviewing every film that is ever made... but this is an understood and accepted happenstance and we do not expect that they would have the manpower to review everything ever done. For lesser independent films we fall back to those reliable sources, sources with reputations for accuracy and editorial oversite, which have been established specifically for the purpose of reviewing the lesser films ignored by big media. Wikipedia is not to be about only popular, studio financed and promoted, blockbuster films. I do not agree that the reviews from Film Threat can now be ignored simply because of a minimal $12 handling fee, for even with the handling fee they are proven unbiased and neutral (to many filmmaker's dismay)... but I do agree that one review does not meet WP:GNG's need for multiple. Were there more reviews, good or bad, from other sources, this would not have devolved into a discussion of the one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from whether or not Film Threat is a reliable source, I can vouch that Amos Lassen certainly is not. He's been accused by multiple people over plagiarizing reviews and has been removed from Amazon over this, among other places. That throws his credibility into enough question to where I'd say he's out of the question as far as using as a reliable source. That leaves the Fangoria review and the FT review. I'm not able to find anything on Fangoria to show that they reviewed the film and the only things that come up on a search all point back to the director's site. Now even if Fangoria did review the movie (and I have no reason to believe that this is a lie), that leaves us with two sole reviews for the film. Two reviews are not enough to show notability for this film and there's nothing else out there to show reason as to why this would pass WP:NFILM. This is pretty much just one of many non-notable films that were added to form a walled garden around the film's director. There's also concerns of COI going on here as well, but you can see some of the other AfDs as to that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Despite the attempt in this AFD discussion to vitiate the consensus reached elsewhere, we do have two reliable sources that support the article. However, and in consideration of the WP:Walled garden created around the filmmaker and his projects, our having only 2 reliable sources for this topic falls on the low side of WP:GNG and their being only two available is weak for WP:NF. If or when more are brought forward, the article might be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Not that it matters for this AfD, Film Threat's receipt of money from those connected with Shade and Shadow means Film Threat is not independent of the Shade and Shadow subject so Film Threat's coverage doesn't count towards WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:40, 31 August 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust (2010 film)

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

This movie does not pass the Wikipedia's notability threshold for films. The references provided are to IMDb (not reliable and not indicative of notability), the director's own website (ditto) and a broken link to www.tlagay.com. Google has no trace on that website of pages including the words Gabriel Maitreya or Bloodlust. I was unable to find any third-party coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw this in the theater, and its on Netflix. It's completely legit. There's this gnarly scene where he rips the guy's face off. I won't say any more. I don't want to ruin it for you. --MoonLichen (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a Netflix link? The Netflix engine returned nothing when I searched. I also see no indication that the movie was released in theaters so perhaps you're confusing with some other film. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll look for sources but I want to mention that existing does not mean that this film is notable. I'd also like to state that a review by Amos Lassen probably won't be considered a reliable source when you figure that the guy has been shown to have plagiarized parts of his reviews from various sources to the point where Amazon actually deleted his entire account and review history because there were just so many offenses. I certainly wouldn't consider his reviews to be reliable, in any case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What ultimately does this film in is that there are no reliable sources to show that this film is notable. It's received zero coverage in independent and reliable sources. Of the sources on the article, none of them are ones that would be considered reliable. We have IMDb, a primary link, and a Lassen review, which wouldn't be considered reliable for the reasons stated above. There's also some COI going on here, as I've found evidence to suggest that the director and the original editor might be the same person. I've left a message about COI on the author's page cautioning him about how this could be seen as self-promotion and a COI. Even despite that, there just isn't any notability here. I'd also like to note that this seems to be part of a walled garden that was formed abour the director.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haystak Digital Marketing

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

This article, copied (albeit with proper permission from OTRS) from the company's publicity material) fails both to show notability and to be other than an advertisement. It is an excellent illustration of what I usually say to editors of such articles. :

Do not copy from a web site, even your own -- even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.) [and then I usually give a few specifically relevant details--in this case, as often, peacock language and buzzwords]

I might have deleted by G11, but I want to highlight the problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP without significant coverage by reliable sources. Google searches for Haystak Digital Marketing or Moore & Scarry yield only press releases and many false positive hits for Haystak the rapper. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and the article is currently just pure advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Shawn Barber

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

Non-notable individual. References need to be about the person to attest notability, not by them, and I see only a lot of trivial mentions, largely in laughably poor sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--YHoshua (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 09:56, 27 August 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 G7: author blanked. ... discospinster _talk 21:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig cervasio

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

No indication of notability per WP:ATHLETE. Google search comes up with social media sites and the like. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NMMA (at age 14) and there are no other sources of notability. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:11, 24 August 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. All content that might be suitable for merging is already present at Reston virus. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reston ebolavirus

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

There already exists another article at Reston virus which has much of the same information, along with better references and far more detail. This page has been up for a merger for almost a year, with no response. As these two pages are very similar, I propose merging the relevant information into Reston virus, and renaming said article to Reston ebola virus per WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree. Unfortunately, this page is for discussing deletions, not merges. Us441(talk)(contribs) 21:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, the page may need to be deleted to accommodate the page move. (This article already exists at the title another article should exist at.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is already covered at Reston virus, and the material here is problematic, with e.g. the "Species Inclusion Criteria" not matching what the source actually says. I see nothing here worth merging. -- 202.124.72.156 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the anon user.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 22:19, 28 August 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. Deleted per author request at on their talk page Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthology

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

unsourced WP:Neologism. Nothing found on google to match this definition. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources cited in the article, and I can find no sources that support any such idea, let alone the simplistic explanations of other subjects that the article also gives. This is original research, plain and simple: a completely novel concept being made up directly in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor. The obvious redirect target is Earthology Records. It's also the title of the second album by the Whitefield Brothers (one of several pseudonyms of Jan Weissenfeldt and Max Weissenfeldt). But since we don't have an article on them yet …. Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly an essay or a personal reflection, and I have not been able to find any sources that support importance or notability for such a concept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, though I have found One book, one institute using the term, and one site with its definition..also an urban dictionary entry, the article itself remains incomprehensive in its present state, may be requires rework by someone knowledgeable in the field. --Ekabhishek^talk 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each of those seems to be talking about something different to each other - and none of them seems to be the same as the article. noq (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is (openly) fictional. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire article is gibberish. It makes no sense, nothing asserted as fact appears to be true, and the article utterly fails to explain its concept in a meaningful or intelligible way. My first impression is that it's a hoax with no logical purpose other than to sound complicated. Some caution is due the author, who seems to be offended that we're questioning his ability to communicate in English. He has made possibly useful contributions to articles he believes to be connected with his name, although I've had to revert most of his edits to one article, as they were based largely on an outdated source that speculated rather oddly on the origin of that name. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Author has now requested deletion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:07, 26 August 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. I am, however, happy to dredge it back up and userfy it if Thaguz so requests, to save him having to file for undeletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raiding Forces Series

