Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 February	15 February >

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 keep. Per the comments below. The article does meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roses Are Red (band)

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

I am making this nomination on behalf of an IP user who made a speedy-deletion nomination with the following rationale:

This page contains incorrect information and is using the names of popular music industry executives to draw attention to it in searches, this is a verifiability issue and is a breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This page is also for a band who has never charted once on any of the billboard charts, The band also isn't around anymore, and hans't sold enough albums to meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia . Because of these reasons the page fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines required for wikipedia. Over all this page in unsuitable.

The article history shows edit-warring over the last year and more intensely over the last few days. See also arguments on the article talk page. Procedural nomination: I express no view. JohnCD (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arguments against keeping this page are arbitrary and personal in nature. In regards to incorrect information, no attempt was made by other editors to correct any problems. Correct, verifiable information was simply removed over and over again for personal reasons (without explanation on the edit history page), which explains the edit-warring. Claims of "using the names of popular music industry executives to draw attention to it in searches" is not a very solid argument, as there is no reason to draw attention to the page (i.e. there are no advertisements or products/services for sale, so nothing to gain by any party). In addition, Wikipedia has no "albums sales" requirement, so this claim has no merit. However, in terms of Wikipedia's actual notability requirements, I believe this band to be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia for meeting the following criteria, as outlined here.

They have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself," appearing in many online stories including some published by prominent sources such as SPIN as well as multiple magazines during their time as a band, including Outburn, Revolver, AMP (for which they donned the cover), Metal Hammer, and Alternative Press, who covered the band many times and nominated their second major-release as one of the "most anticipated" of 2006.
The band "contains two or more independently notable musicians," featuring members of Polar Bear Club, William Tell, Cute Is What We Aim For, and Hit the Lights; the latter two acts having multiple releases that have appeared on the Billboard charts.
They have "released two or more albums on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)", this being Trustkill Records, which was active from 1993-2010 and is notable for having several notable artists on their roster (Bullet for My Valentine, Poison the Well, Eighteen Visions, all of which have had multiple releases reach the Billboard charts) as well as wide-reaching international distribution via Universal Music Group.
They have "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., inclusion on a notable compilation album", that being the Taste of Christmas compilation and the The Killer in You: A Tribute to Smashing Pumpkins compilation, both of which feature a roster of many notable bands.
They have "become one of the most prominent of the local scene of a city", that being Rochester, New York, where there have been very few artists able to achieve greater success than Roses Are Red.
They have "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a national concert tour" regarding their two appearances on the Vans Warped Tour (2004, 2005).

-hsxeric (talk), 9:15 15 February, 2013.

Keep. The band received sufficient coverage to be considered notable via that route. --Michig (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1 with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Gong show 23:35, 16 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nash salad

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

I can't find any evidence that this is a notable salad. Google search comes up with this article and then pages of irrelevant results. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Notable-- salad? Dloh cierekim 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is what I get for not gripping the salad fork by the handle and digging in when I had the chance. Dloh cierekim 21:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find significant coverage earlier, shortly after creation. Searching on the foodnetwork and the cookingchannel website was fruitless, and goat cheese-less as well. Would appreciate feedback on how to best serve this article, but I looked for sources and came away hungry. Bon appetite! Dloh cierekim 21:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge It sounds like a lovely salad. My wife has been making something like it for years; however we were unaware of this iteration or name. But WP:RS and WP:Notable seem to be completely absent. At least on the web. I was unable to uncover anything that documented the source of the name, even. Maybe it could be "tossed" into another article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are notable salads. E.g., Waldorf salad; Greek salad. So one should not pooh pooh the notion of an article. It would be unhygenic to do it in the salad. {:>})> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm beginning to think that this AfD is in danger of becoming a joke. Lettuce be serious, okay? ... discospinster _talk 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Anyway, not aware of a food-related notability guideline, so must rely on general notability guideline. Unable to locate reliable 3rd party sources with verifiable information offering significant coverage. But will consider any new information if presented. Dloh cierekim 02:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any proof of notability regarding this healthy submission. I'd also like to point out that the author made some negative comments on nominator's page shortly after this article was submitted to AfD. Ezhuks (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A relatively recent (Dec 2010 is claimed in the article), this salad has not attracted the notice needed to establish that a Wikpedia article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Dimensions Films

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

This page came up as a "Random article". It was a mess, so I tidied it up, realisng as I went on that there was nothing genuinely notable and it was a suitable case for nomination for deletion. The article was created in June 2006 by MJB12, which is almost certainly the Matt Brown referred to in the article, and probably, by my reading, his age at the time! The article is about an "an independent film making label" (i.e Matt and his mate) who have an impressive selected filmography of 16 films in the space of four years (and that really is selected since the article claims over 50 films to their credit!). This company's high point seems to be not the Venice Film Festival, not Sundance, but the Cherry Creek High School 2006 Film Festival. So, we basically have two 9 - 12yo kids with a camera who knock stuff out an incredible rate with no indication of notability (unless you count 2nd prize in a school contest?) Emeraude (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely non-notable. Nice find. Sideways713 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 - no indication of importance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing notability standards... but (sorry Rob Sinden) not as an "CSD-A7", as their "indicator of importance" is that they made films (CSD A7 is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability... which yes, this article fails. Some of their films can actually be found shared on various social networks (just watched Be My Valantine over at Myspace), but the films have not received coverage and neither have the young filmmakers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 19 February 2013 (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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary dating

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

Seems to be a non-notable neologism. The only source cited is a non-reliable website. The author also quotes two Bible passages which he or she thinks are relevant. Needless to say people did not "date" in the time of Saint Paul. Besides that he was talking about marriage in these verses. There is already an article on Marital conversion, which is a related topic. There is really nothing here to merge there, but maybe a redirect would be a good thing. BigJim707 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search on Google Books shows a number of sources. Reliability is so-so, but the concept seems (barely) notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. I did not check books before nominated. However I still think a redirect to Marital conversion is a good idea. That would be a more neutral and universal title. (Note that sincere believers in almost any religion only date in order to find a marriage partner. So missionary dating is a part of the marital conversion process. A religious person dating for "sinful" reasons would not be missionary dating.) -BigJim707 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A section of Approaches to evangelism might be more appropriate. --JFH (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also fit there. I still have a problem with the title "missionary dating." It seems like a neologism which might not be around for very long. While the practice, with some variations of course, has probably been going on for thousands of years among Christians and people of other religions too. BigJim707 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be neutral on that; perhaps even a weak support. It is true that there does not seem to be much depth to the concept discussed here, and Marital conversion seems to be more of a reliable treatment of the subject. Approaches to evangelism perhaps less so, although it should link to this concept (redirected or not). My suggestion is to let this AfD run out, as you did not mention the merger in the nom, then start a merger (ping me for it, or better yet - ping the related WikiProjects I added on the talk pages for all articles here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Good idea. BigJim707 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty of sources/references about this concept. Query any peer-reviewed sociology journal, conference minutes, or related books and this term will appear. I also do not support an merger. This article should remain on its own. --Thorwald (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A Google Scholar search, contrary to a statement above, shows no currency whatsoever in peer-reviewed literature. There are rather more sources apparent in a Books search, but many of the references are either passing, or in books that do not meet our standards as reliable sources (the Mitchell book is a POD publication, the Boaz book is self-published). But that's not universally true, and it's probably possible to piece together an article on the topic (although it's very hard to find references outside of a conservative Christian POV, so neutrality will be a concern). Alternatively, a merge might to approaches to evangelism might be preferable (and I would prefer that target over marital conversion, which is the goal, not a synonym). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain more why you prefer merge to approaches to evangelism then to marital conversion? I see this topic as a unscientific name for a cultural context (modern American Christian) limited version of marital conversion (although taking time before marriage, during dating). I don't think there is much work on this from the evangelist perspective, the books I've reviewed seemed to be for the most parts "guides to living as a good Christian", and their discussion of "missionary dating" can be summed up as "does not work, can lead you astray, don't do it." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cause/effect distinction, I think. Look at the parent topics. Evangelism has the goal of conversion. Missionary dating has the goal of conversion; thus, it is evangelism. It may be distinct in that the intended conversion is a marital conversion, but that means the topics are related, not synonymous. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (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 College Democrats. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yale College Democrats