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

Non notable series of books. Fails WP:NBOOK NtheP (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We request a stay of deletion of this article. Updated information is scheduled for publish September, 2012 as well as an addition of the Author's biographical article which will be linked. The author, Phil Ward, is a significant business and political figure in Austin, Texas. Thank you for your consideration. PS - Sorry for deleting the deletion notice on the original article. It's no excuse, but I'm a WikiNewb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaguz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reorder comments to keep original nom at top. NtheP (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Thaguz may wish to request userfication of article so that he can reattempt it should the book series become notable soon. Notability of the author as a business and politics figure is irrelevant; not even all works by people who are notable as authors earn their own pages, per WP:NBOOK. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The books are self-published and have apparently attracted no attention from experts writing in reliable sources; whatever notability the author may have does not translate to these novels. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 August 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 per WP:CSD#A10, duplicate of Kachaghakaberd. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qaxach Tower

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

Reason Zimmarod (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Qaxach Tower" is the WP:OR product of pure imagination or fabrication of User:Ladytimide. There are no sources of any origin (both POV and NPOV) proving that such name has ever been used to designate Kachaghakaberd. Delete the page leaving Kachaghakaberd as the only article about this monument. Thanks. Zimmarod (talk) 19:03, 24 August 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 August 24. Snotbot t • c » 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10 as a copy-paste duplicate of Kachaghakaberd where the article title is not a plausible redirect. Article has been tagged accordingly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:37, 24 August 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 Green Day#¡Uno!, ¡Dos!, and ¡Tré! (2011–present). (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré! Trilogy

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

Contested PROD. The gist of the 3 albums is already detailed at Green Day#¡Uno!, ¡Dos!, and ¡Tré! (2011–present), and we already have articles for each individual album at ¡Uno!, ¡Dos!, and ¡Tré!. this article adds nothing and is totally redundant. IllaZilla (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - The information collectively should be shown at the band's article, and individually will be covered when each album has it's own article. That makes this article redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Day as a possible search-term. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - whatever happened to being bold? Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant section on the Green Day page. [8] Jasper420
Delete - no one's gonna search with the reversed !. The Mad Hatter (talk)

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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Rowe (Web Developer)

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

Spammy, self-promotional autobiography with no assertion of notability. I have tried to search the subject, but have found nothing other than an unreliable LinkedIn profile and his website. Electric Catfish 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7 and G11 both apply here and the article has been tagged accordingly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I was a bit unsure of whether to speedy it or not, so I took it here. Electric Catfish 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The originator/subject has removed the speedy tags! MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a self-promotional page with no evidence of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He also has removed the AFD tags twice and has been warned twice. If he does it again, I might have to report him to AIV. Electric Catfish 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

little hitler men here... how pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancisRowe (talk • contribs) 24 August 2012

Speedy delete, retagging. No claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user has vandalized this page after a final warning, so I have regretfully had to report him to AIV. It was a last-resort option here to prevent him from continuing to disrupt the AFD process. Electric Catfish 18:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked For 24 hours. Electric Catfish 18:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I'm surprised this has to go into AfD. Zappa O Mati 18:42, 24 August 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 VMware. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of VMware software

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

Hi.

I think this article should be deleted but it is a fork of VMware; both of them extensively list VMware Inc. products and one of them is enough. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a directory; extensive listing of items (such as products) without an educational or critical commentary (covered by reliable sources) or an associated Wikipedia article is not allowed.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We agree that this is a fork or spinoff from the main article VMware. Per WP:CFORK, "if the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Merger is not performed by deletion. Warden (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Hi. So, do I understand that you are in favor of a merger? If that is so, then I am curious, shouldn't you write Merge instead of Keep? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue here is whether the article should be deleted or not. I do not favour deletion because it would disrupt merger or any other ordinary editing actions. If you want to discuss the merits of merger, please start a merge discussion per the merge process. Warden (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi. If I opened a separate discussion, that would count towards gaming the system and I don't want to do that. And since merger opportunities as alternatives to deletion are frequently discussed at AFDs, I don't think anyone would mind if you said anything you have to say here. Besides, I proposed the article for deletion because I see nothing merge-worhty. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colonel Warden, please see WP:CLOSEAFD for the information about the scope of AfD discussions. If AfD is running, merge is supposed to be discussed in the AfD discussion if such outcome is viable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

category The notion of "keeping a list" is reasonable and it would be WP:UNDUE to include this within the main article. However this list is of articles that already exist and there is negligible discussion of each within that list article. We can handle such a situation better through a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTDUP which explains that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Warden (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that this category would duplicate a list, I'm arguing that the list is duplicating a category. It only includes extant articles, it makes no additional description of those articles other than listing links to them. That is the core subset that a category does, and does automatically. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy. I see the discussion is relisted. Now, in the spirit of establishing a consensus, I reviewed Category:VMware; maybe you should take a look at it and see whether you'd consider changing your suggestion to Redirect. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still delete. There's no need for a cross-namespace redirect to map the list article to a category. The category is quite sufficient in itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I mean redirect to VMware not redirect to Category:VMware (Czakoff said below). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then definitely delete. That wouldn't even be a list. My point is not "Where to store the article text for this list article", but rather "As this list article does nothing beyond what a category provides, then use the category". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VMWare per WP:CFORK: merge would be a good choice in this case, but there is no content on this list that is not already present in the proposed target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with VMware. Clearly duplicative, though notable. Steven Walling • talk 01:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with VMware. The article VMware isn't so long that it needs to be split, although this is valid content and shouldn't be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 27 August 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 Zabibah and the King#Distribution. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Earl Bowser

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

Famous for just one event. damiens.rf 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A merge-and-redirect to Zabibah and the King could be appropriate. --damiens.rf 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zabibah. Nothing to merge that isn't already there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 30 August 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanka Bahadur Subba

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

Barely-sourced stub on a non-notable academic. GScholar lists several publications, all with citation counts in the single digits, except for one with 18, one with 14, and two with 10 citations. The biography at the website of the university of Heidelberg lists some previous positions, the highest one being Dean. In addition, Subba is editor-in-chief of "an internationally refereed biannual journal called The NEHU Journal". However, this does not seem to be a "a major well-established academic journal" as required by WP:PROF. No hits in GNews. Does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Administrative positions too low for #C6, citation record too sparse for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the evidence included in the article is insufficient to satisfy the PROF guideline. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He comes up in a few articles (not enought to meet WP:GNG: "The only other anthropologist to have worked in the area subsequently is the Indian scholar Professor Tanka Subba. He spent time in a village on the other side of the valley from Tamaphok in 1993 as part of his study of the Kirant, the ethnic grouping of Eastern tribes such as the Limbu and some of the Rai, of which the Yakha are a part (Subba 1999)."[9]. Also [10][11][12]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:03, 31 August 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 Batman (1989 film). Please use Google's news archive feature for reliable sources regarding the book. As mentioned, worth at least a mention in the film article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman_(1989_novel)

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

WP:ALLPLOT, also unsourced Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a film novelization, which I would think are almost never notable. Maybe mention it in the film's article, otherwise delete. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the article conists only of plot summary (most of which is identical to the film's own plot) and trivia. There's nothing really that I'm finding that would allow this article to expand to the point where it would be able to demonstrate any sort of notability indepenent of the film it is based off of. Some information can possibly be merged to the film's article, or at least the book can be mentioned in the marketing section, but keeping this as a redirect would be largely pointless, as I do not really see this as being a very plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge (excluding plot) to the film's article. It's not all plot, and while I'm concerned by the lack of sources from web searches, the book's pre-internet publication date means any sources about the book are likely to be printed not online. It was a New York Times top ten bestseller[13]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- gNews's "Archive" setting can get surprising results sometimes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Batman (1989 film) per CP. Worth mentioning in the film's article, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 29 August 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. Consensus leaned toward maintaing the article per WP:OUTCOMES for geographical places. Merge discussions can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barangays in Cabuyao City

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

~~Complete duplication of and integral to Cabuyao, Laguna. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:~~

Withdraw deletion nomination as per recent edits by Othanwiki2009. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why delete rather than discuss merge/redirect? It may also be worth noting that many cities have separate articles or lists for mayors, neighborhoods, although that's not necessarily most appropriate here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is not necessary because all the info is already there. Redirect is also pointless because the article title is a most unlikely search item. As for separate articles, I think the parent article is not too large. If the consensus is to keep, I will certainly cut out all the info from the main article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both. No hope for expansion at the moment. –H T D 02:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles but merge their contents to Cabuyao, Laguna. Whatever content there is should be at the Cabuyao, Laguna article unless it gets big enough to warrant separate articles for the barangays and mayors. For the time being, I doubt that the titles are viable redirects either. No prejudice against recreation if the Cabuyao article gets bigger. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a little off-topic, but shouldn't the Cabuyao article be at Cabuyao rather than Cabuyao, Laguna? It is the main topic, and the university is in the city, so why does it have such a title. I can understand Batangas City and Batangas, but Cabuyao? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a discussion at WP:MOSPHIL on how to name city articles. –H T D 13:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already fixed the two articles, List of Barangays in Cabuyao and Mayors of Cabuyao City, by deleting the information in Cabuyao, Laguna that can already be found in these two articles. Making these two as the main articles for such topics. -Othanwiki2009 (talk)

Meh, merge them back. The city, with its 248,436 population, shouldn't deserve separate daughter articles for a list of mayors, barangays and stuff. They should be on the main Cabuyao article. It's not we're deleting the info but putting them in a page where most people can see. –H T D 15:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its population is growing, though it only has 248,436 people but it increases rapidly every year. That city was established in 15th century, it is very much older than the other populated city but with less history, Cabuyao has a complete list of mayors since 1900s, all of its barangays also have their own articles, I guess there's no other reason why that city doesn't deserve to have daughter articles. :s -Othanwiki2009 (talk)
  - That's pretty much irrelevant. Places in Europe are way older and that have the same population shouldn't have spinoff articles such as this. I'd probably agree with spinoff articles for all provincial governors (there isn't one for Laguna, and its city has a spinoff articles?!), but I'd probably accept spinoff articles, which are not just limited to a list of mayors and barangays, such as "politics of" and "history of" and the like if the city has a population of one million.
  - And all barangays have articles? Are they in any way notable? –H T D 03:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever! -Othanwiki2009 (talk)
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - we have almost always kept lists of barangays in larger Philippines cities. I think 1/4 of a million people is a good minimum size to keep. FWIW, not all (or even most) barangays deserve their own article, and in fact, the consensus in the past has been to merge them into such lists. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bestvpnservice

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

Contested PROD. No demonstration of notability and currently fails notability (web content). I did a Google search and nothing notable came up, and there was nothing of note from a Google News search (and [14]). As well, the article is not currently verifiable as it has no references to reliable sources, primary or secondary sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly non-notable website. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ginsengbomb. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:00, 27 August 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 due to lack of agreement over what the relevant notability guidelines are. Der yck C. 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Saxton

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

I see no more than the usual coverage for someone in his position as an administrator--some local news, a professional announcement or two, but no in-depth discussion. Besides, a large chunk of the article is not really about him anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The article is basically not about the subject of the article, and the sources don't really make me confident that that can change. I'd support a redirect if there were an article for Mr. Saxton's position (Deputy Superintendent), but while there's an article for the Superintendent, there is none for the second-in-command (likely with good reason). So, delete. Non-notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Formal head of Oregon Public Schools is a sufficient post to merit encyclopedic biography. There are doubtlessly another layer of sources out their relating to Saxton's gubernatorial campaign of the not-too-distant past. Sufficient sources showing for a GNG pass. This is not an obscure office-dwelling bureaucrat in this state, but a recognized public figure. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, but I don't see that at all. If this satisfies the GNG, then every single superintendent of every school system in the US is notable, since all of them (including ours) will have been mentioned or discussed in three articles in the local paper. That being the head of such a school system carries inherent notability is not, as far as I know, established. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the counter-argument is that this gentleman is the head of a state school system. This doesn't necessarily translate to making every superintendent of an individual district in the country notable. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I disagree -- I misunderstood his role to be second-in-command when I voiced my delete opinion, when in fact he is the essential head of public schooling for the entire state of Oregon (subservient to the Governor). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote to keep. I misread the nature of his position initially. As the head of a state education agency, there is ample precedent that roles of this level imply notability, and WP:POLITICIAN does allow for positions of state-level prominence. Given that the position was just granted to Mr. Saxton a couple of weeks ago, it stands to reason that coverage is only going to develop. I think the article needs a fairly significant rewrite to focus more specifically on its actual subject and less on the restructuring that led to the creation of his position, but as a prominent state-level politician in charge of a large public school system I think notability is present. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You have to be more than a senior civil servant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument, & if the two New Yorkers are really notable, they surely shouldn't be categorized as "academics". Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "senior civil servant," I say head of an entire state's public education system. Semantics, I guess, but I note again that WP:POLITICIAN specifically says that holders of "statewide" office are almost certainly notable. The existing sources in the article represent major coverage of his selection for the position. Additionally, if you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it points out that there are perfectly valid ways to use analogy in making an argument ("the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes") . That essay is not a blanket rebuttal of analogy, despite the unfortunate fact that it's often used as such. By pointing to our other coverage of statewide public education system leaders, I am illustrating other examples of similar articles that, in line with WP:POLITICIAN, constitute coverage of holders of statewide office. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office") He is head of the school system of the state of Oregon. The position was simply changed from an elected one to an appointed one this year. Subject has enough reliable coverage anyway, though I do agree that some of the content should be moved to the Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction article. --Esprqii (talk) 18:17, 28 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Liberty America