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

Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters (Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (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/2013 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite 01:59, 20 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Academy

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

Test case. Googling didn't find any significant news coverage to meet WP:ORG or WP:WEB. Note that although this is a high school, it is an online high school, and thus many of the local notability reasons that normally cause us to keep small high schools do not, I feel, apply. Ray^Talk 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I find no indication of notability. Google found the school's own website and a few other pages related to the school (facebook, an LDS home school directory, etc.), but no indication of any third party coverage. The school is fairly new and it's tiny. Before I added additional search terms to focus on this school, my Google searching did turn up several other schools by the same name, though, so the page title may have a future as a disambiguation page. (This school is based in St. George, Utah; the others I saw are in other parts of the United States.) --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a mainstream educational establishment. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2013 (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata cuisine

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

Unfinished thing about a local cuisine, but so incomplete that it makes no sense at all. The Banner talk 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the nomination really states a case for deletion, but we have a much more informative article about Bengali cuisine. Calcutta is a major city and may as well support an article about its cuisine, and this stub alreadu tells us a bit about its history, but I'll defer to people who know better as to whether readers would be better served by a redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because it is stub doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Clean it up. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The tags are there for the last 25 months and still I haven't seen an effort on this article The Banner talk 17:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally speaking, there isn't a deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but a bit of progress would be nice. The Banner talk 15:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kolkata being a major city in India, has a rich cosmopolitan history which grew with advent of people from different part of the world. Kolkata's cuisine has been influenced by Mughals, Chineese, Jews, Parsis, Greeks, Europeans and not mention other Indian states. It cannot be totally equated with Bengali cuisine. It seems like an unfinished stub, but it will have lot of content if added. May be a cleanup will help, but not a deletion. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the cuisine of Kolkata differ from the larger Bengali cuisine? This is a factor that we could use in determining whether to keep or merge the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I would like to point out that even though Bengali cuisine has a larger impact, certain city centric developments, for eg. the Bakeries like Nahoums, Flurys; Chinese food at China Town; Armenian, Jew and English cuisine; typical street foods like Kathi roll, cutlets are more or less Kolkata-centric and should not be equated with Bengali cuisine. I have a strong feeling that some content from Bengali cuisine should be moved to Kolkata cuisine, as certain things are more or less Kolkata-centric rather than showing a true picture of Bengali cuisine. This article will act as a space to discuss such things in much more details. I will request you to check this book http://books.google.co.in/books?id=btECzLTe6kMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=foods+of+kolkata&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cEMjUbODCMHqrAeBooC4Bw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a clear distinction between the Bengali cuisine and the Kolkate cuisine. I guess redirecting this article would be the best option for now unless somebody makes the difference clear (and backs it up with reliable sources) The Banner talk 15:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being WP:NOTFINISHED is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions; seeing it used for a nomination is baffling. Notability does not depend on the article's being finished or not; an article that hasn't been worked on, regardless of for how long, shouldn't be deleted for that reason as AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Bengali cuisine. I think it's potentially notable, but it's not clear to me that the diffreences matter. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ligonier Uprising

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

The ship itself existed, but there is no indication that the uprising happened. Kunta Kinte is a fictional character, and all of the events in this article are from the series, not reality. See also this interview with Alex Haley (the author of the book)[1], which does not mention anything about this rebellion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the slave uprising fictional, it made its first appearance in the TV miniseries Roots, not the book.[2] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search but outside of the TV show, this fictional uprising just isn't notable except for in the confines of the television show. I'm not sure if this is something that should be used as a redirect or not, though. There's absolutely nothing out there to show that this actually happened. Other than links back to this Wikipedia article and mentions of it in relation to Roots, there's nothing out there.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rising is presented as fact (also in the article Lord Ligonier (slave ship), which I will clean up), but is fiction from the TV series, not even mentioned in the book Roots (which is itself now regarded largely as fiction). As a fictional event, not notable enough for a redirect, much less an article. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2013 (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 keep per WP:SK criteria 1 and 2. (non-admin closure) Storkk (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Māori language