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

Weak references WP:RS. Pageant has never happened, just been predicted. Notability and/or WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:CRYSTAL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Hayes. Ariconte (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? On quick review, appears to have 3 wp:notability-suitable sources/coverage. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Personally, I find USA Today to be a reliable enough source, so we know this isn't a hoax. But still, little is known about the pageant and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, most of the sources are from 2010, even in a Google Search nothing is really updated about this. Yet this may still qualify as Reliable Sourcing to meet WP:FUTURE. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? The USA Today article does not say anything about the paegent! It only supports the filing of a form regarding presidential candidacy. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article [15] verifys the upcoming pageant's use of firearms. [16], the one I assume you mean, makes a passing mention about the paegant not enough to assert notability. However, there are multiple sources that come up in Google like

These, I believe assert notability. No change though, I'm still a weak, weak, weak keep. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed ref 1 in the article. I was looking at ref 4. Still think it needs to be Deleted. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:32, 18 August 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, Ged UK 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, which looks for events that are "almost certain to take place." Per supplied sourcing, this event was originally supposed to commence in July, 2011, then in July, 2012, and here in August, 2012, per their own website they aren't yet even taking applications for contestants. There is decent sourcing for this, so naturally once the event itself is more certain to actually happen there should be an article on it. Until then, the sourcing confirms that the idea of a beauty pageant for gun-toting beauties is a newsworthy curiosity. It'll be a notable event when the event actually takes place (or when we can be sure it will take place). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article originally as a potential place to house information on Alicia Hayes (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Hayes); after putting it together I was unconvinced that it actually met the GNG and I'm still equally unconvinced. IIRC it was supposed to debut in July; since I can't find any sources suggesting that it did, I'm not even sure that it's actually going ahead anyway. If it does, we can always write a new article - this one is unnecessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 30 August 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G4 Dloh cierekim 01:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ochuko Tonukari

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

Delete. WP:G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ochuko Tonukari) is the specific WP:CSD rationale here. To avoid unnecessary to and fro, one rule ignored and sent to WP:AfD again. With greatest respect to the subject of the article, there appears to be nothing in evidence to displace the result of the first AfD.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as already deleted and vanity article, does not even bother to assert notability. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There would appear to me to some assertion of notability in the article as it currently stands, though unsubstantiated.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - articles fails to establish notability - the article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. the six external links in the article are all unreliable or self-published sources. Amsaim (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait one minute. Why are we at afd w/ this? I got some real grief for sending one of these to AFD instead of just speedying a couple of years ago. Is my understanding wrong again on my first night back? My understanding is G4's get speedied and if there is appeal based on sourcing it goes to WP:DRV. Well i do have access to the old version, and I don't see this version as improved enough. Dloh cierekim 01:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Yamamoto

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

Surely there must be a point where the upteenth killed reporter in Syria is not notable. Maybe make a page reporters killed in Syria BernardZ (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for sure), she is certainly notable. You are not authorized to put this template on the page. Egeymi (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 17,000 people around the world do not agree with you concerning her notability. Egeymi (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- This is a silly AfD. There are tons of reliable references for this person, and her death is particularly, extremely notable, being the first of its kind for a Japense journalist in the Syrian uprising. We have a treasure trove of references, and a quick Google search discovers that many more can be found as they are updated. This article certainly passes the criteria for WP:GNG. --Activism1234 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Perhaps this AfD might have had a sliver of reason if it could be argued that she is notable only because she died and that, given the number of deaths, her death was trivial. But as the article already shows and has properly sourced, she was notable even before her death, given the awards and other recognition she had been given. Since anyone familiar with WP:GNG would have recognized this, I can only conclude this was an unreasonable AfD submitted by someone unfamiliar with the criteria. Michitaro (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article needs a grammar check, clarification on awards, and expansion on the circumstances of her death in line with [17] not an AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro. As others have said, there are many sources provided and is known for matters other than her tragic death. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have lots of coverage in reliable sources. Zeromus1 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I intend to improve this article ASAP, and the person the article concerns was a highly notable person and award winning journalist. حرية (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Her death has received SIG COV and she was notable before the incident.Crtew (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently thinking of 3 S's. They are: Strong, Speedy and Snow. Keep. She is clearly notable, she was covered by several reliable sources even before her death, she won awards, so this is not a WP:BLP1E (or in this case BDP1E) article, and finally, AfD is not cleanup. I recommend that this AfD be closed ASAP, and that the nominator be minnowed, or at least be reminded of our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:42, 25 August 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. If anyone needs a userfied copy feel free to ask me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razzaq Tlas

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

I can find a few casual mentions but nothing that seems to meet our notability criteria. Note that there is also a "Abdul Razaq, an Afghan police official in the Kabul area." I deleted a copyvio YouTube video which is supposedly him giving a short speech, but it can still be found via the history. Article is protected because of BLP vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razzaq Tlas is an important commander in the opposition. The current wikipedia article does a poor job of showing this with its current limited sources. I think the best source on him is given in this research report [18] on page 19-20. The Arte reportage is also a very good source: "1 week with the "free syrian army" – Feb 2012 – Arte reportage 1 of 2". To see the reportage conveniently you might need to watch it on youtube were there's a nonofficial version [19], which doesn't mean the Arte documentary is a invalid source it just means the reader needs to contact or search Arte's archives to see the official version. Guest2625 (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Perhaps it is too soon however I have not foudn significant coverage of the subject required by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There are brief mentions of the subject, but none that are specifically about the subject and are passing mentions. Fails WP:SOLDIER as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. It is a biographical stub. Wikipedia does have many such biographical stubs about politicians, soldiers, writers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being a biographical stub is irrelevant to the question of notability. I don't believe that we have any policies or guidelines that suggest we should keep BLPs just because they are short. If that were the case, anyone could have a BLP article. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 1 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Reynolds_(entrepreneur)

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrew Reynolds (entrepreneur)

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

Per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ADVERT. The two references show his name in a list of donor people. No significant coverage whatsoever. The external links lead directly or indirectly to information on his Cash-on-Demand system. Googling his name gives nothing but 'millionaire philantropist'-results. One would say such a figure has some text on him in an RS, but no.

I won't go as far as saying the Cash-on-Demand system that the page in effect advertises is a scam, but the page is only an empty hull that the editor (also COI) has placed on his userpage as well. This has been deleted. Besides, there is no sign of notability on Andrew Reynolds as an entrepreneur or person. Pim Rijkee (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Mephistophelian found the author's note. It claims there is sufficient background information on Andrew Reynolds. I have invited the author on his Talk to discuss/show these sources.

Delete - no evidence of notability in third-party sources, also very clearly a scam artist. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an autobiographical and promotional article regarding a non-notable individual. Mephistophelian (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found that there is quite alot on him as both an Philantropist and Entreprenuer on the web. Is the reason for wanting to delete based on the opinion that he is a scam artist? Give it some time to allow others to edit and expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwtaylor63 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Rwtaylor63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. As a volunteer with experience serving on the board of directors of a local United Way, I can appreciate Andrew Reynolds’ charitable contribution(s) to Make a Wish Foundations and other charitable organizations. Charitable organizations will give titles such as Ambassador to donors like Reynolds who give substantial amounts to charity. If donating substantial amounts to charities would render notability, then there will be thousands of people who should be added to Wikipedia for just donating money. I believe that the tax credit from the government for charitable donations is sufficient recognition for such good deeds and there is no need to create a page on Wikipedia to further elaborate on such donations. Additionally, the awards Reynalds received for his business successes don’t appear to me as grounds for supporting notability. If these awards were of major national or international significance or impact then they might have been relevant for purposes of this debate. I didn’t find it to be the case here.--Oceangreenn (talk) 14:36, 31 August 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. I'm closing this as a keep, and if some of those involved in this discussion still feel it should be merged I would encourage you to begin a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replica Titanic

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

This page has been proposed for deletion in the past, and it was decided to be kept. However, I believe the situation has substantially changed.