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

Reason SKOPPO (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason has been given for deleting this well-written, well-sourced article about a clearly notable subject. This AFD is specious and likely vandalism, in my opinion.Dawn Bard (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I have left a message on the nominator's Talk Page informing them that they did not provide a reason for the AFD. Frankly, I don't think any reason for deletion will be enough, but even so. Also note that this AFD and related notices are this users first, and so far only, contribution. Howicus (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obviously. Delinquent nomination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, It is a well written article about a living natural language. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (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, WP:PORNBIO and WP:POINT. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Anderson

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

We have been here before. She has now won an industry award that leads to no real world reliable coverage and I personally feel that PORNBIO is not a reliable SNG because it contradicts BLP that requires proper sourcing for biographical articles. I therefore do not feel the AVN = a notable second event and that this remains essentially a BLP1E. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why doesn't it lead to "no real world reliable coverage"? This has been discussed a second time very thoroughly not only on the WP:BIO talk page, but on this article's talk page as well (including with the admin that deleted it, who now endorses it). You even acknowledge that she won the award (Best Supporting Actress, not a scene-related award), so this reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Or are you just calling BLP1E because of her connection to Charlie Sheen?) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Outside of what the nominator "personally feels", the subject clearly passes our notability guidelines. She won an AVN Award for best supporting actress, she was nominated to a XBIZ Award for best actress and to several other AVN Awards for best actress, crossover star of the year, best web starlet and best tease performance (plus a bunch of scene awards that, per consensus, do not count towards notability). Even ignoring WP:PORNBIO, that quite recently received widespread consensus on its actual version, how she fails WP:ANYBIO? Wikipedia is not censored, and she is clearly notable in her field. I wonder if the nominator would have rised the same objections if Anderson was an award winning graphic designer, or a clay pigeon shooter. Cavarrone (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so apart from Sheen, where is the real world coverage of her outside the adult press? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question, as well as your deletion rationale, just makes it clear you have a personal bias about adult entertainment industry, and personal bias/personal feelings are almost never good arguments in deletion discussions. Adult press coverage is real world coverage, at best you can say it is "niche" coverage; a lot of categories of people, including academics, have no "real world" notability outside of niche publications. Wikipedia is built as a universal encyclopedia, including an adult cinema encyclopedia: in this context Capri Anderson is a notable person, and a stub about this subject, that lists and reports the sources for the well-known and significant awards she received/for which she was nominated, is perfectly appropriate for our encyclopedia (even without mentioning at all Charlie Sheen). Cavarrone (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take that as "none" then? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, what's the deal here? The fact that you proved the subject's notability yourself in your nomination makes it confusing as to why you nominated it to begin with. And is there a guideline that says coverage within the adult press should be ignored? If so, please direct me to it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Spartaz, you should take that as your argument about "real world" was rejected at its roots. We don't judge notability on the basis of the subjective feelings on what someone considers "real world", we judge it on the more objective basis of guidelines and policies. Cavarrone (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on best actress award. I don't dismiss niche sources as not being reliable sources in considering the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given her multiple AVN nominations and an AVN win, spread over multiple years (2011-2013), and the Charlie Sheen scandal she passes the notability criteria. – fdewaele, 15 February 2013, 19:17 (CET).

Keep per Cavarrone. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't believe we're even discussing this. She clearly passes WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep as (accept it or not, nominator) WP:PORNBIO is properly met and sourced in accepted genre sources required by WP:BLP, and the Charlie Sheen incident is a different and itself sourcable issue. The multiple awards of this person's career, and the content of the article itself, show this is not a WP:BLP1E. Understandably, most porn actresses do not get coverage in mainstream media sources... resulting in difficulties in showing background information. Because of the Sheen incident, we at least DO have something more to share with our readers. If the Sheen incident were a singular event in the life of an otherwise unknown person, then BLP1E would apply... but as she has her notability apart from the scandal, BLP1E is not the case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 16 February 2013 (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 College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard College Democrats

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

Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters (Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, it follows precedent of other chapters having pages citing notable contributions to political parties. The article articulates the success of the Democrats, and acknowledges their important influence on Massachusetts politics. While other schools may have similar chapters, the Harvard College Democrats are unique in that they have had some of the most lasting impact, as detailed in the article.--140.247.0.110
- Just because other chapters have articles doesn't mean that this one is notable. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:GNG--GrapedApe (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite 02:00, 20 February 2013 (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 College Democrats. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas College Democrats

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

State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite 02:00, 20 February 2013 (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 College Republicans. Per WP:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas College Republicans

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

State-level arm of the national College Republicans--notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to College Republicans per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. Subject appears to have received multiple mentions from published reliable sources. However, non of the coverage has the subject as the primary subject of the content, and in total I cannot see the multiple mentions amassing to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, any verified content can be merged to the parent organization's article, and a redirect left in this article's place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.— -dainomite 01:59, 20 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping centers in Aklan

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

Wikilinked to only one article. Offers non-notable information. Unsourced. WP:NOTDIR. Same rationale for this one and this one. List of shopping malls in the Philippines already sufficient. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Unsourced and redundant to List of shopping malls in the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:17, 14 February 2013 (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/2013 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 11:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A directory of shopping malls which there is only one article. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2013 (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. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Giverin

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article has been PRODed before. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (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) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image song

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

The original concern of the PROD was "While this is a topic that does exist, the article is full of original research and the only references in use are to show the charting information for the K-On! songs." I'm taking this to AfD since I believe that this PROD could possibly be controversial since there are sources in the article, and also because I want a wider hearing for this article. I have no particular opinion on this article; as such, I abstain and state that my opinion is neutral. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Looks like an useful enclyclopedic article on an enclyclopedic topic. Has no wp:notability references/sources but I found some immediately in a search and so they exist. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you provide on the article talk page all these links you found? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tentative keep Searching Anime News Network shows the term is used. What we need is someplace to source the definition from. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its a real thing, it should have an article. We need the encyclopedia is complete as possible. And you shouldn't bring something to AFD unless you believe it should be deleted. Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 01:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2013 (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 Kahaani#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kahaani 2

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

Isn't it too early to talk about K2, as filming has not yet started? --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kahaani#Sequel for now. This article duplicates the content from that section; seems WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article for the sequel at this time. Gong show 18:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow. BOVINEBOY2008 22:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.No urgency and its not appropriate before filming begins.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 06:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raz Sarkisjan

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

Kickboxer who's appears to never been ranked in the top 10 or fought for a major championship. He has one big upset win, but lost his last fight and has never cracked the top 10. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had a fight on It's Showtime 60, a loss to Marcus Vinicius. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 22:54, 02 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how losing at a non-notable kickboxing event confers notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some people losing gives notability. This is nothing. See Araksi Çetinyan and its first deletion discussion. She "won" a contest which was annulled. Her title has been "retrieved". Neither the competition she participated (we have no clue who else did so) nor herself (we don't know if she is still alive but we made a BLP for her) has any notability at all but still she has a WP article. It is not about what you do but how many colleagues you've got. --E4024 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force ==> Notability ==> People : As an additional criteria, it is presumed that a kickboxer is notable if he/she fulfills one of the following: has competed in promotions K-1 and It's Showtime. This rule must be updated because of Glory however he fought in It's Showtime as the rule says. If I didn't understand the rule than my fault and delete profile. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 22:54, 04 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has competed at the highest level of kickboxing in promotions such as It's Showtime and RISE, and has a recent win over the world #1 lightweight Masaaki Noiri. The page needs to be updated not deleted. - Shaolin Punk (talk) 22:31, 02 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The victory over Noiri would have been more impressive if they'd fought at lightweight (which is 60 or 63 kg, depending on the promotion). Instead, they fought as middleweights (generally a 66 kg limit), which is Sarkisjan's weight class. That's why the victory didn't help Sarkisjan move up in anybody's rankings.Mdtemp (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim that simply appearing at an "It's Showtime" event makes a fighter notable has not been supported at other AFDs. For example, Moise Rimbon was deleted despite appearing at a K-1 event (and being an MMA fighter). Sarkisjan's victory over Noiri was a big upset, but appears to have been a one time event--he hasn't followed it up with victories in the 66 kg division.204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find signficant independent coverage of him. The coverage of his upset over Noiri was routine sports reporting. He doesn't seem to have fought for any major titles or ever been ranked in the top 10. Papaursa (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I'm not seeing claims to notability, except for his one upset win (fighting someone from a lower weight division) and that doesn't appear to meet any project notability criteria. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding very little independent coverage of him, so I don't think you can argue that he passes WP:GNG. He also doesn't seem to pass any martial arts specific guideline. CaSJer (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to boil down to whether failing to meet the notability criteria at WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:KICK is trumped by being a middleweight who beat the top ranked lightweight. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (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) —Theopolisme (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unirac