The article originally covered a project to produce a replica Titanic which started in 1998, and terminated in 2006. In 2012, a new project was started, and details of this were incorporated in to the article, changing it to a general overview of the 'replica Titanic' concept. This has now been forked in to a separate article - Titanic II - which also contains relevant details of the previous project. I believe this makes this article redundant.

The second section (2012 project) is a summary of the main article, so does not contribute to the usefulness of this page. The remaining information all pertains to the previous project. I believe this does not warrant a full article for the following reasons:

The subject is of dubious notability. The general quality of the references is poor, and although a few good references are included, I do not believe these are sufficient to support the article, as per WP:GNG.
The article contains unverifiable speculation. The latter part of the 1998-2006 section is mainly speculation or original research. As per WP:BALL and WP:OR, this is undesirable.
The subject of the article is covered in appropriate detail elsewhere on Wikipedia. The page Titanic II contains a summary of the 1998-2006 project, and includes the acceptable quality references from this page. I believe this is sufficient coverage of the article, making the original redundant as per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

The article has been through several iterations over two years, and has not yet produced a stable, encyclopaedic article. I believe the most appropriate course of action is deletion. MatthewHaywood (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Titanic II, of course, per WP:CFORK. Warden (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page Titanic II already covers the subject in depth appropriate for that page. What would a merger achieve? MatthewHaywood (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but it is Titanic II that should be the AfD rather than Replica Titanic. Whether such a ship should or will be built is personal speculation and opinion. However proposals for rebuilding Titanic in some form continue to gain worldwide press coverage and just don't go away; they therefore meet WP:WHYN. Mariepr (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present project is far more notable than the one covered by the article up for deletion, which was abandoned years ago. Titanic II could be under construction within months. You're proposing we delete that? MatthewHaywood (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Palmer Titanic II proposal remains to be just that - a proposal. Gous abandoned his proposed rebuild and there is still the SS Titan proposal out there (article long deleted) although it exists as a web site and a pipe dream as its organizers have no real plan to raise the $1B USD to bring it to completion. I'll grant you that Palmer has the financial means and has shown some detail as to the new ship's general arrangements. There are still compromises that must be made to meet SOLAS reqirements. (Lifeboat height and use of interior wood are two things that immediately come to mind.) If he has to make too many compromises he too may abandon the project. Therefore, I conclude that while all of these Titanic rebuild proposals meet WP:SIGCOV requirements for inclusion none has advanced to the point where one justifies a stand-alone article. Mariepr (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nomination. If there is anything of importance, it can be included in the Titanic II article. If I recall correctly, articles about future ships are not usually done before we are sure that the ship will be built (building contract, keel laying etc.), but the Palmer project has gathered quite a lot of publicity, which I think is enough to justify to current article (not to mention that the guy is rich enough to pull this one off). Tupsumato (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both articles -- One is mainly about an abortive past project; the other about a ship that is allegedly about to start being built. We will need to review this in (say) six months and merge the Palmer project back to the replica article if the keel is not laid in that time. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alegedly about to start being built" - sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- there are sufficient high quality references available to confirm the notability of both projects. 86.162.112.41 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Huseinspahić

(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) 11:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the assumption that the Bosnian Premijer Liga is not a professional league. – Pee Jay 11:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP: NFOOTY and WP: GNG. Electric Catfish 15:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spetsnaz GRU hand-to-hand combat style

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

Sounds to me like a B.S. advertisement for this Alexander Popov fellow (external links are to his website and some other homepage); has no Russian Wikipedia counterpart, no independent (and reliable references), sources appear to not be readily available. Niemti (talk) 10:12, 24 August 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 August 24. Snotbot t • c » 10:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unsourced and reads like an advertisement. There is nothing in the article to show that this system has any notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the test of verifiability and possibly veracity as well. Title is a most unlikely search term. Carrite (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Atmosphere

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

Contested PROD - as yet unreleased album. No sources that are reliable or independent of the record company/band NtheP (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP: CRYSTAL. The performing artist doesn't have clear notability, either.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No confirmed release date or track listing at this time for this upcoming release; WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. This does not yet appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:17, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MythWurks Corporation

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

One of several promotional articles added by a user with a suspected COI. While the article looks expansive at first glance, a search through the article shows that there are serious tone issues with the article as well as issues with reliable sources. A search for the corporation does not bring up any coverage in reliable sources for any of the names of the company, with the coverage I'm finding being almost solely press releases and non-reliable sources. A look at the sources on the article shows that none of them could be considered reliable sources that show notability. I'd speedy this except that it's just on the edge to where someone could claim that it isn't overly promotionally written, so I'm submitting it for AfD. I'm also nominating The World of Myth Magazine for the same issues, as it has no claim to notability. I was going to try to speedy it under A7, but I'm not sure it fits cleanly under the web notability speedy. It's an online magazine but isn't exactly a website. This magazine has the same issues of notability and lack of reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated above:[reply]

Comment: This AfD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry D. Scheerer, also added by the same user.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No evidence of third-party coverage. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:NCORP (corporation), WP:NMEDIA (magazine), or WP:GNG (both). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, can't see the notability either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 August 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) Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium

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

Not a notable building JetBlast (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. The recently-created one-sentence generic stub doesn't provide any hints of it, but Santa Cruz Civic is almost certainly a notable building, and sources exist to support an article. The main problem here would probably the time required to dig through the many, many potential sources[20] to identify the best ones to use as sources for the article, But for starters here's a detailed 2000 article about the history of the auditorium[21]. And for a different perspective, some news reports from around the nation about the 1956 incident when the police shut down a rock-and-roll concert there to prevent "what they called the "suggestive, stimulating and tantalizing motions induced by the provocative rhythms of an all-negro band."[22][23][24] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added text and sources, so I'm switching my !vote to keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements to the article by Arxiloxos. Nice work. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Community landmark. Adequate sourcing showing. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that there are claims of notability (independent sources with in-depth reporting on multiple aspects of it). DMacks (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although this appears to be reaching WP:SNOWBALL Keep, I have concerns regarding the notability of the subject. I found multiple passing mentions of the subject of this article that we are considering for AfD, I have found very little that talks about the subject directly in a way that meets significant coverage per WP:GNG. There are a lot of mentions of several events occurring at the subject, however those can be considered routine coverage for those events and are not primarily about the subject itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The building is 70 years old; by California standards, that's historic! I don't think anyone has designated it as such, but it has acquired a fair amount of coverage in its 70 years. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any news sources that are (approximately) "damn that's an old building--unusual for this area!" that would help allay RCLC's concern. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I would say speedy as the nom forwarded absolutely no argument as to why they think this is "not a notable building." Collectively there is enough secondary coverge to be significant enough to have an article. Not only is it historic by Santa Cruz standards, while a great amount of the historic buildings in downtown Santa Cruz was destroyed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, this one survived, adding to its notability.--Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have added to the article the information that the auditorium was used as an emergency shelter after the earthquake; a lot of the surrounding buildings were unfit for occupancy. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 25 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terry D. Scheerer

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

Science-fiction writer of doubtful notability. BLP-PROD was removed and a heap of refs added, but they are all to the subject's own website or to press releases authored by him. Not a single piece of non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources. Article written by single-purpose promotional account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommend checking out The World of Myth Magazine and MythWurks Corporation, potentially adding one or both to this AfD. Both concern Sheerer and both seem to have similar issues with the articles. There's a big COI/ADVERT issue here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed both for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MythWurks Corporation. I'll research and give my opinion on Scheerer in a little bit.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search for the author's name, as I know that just because one thing isn't notable doesn't mean that something else might not be. I was unable to find coverage of Sheerer in anything that was both independent and reliable. There's some blog hits and tons of press releases, but none of that shows notability. This is ultimately a non-notable author as far as Wikipedia guidelines go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant third-party coverage can be found. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, books etc are all self-published. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 August 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. I've undone the restoration of redacted comments, because those redacted comments constitute WP:outing. Der yck C. 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inkey Jones

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

Delete - This article is based around a self-published source. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Petergionis (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 17:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just full-protected the page for 24 hours due to edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was vandalised by IPs hopping, after I semi-protected the page, a new user (Petergionis) appeared from nowhere to create the deletion request - since then User:Petergionis has been edit warring as per the IPs. I believe User:Petergionis has some hidden agenda against the subject (it's the only subject (s)he has edited). As for keep/delete - if some of the external links were properly sorted out as in-line links then it probably should stay. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tidied up some of the links, could do with more. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references and citations in this article are either self-published sources (Inkey Jones Website link) or make no reference to the subject. The BAFTA link makes no reference to the subject (BAFTA link), nor do the links to Comedy CV (Jaik Campbell), The Dominic Barker Trust or The British Stammering Association. Claims that the subject has worked as an actor are totally unsubstantiated. The Television section of the article claims that the subject has had a 'number of on screen appearances' yet the supporting reference is a minor writing credit with no mention of any on screen appearances. The Film and Presenting sections are completely unsubstantiated. Petergionis (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user Popetman has only ever edited this article, mostly undoing new contributions. The administrator Ronhjones was enlisted by Popetman to help resist any 'unauthorised' contributions to the article, claiming 'vandalism' every time. The subject has no notability as a comedian (not even listed in the extensive UK comedy database Chortle UK) but is notorious as a comedy promoter. Several users have attempted to contribute information about Inkey Jones' notoriety as comedy promoter but the contributions are always removed by Popetman with help enlisted from Ronhjones. Petergionis (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree I have helped Popetman - that is one of the admin roles - to help users who have problems. Popetman is not trying to keep some authorised version, he has only reverted Original research and negative unreferenced data - he has a conflict of interest, which he does freely admit, that is why he did not participate in the page's creation. This page is not new, it was started on 02:41, 18 November 2007‎ - if it was that bad it would have been deleted long ago. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - He didn't participate in the creation of the page? The Sj838 created the page and Sj838's user page actually says 'I am Inkey Jones'! The reason the article hasn't been deleted is because the subject has zero notability as a comedian, actor or writer. People only became aware of the page when he gained notoriety as a dubious comedy promoter, which can be supported here - Chortle forums: Inkey Jones Petergionis (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said Popetman not User:Sj838. Popetman has never said that they were Inkey Jones. P.S. Nothing we can do can ever completely delete content - it's always there, just removed from public view, but still very traceable. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If Popetman is not Inkey Jones, why would he have such an avid interest in protecting the page from simple changes such as adding the subject's real name and DOB, or verifiable negative publicity about his club promotion activities? WP:SPI, I think as part as of the deletion debate, there should be a Sockpuppet Investigation examining Popetman and Sj838 Petergionis (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one is claiming to be Inkey Jones - Popetman admits to being his agent. User:Sj838 user page was vandalised to say he was Inkey Jones by a user who was only on WP for 3 days - that has now been reverted. As I have already stated, someone appears to have a grudge against this person. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 08:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Vandalism? Again? Popetman uses the 'vandalism' defence to protect and bias the article more than the Bush Administration used 'terrorism'. Yes, people in the comedy community have a problem with Inkey Jones because he is an unscrupulous comedy promoter as documented time and time again in the Chortle forums. The reason I created the article Daniel Peters - Inkey's real name - was to focus purely on his activities as a comedy promoter, but it was deleted it. Petergionis (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please look at the history of user Sj838's user page. The comment "I am Inkey Jones" was added by Motorwaylander (talk · contribs) for no apparent reason on 7 April 2012, long after the Inkey Jones article was created. I don't think we can take the claim that Sj838 (talk · contribs) is Inkey Jones seriously. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article has no notability whatsoever in British comedy. He is not listed as having appeared in any UK comedy clubs, major or minor, nor is he credited with any TV or radio appearances. If you Google his name, the results only return self-published sources and the Wikipedia article in question.86.183.44.229 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.44.229 (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPA, I smell a sock. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as "Multi talented Stand up Comic, writer and actor" per the BBC ref. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that the page creator, Sj838 (talk · contribs), wishes for the page to be deleted, as evidenced by that user blanking the page twice [25] [26]. User was advised that G7 doesn't apply here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:21, 23 August 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} 08:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. He doesn't have the in-depth and independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines: there is the BBC interview, but interviews aren't always considered reliable sources (though being interviewed may help show someone is well-known, important, or influential). IMDb is also not considered a reliable source. Aside from that, there are a few passing mentions on Chortle, and other even less authoritative sources, but nothing in depth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one's heard of this guy. The references are bogus. Has he played The Comedy Store? Has he appeared at any club of any note? If this guy meets the criteria for inclusion in Wiki, then Wiki is going to need a lot more servers. Not notable apart from his own website! This discussion is probably his best joke! Comedycleaner (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Comedycleaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I started searching from scratch and found nothing that convinces me that the subject is notable. There are some small references but, to my mind, not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saw him perform with Jimmy Carr some years back and I believe he still performs regularly in London as I saw him on a flyer the other day. Userdefinable —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyers and someone having "seen him" are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not based around hearsay remarks. Petergionis (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He was mentioned in an article or two in 2005, "I Did Once and It Took 15 Minutes, with the partially sighted Kevin Knite and the hard-of-hearing Inkey Jones,"Preview: Jaik Campbell: I've Stuttered So I'll F-F-Finish, CO2, Infirmary Street, Edinburgh Not enought to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 31 August 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Graham (inventor)