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

non-notable and it is spam. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily meets the WP:CORP requirements, and the article is also very well referenced. Spammy language can easily be fixed with editing. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable article. Spam is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to be reworked. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large market share (notability claim clear), some references, also the Hilti acquisition is kinda interesting...wonder how that works out for them (but they are a big company).TCO (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found in GNews search plus already supplied references satisfy WP:CORP. Tone is a matter for cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough good references to establish notability. Beagel (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Guidice

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

The actor co-starred in a short-lived television program, Bob Patterson (TV series). Although he was featured in a NYT profile (the article's sole cited source) and mentioned in at least three reviews of Patterson (in the New York Daily News 31 July 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel 2 October 2001, and Houston Chronicle 2 October 2001), he does not appear to satisfy WP:Notability (people). Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone who restored the one deep reference I was able to find (the NYT profile cited above), I was unable to find anything else that provided in-depth coverage, via various Google searches as well as NYT archives and Highbeam. As such, I have yet to see evidence that sources exist which would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:53, 12 February 2013 (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} 07:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - In addition to the New York Times article, I found this Dallas Morning News article from 2001 for Bob Patterson and this NY Daily News article from 2007 which mentions he is now a boxer and even mentions his one major role Bob Patterson. Additional searches for his boxing career provided nothing useful aside from repeats for the NY Daily News article. IMDb also shows he hasn't been active recently in acting. I have no prejudice for a future article if he becomes a notable boxer or actor. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 15 February 2013 (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 both. Secret ^account 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Weihrauch

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

Page fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD contested without reason by page creator. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating on this same AfD Lukas Raeder for the same reason. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then look at Emre Can and Maximilian Riedmüller...they hasnt also played .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royroydeb (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riedmüller has played in the 3. Liga, Can played in the DFL-Supercup and DFB-Pokal. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither has received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning both articles fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - as per usual arguments for non-notable footballers outlined above. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (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} 06:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brady

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

It doesn't seem this woman is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article is very short and many things in it are unsourced. If this page is not deleted, it should probably be merged/redirected to Brady Campaign which is a notable page. GladiusHellfire (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:WRITER, her book received a fair bit of press coverage (I added various reviews etc). I also added quotes indicating her importance as a gun control activist (separate from her husband). She has received enough press coverage to meet WP:GNG in my opinion, much related to her book, as well as her campaigning and claims she may have violated gun-control laws about background checks for a rifle she bought. Being short and unsourced are not themselves reasons for deletion, but it's a bit longer now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think shes notable as an author, sorry. Anyone can write a book, doesn't necessarily make them notable. OJ Simpson wrote a book, but his notability comes from him being a criminal and in sports, not his book. IronKnuckle (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She meets WP:AUTHOR: her book has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Please read Wikipedia policies before commenting, and then try and explain how she doesn't meet them. WP:PERNOM is not a valid argument for deletion discussions either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you misunderstand what Knuckle is trying to say, and that's that she's not notable for being an author. Her Brady Campaign is notable, but not necessarily her. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Mrs. Brady was one of the most prominent American gun control advocates of the 1980s. The article's references are also in order. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's more the Brady Campaign that did that if anything, which is why I suggested a merge to that article. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CBS Evening News called this leading political activist "one of few people who got Congress to act on gun control" through shepherding passage of the Brady Bill to require gun background checks. Clear GNG pass, whether or not she passes under the special guidelines for writers. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the notable Brady Campaign did more about that then her. Why not merge this article to that one? Seems reasonable. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing in the article that's unsourced. She's a very prominent political figure. Flyte35 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does she pass WP:POLITICIAN? GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a politician. That's not the point. She meets general notability for people. She's received extensive media coverage and has made significant impact in her field, control control advocacy.Flyte35 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Obviously notable. And I hope we are not about to see another spurt in nominations of notable subjects who happen to favor gun control. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they are not notable subjects, then it doesn't matter what political position they take. This article deserves a vote on the AfD. I dont think it's a "Snow Keep" candidate. If it's found notable for some reason it will be kept right? GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/. Another bad faith, preposterous AFD nomination from a recently arrived SPA with a political agenda. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Wolfowitz, please assume good faith! WP:AOBF IronKnuckle (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a gun control advocate and as the wife of one of the few subjects ever wounded in a presidential assassination attempt. 'Article is very short' is also not a proper nomination reason as BLP's in general are under different standards than general articles. Going through nominator's edits suggests user is pushing against articles involving gun control and anything anti-UFC, so I agree with HW's observations above. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assume good faith please WP:AOBF. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. The motivation of nominator is not important. All users edit based on their interests and beliefs. A user opposed to gun control has an understandable interest in trying to cut down entries related to gun control. Some of them are no doubt worthy of deletion. But this is ridiculous. Sarah Brady passes WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Q.E.D. Flyte35 (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Had massive notability in the 80s as a gun control advocate.TCO (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Clearly passes WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 15 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 01:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology in Libraries