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

BLP has no reliable sources and lots and lots of claims of inventions. Fearing this might not meet general notability guildelines. Perhaps I am wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Obviously a very accomplished software designer and entrepreneur, but he doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines. To go over some of the specifics of WP:ARTIST:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors: This is the basic thesis of which all other criteria under this guideline are aimed at establishing. Therefore, in order for this point to be refuted, the others must be as well (in this instance, at least, as this person definitely exists and has had significant successes in his own right).
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique: There is no evidence of this in the article, nor is it asserted. It is established that he has developed several useful peripherals, but not necessarily anything innovative in and of itself.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: Again, not seeing it. The article states right in the introduction that he was featured in Marquis Who's Who, which is a magazine I'm unfamiliar with; but by the looks of things, inclusion in that publication is not particularly uncommon for even blatantly non-notable people (by our standards) if they have found success in their field. As an aside, I entered "John Graham" into the site's search engine, but could find nothing relating to this specific individual (as far as I can tell). [27]
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums: Of the inventions listed under the "Past Creations" subheader, I could find none that have fulfilled any of the aforementioned significant milestones. As a point of reference, check out the following links. [28][29][30][31][32]

Also, virtually none of his companies would satisfy the most basic criterion for coverage according to WP:ORG — An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. [33][34][35][36] The only conceivable exception would be GCA, if any one of the companies that pop up here are his (and one of them has a man with the same name as Vice President, although I doubt it's the same person). [37] In addition, the article almost reads as if it were a promotional feature for its subject and his companies, which in itself may be a concern. I'm just not convinced that this person is notable enough for inclusion, all things considered. Kurtis (talk) 15:30, 17 August 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} 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, references are either self-published or otherwise unreliable. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete grand claims but lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics Society

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

Non-notable group, I found zero third-party sources to establish notability. There is a possibly relevant or irrelevant Los Angeles Times link here but this article never states its name as "American Cryonics Society" or an affiliation with Avi Ben-Abraham. Additionally, the article never cites a foundation date so it is unknown if the society existed near 1999. Other links I found had the name "Cryonics Society of New York" but this article also never cites "New York" with its name. The group's official website never provides a physical address to confirm a New York location or affiliation. Despite that the article claims the society is a registered "501(c)3 organization", there seems to be zero or little evidence to verify this. With another note, the author added "references" to the article here but the references were either irrelevant to the group or promotional. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) and reference elsewhere - Relatively new organization (2005 or 2006), so length of history (a factor under WP:NONPROFIT) is not particularly notable. Nor does size of membership suggest notability. Its stated scope (the only cryonics society) does suggest some notability, but in the absence of press or any other significant recognition, we have no way of verifying that claim. At this point it appears to be an organization started by one guy that has done a direct mail campaign to 80,000 to inform them about something about cryonics. Should cryonics ever really take off, then this organization might play a role and demonstrate its own notability. But right now it should be a brief reference in the cryonics article. --Lquilter (talk) 13:43, 17 August 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} 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG - also noted WP:ADVERT, WP:PROMO. There seem to be a number of organisations with "Cryonics Society" in their titles. This one (apparently established in 2006) doesn't appear to have any specific notability but there was apparently an article published in Long Life Magazine. It's neither the Cryonics Society of New York nor the American Cryonics Society. I wonder if the donors had their questions answered. It seems that the founder was also involved in the Cryonics Institute -- Trevj (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOR Oepoi

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

Not notable, found a bunch of incidental mentions, but not much else. Ng.j (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This stadium is the biggest sport venue in this province. Yogwi21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 12 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: thi sport venue held some national event. Yogwi21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed to !vote once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 24 August 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} 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. The article editors may be able to create the article at Indonesian Wikipedia (who would have better access to any non-English sources) and bring it to English Wikipedia once sources are found. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG Sourced content could be merged elsewhere, but I couldn't actually find any sources. The Indoesian Wikipedia article already exists but looks no better than this one. -- Trevj (talk) 09:42, 31 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Berris

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

Article is basically the CV of a Minnesota lawyer (according to this probably created by his son). An oncall firefightern part-time deputy sheriff, adjunct professor, and candidate for judge. Seems like a valuable member of the community there, but nothing that would meet our criteria for notability for biographies. No independent sources: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources.--JayJasper (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as the primary notability criterion --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing at all to meet WP:POLITICIAN.-- Dewritech (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:31, 26 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L'Atelier aux Couleurs

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

no references, none found, content is entirely promotional, all that would be left is a single sentence stating it exists, and link to website. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The wording is promotional, arguably a CSD G11, indeed it is an extremely close paraphrase of the material on their website ("the" for "our" etc), so a WP:COPYVIO. Take that away and the article would be minimal and lacking in evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, almost certainly promotional, and a very poor quality article. MatthewHaywood (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be spam. No independent sources found on a search; that's not surprising given that the facility is only ten years old. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:24, 25 August 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Champions Professional Indoor Football League

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

Tiny league of only five clubs, no obvious notability since it hasn't even started yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Four of the five teams have played previously in notable leagues (the American Professional Football League and the Indoor Football League), while the one expansion team is picking up significant coverage in their local area (and already has quite a few Arena Football League players signed). Also, various sources have been added to this article, and various more are around for every team in thie league. Sounds solid enough to actually work. Tom Danson (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The league has gathered plenty of sources from multiple writers and newspapers throughout the Midwest. As stated by Tom Danson, the league has already confirmed 4 teams that have gotten nobility. DMC511 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read an article about this just yesterday in the Kansas City Business Journal. That's another source that isn't even included in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more than ample in-depth coverage of the league in independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standard per WP:GNG. I would caution other editors, however, that the notability of the league does not presage the notability of the league's teams, seasons, players or coaches, and I expect that we will hold those related articles to a strict interpretation of the WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, as we are doing here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this league will indeed not begin play until the not-too-distant future, Next Sunday, A.D., there are sufficent sources to establish the league as notable now, instead of having to wait until then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 29 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Newbrough

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

Not generally notable. Poorly Sourced. Various edit issues. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR & WP:ANYBIO. Multiple passing mentions of the subject, however none that would be considered significant coverage as required in WP:GNG. Although subject has authored a book, subject does not meet criteria set forth in AUTHOR or ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, per our standards. obviously known in her circle, and of some importance in eco/fem/gender circles, but the books are essentially self published. No prejudice against recreation if her work becomes better known.User:Mercurywoodrose 99.35.50.219 (talk) 07:07, 29 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bucket

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable toy with little improvement since last AFD. Only clima of notability in the awards section is dubious, claim of a mention on a list cannot be verified (http://www.otawatertown.com/images/pdf's/2010-2011%20ot%20toy%20list.pdf). Lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't have access from my current location to archival newspaper entries. However, some cursory searching suggests circa 1992 articles that may suffice as appropriate third-party references: Philadelpha Inquirer, Newsday, and a Nov 28, 1992 column in the San Diego Union-Tribune that I'm not able to link in abstract because ProQuest isn't cooperating. Online, there's this extensive review, although I am not immediately certain of the site's reliability. Given that the product initially launched before widespread adoption of online reporting, I would consider it likely that more sources are extant. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not exactly a star candidate for keeping. The "award" (which is more like a small recognition) that RadioFan mentioned is a dubious claim, I agree, since the awardees website does not appear to have it listed. However, the above references from Squeamish Ossifrage seem to give some coverage of the product beyond mere mentions. There is also some description of the advertisement in reputable sources like in New York Magazine. The advertisement also has a reputation for being somewhat inappropriate, evidenced by this CBS radio show recording. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:32, 16 August 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, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep. I think the article needs improvement, but the sources Jethrobot linked to seem to demonstrate that the toy is notable. Zeromus1 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan bootleg recordings

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

While a reasonable article could be written on this topic, the present revision relies almost entirely on one unreliable source. Relevant sections can be folded into the main article as well as Great White Wonder. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Oppose~~. As per comment on talkpage placed when I removed the prod, which read:-

I have removed the prod for several reasons, including

The significance of Dylan and the bootlegging industry - the first ever bootleg was Dylan.
Poorly referenced is not a reason for deletion
There are numerous books and webpages devoted specifically to BobBoots.
Bootlegs are the reason that the "The Bootleg" series were finally released.

I can now add a further reason, being a stub, or sub-standard article is not reason to delete an article and as the nominator says in his nomination a reasonable article could be written on this topic he confirms that the article should not be deleted. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a defective nomination. A Speedy Keep would be in order. Carrite (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per Richhoncho. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both opposers. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bootleg records more or less start with Dylan, he is a massive figure in this cul-de-sac of record collecting. This is really quite a nice piece, sourcing shortcomings notwithstanding. Multiple volumes of the published bootleg record collectors series Hot Wacks could be employed in improvement of the piece. Meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The standard ways to opine here are "DELETE" if you feel something should be gone or "KEEP" if you feel something should stay. Other terms are ambiguous and should be avoided to make it easier for the closing administrator (i.e. the "judge" in this case). Carrite (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage exists beyond Dylan's Great White Wonder or his Bootleg Series, including this book, this Rolling Stone article, this court case, and several mentions in these books. Like The Beatles bootleg recordings, this appears to be a notable topic. Gongshow ^Talk 16:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all keep comments, but a heavy rewrite is in order. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Ballplayers League

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

The organization shows no evidence of meeting the notability requirements. Most of the references are directory listings or advertisements about events, and the main one that isn't looks to be a copy of a press release. Unfortunately, a search on the brand didn't seem to turn up anything of note. Bilby (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would almost characterize this as a Speedy Delete...it's that much of a slam dunk It is written like an advertisement. As mentioned by the nominator, the sources are announcements about upcoming events. Wikipedia isn't the place for this type of article. Sounds like what you would find on the league webpage. It's an advertisement. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local amateur league. Not all of them fail notability - but this one does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 31 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lorem Ipsum Books

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

Fails WP:CORP - This is the best source I can find, but even this is some way off what we need for the shop to have an article here. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a small, one-location bookstore. Google News found only passing mentions and press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:46, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs) 05:18, August 24, 2012‎
Delete - seems to be a pretty unremarkable shop. (This should really have been closed as 'delete' already.) Robofish (talk) 20:55, 24 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pestology

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

Delete. Dictionary definition that is only rarely used. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:21, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on the article from 2010 had it better. This article isn't in fact true. There was a "Pestology Centre" at Simon Fraser University, founded by Bryan Patrick Beirne, for a while, but its field of study was pest management (a subject that we don't have, but that has its own encyclopaedia published by CRC Press) and that's what it awarded degrees in. There's a journal named Pestology in India, but that deals in pest management, too. Of course, there are the obligatory exterminator companies and MySpace bands named this, as well. I can find zero evidence of anything that doesn't use this as a proper noun, however. There's no evidence to be found of a (common noun) concept of "pestology", as described or otherwise. This is a novel and undocumented concept and a violation of our no original research policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 24 August 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 Michalis Giannitsis; no consensus on Sokratis Dioudis default to keep. Der yck C. 14:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sokratis Dioudis

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

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

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth player who has never appeared in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dioudis – while both footballers fail WP:NFOOTY, there are some articles about Dioudis during and after his (good) appearances at the 2012 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship: [38][39] (two full articles about him in Ta Nea), and a number of mentions in other sources, so I reckon he passes WP:GNG. However, delete Giannitsis – he has received minimal media coverage, so he fails GNG. – Kosm1 fent 11:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG - if nominator is unwilling to use seperate articles for both players, keep both. Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the two are listed together, does not mean the same result is required for both. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris1983 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - and restore when WP:NFOOTY is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted that they both don't meet NFOOTY, but what about Dioudis' coverage? – Kosm1 fent 03:40, 14 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ above all, wikipedia is a place were you can easily find infos, in that sense adding some soccer players bios is not against the encyclopedia's policies, especially when they are used in order to enrich other articles or when hundreds of similar entries exist Aris1983 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, (one of) the players' bios fail encyclopedical guidelines, as analysed above. Secondly those "hundreds of similar entries pass those guidelines and if not, they should be nominated for deletion as well (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Finally, you have already !voted above. – Kosm1 fent 17:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Delete Sokratis Dioudis per WP:ONEEVENT. Substitute keeper Sokratis Dioudis came on to save Rob Hall’s spot-kick in July 2012,[40] but Dioudis hasn't otherwise been in the news. Michalis Giannitsis hasn't received any reliable source coverage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Wildlife Network

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

Now defunct organisation, no evidence of notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:23, 24 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Materla

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

This is an unreferenced BLP about an MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's an MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:MMANOT. He may become notable, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Astudent0 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:41, 26 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Górski

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

MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization, thus failing WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. The article also has no sources that give signficant independent coverage of the subject. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has a so-so record and no fights for a top tier promotion and no reliable independent sources that support notability claims. Astudent0 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:29, 26 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny van Bergen

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

Non-notable MMA fighter that fails to meet the criteria at WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. The only source used in the article is sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unsourced and he fails to meet WP:MMANOT since he has no fights for a top tier MMA promotion. Astudent0 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:58, 26 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 Global: Fedor vs. Monson

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

This was a non-notable fight card for a second tier MMA organization. The reporting was routine sports coverage. The only non-routine thing was Putin's appearance, but I don't think that's enough to show notability--every game that Obama attends doesn't automatically become notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 17 August 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 August 17. Snotbot t • c » 23:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. The coverage I see doesn't show this event is notable (see WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE). Astudent0 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this event has long term significance or that the coverage was anything but routine. Mdtemp (talk) 20:27, 30 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Zikic

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

Has one fight for a top tier MMA organization (a loss over 10 years ago), thus failing WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. I didn't find significant coveage in enough reliable and independent sources to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He clealy fails to meet WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 23:53, 20 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the support for my position, but it might be better if your comments were a little longer (although I think you hit the nail on the head). Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:36, 26 August 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.