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

Original research, and redundant with a few different articles: History of writing, History of computing hardware, and Library science. The original version seems to be a school paper, but the original author removed most of the content after the article was proposed for deletion through WP:PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is potential merit in having a specific entry, but as it is written this is a personal essay about the topic rather than an encyclopedic entry and would have to be completely re-written from scratch to begin to pass basic guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will try to persuade the ed. to contribute to our articles on the subject in a more useful fashion. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (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 as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GMPS X Factor (U.K Series 1)

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

Unsourced article (actually a collection of tables) about a television (?) series that doesn't even seem to exist. It may be a hoax, but if not, the article fails WP:NOTDIR and seems completely non-notable based on the absence of verifiable sources. - Mr X 00:45, 14 February 2013 (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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saitama City Cup

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

I could find no significant coverage for this article. All of the (report) sources within the article itself appear to be dead links. Nominating article for deletion per WP:NN. Stubbleboy 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bensci54 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There don't seem to be any criteria for sports event notability, but the event involves professional teams and had decent attendance prior to the 3.11 earthquake. It has a fair amount of coverage in the Japanese press. I don't know much about Japanese soccer though, so am willing to defer to someone who knows more. If the problem is the lack of sources for the results, I can replace the dead links with live ones. Cckerberos (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered by TBS [3] and Asahi Shinbun [4], which are notable major media outlets in Japan, also by the Saitama City itself [5]. Event has featured teams such as Bayern Munich and Manchested United. Notability is present through coverage. Jun Kayama 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received coverage in reliable sources, and has had participation from teams such as my favorite football team The Red Devils. How can a cup with Man U be not notable? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article which covers every season of this cup, barely passes the general notability guideline per the coverage presented by Jun Kayama (not per the argument that if some English team participates in a tournament, it is notable). Mentoz86 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think NLH5 was joking. Anyway, Keep per sources cited by JK, although I think Saitama City itself covering the event doesn't necessarily add anything to the notability -- I'm pretty sure most Japanese municipalities' websites advertise bake-sales and the like. :P elvenscout742 (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2013 (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. None of the keep commenters, mostly single-purpose accounts gave no policy based reasoning for deletion, consensus is clear here. Secret ^account 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Graziosi

AfDs for this article:

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

I hate to say it like this, but this article is basically bullshit. ref 1 does not back up his claim to be a entrepreneur or business speaker. This read as an advert. Making the New York Times best selling books on <insert here your speciality> does not make him a best selling author. This article is promotional and not written to be encyclopaedic. Martin451 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment this seems to qualify as speedy given the previous deletion discussion.Martin451 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete- Per analysis provided by DGG. The article has a very promotional tone, and needs copy editing to address that, but the subject seems to be at lest minimally notable. Specifically, it meets item 4 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created,... a significant or well-known work,... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - Mr X 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to promote junk. The article is created by a dubious editor for a well known ponzi scheme operator who is a self-proclaimed "real estate expert", when in reality is a search engine optimization expert who creates numerous self-boasting sites designed to capture words 'fraud' and 'scam' when searched in tandem with his name to mask the possibility of discovering factual information concerning the real nature of his underhanded boiler room operations which run along with the likes of Professional Marketing International, Scott McGillivray, and Anthony Morison (whose page was also created by the same editor). Once again, no need to promote this junk. 99.135.173.43 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page of the article, you need good reliable references to claim someone is a scammer. I had a look but could not find any, only gossip. Martin451 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said on the talk page - I'll post some specific links, yet, there's much more than mere gossip, unless of course authentic testimonials from 1000's of ripped off victims are gossip to you. However, in the mean time, please try doing google searches with his name and words 'scam' or 'fraud' and you'll see for yourself that he indeed creates clones of his own sites designed to sway whoever searches for the quality in his "product" from the neutral sites to the ones run by him. How often do you find a respectable business entity that creates such "umbrella-capture" sites for itself in order to protect/hide its own knowingly fraudulent/scamming practices from the public's arising awareness? If this shear fact is not apparent to you, I don't think you'll be convinced by much else. 99.141.253.215 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am under a strong impression that even if I take the time to include the promised links, the continuous flow of nonsense posted by the fraudster's "symphatizers" will be viewed as a valid opinion as well during the arbitration, thanks to the complacency of the "onlookers". 99.141.241.61 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the reaction to the links I posted below, you are probably right. Lionscitygl (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, comment - What you consider junk somebody else considers as good, that is your oppinion.. References support his work and his notability, somebody likes him, somebody doesn't.. --BiH (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems promotional, a WP:Advert, which is why it was deleted in 2009. I also looked at your talk page history, and you do seem to have an interest in writing promotional articles. I will be asking user:DGG to have a look.Martin451 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keepi do not know why the hate. the article is good

and i formative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.132.67.73 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two books on the NYT best seller list are on the "Hardcover Business Best Sellers" ,not the general non-fiction best sellers, and have their records marked "Some bookstores report receiving bulk orders on these titles." Bulk orders normally mean that the books are being used in promotions of one sort or another. It's not totally damning, as than half the books on the Business Best Seller test have that indication. But is none the less quite sufficient indication that this is not necessarily the automatic pass that we would normally give to a NYT best-seller. If it were, he would be undoubtedly notable. In 2009, I !voted to keep, but I did not sufficiently analyze the best seller data, and at that time not just I but the general feeling here was not anywhere near as strict about promotional articles. This is 4 years later and articles like this, are the major threat to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly created for promotional purposes. 99.118.128.77 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comment - Article has good sources. Personal opinion is not a reason for deletion.
Delete Mr. Graziosi runs his operation by cranking out his bogus publications for a sole purpose of lead-generating data which is consecutively funneled to PMI, Tax Club, and others who in turn bombard these leads with high pressure telemarketing calls for the ultimate purpose of maxing out their credit cards under the pretext of so-called "coaching opportunities". He is indeed a well known con man, who appears to be in need of wiki page to legitimize his status. Lionscitygl (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comment What people are saying here is not related to the article, does anyone have proof of what you are saying? Article has sources and you all have proven by talking soo much that Dean Graziosi does deserve to have a page. He seems to be a "hot topic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.143.126 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some interesting links http://saltydroid.info/dean-graziosi-rocks-the-bottom/ or http://saltydroid.info/band-of-bothers/ and particularly this one which is the authentic Graziosi/Morrison scamming script used by the PMI employees (some of whom are apparently posting on this page as we speak) http://saltydroid.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Boiling-Instructions.pdf Lionscitygl (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You again provided single and individual opinion about him. There are the exact same references in the article that are showing that he is a well known and successful man, that his books are mentioned in New York Times, that he appeared in my TV shows, etc. You all obviously have something personal against him. I do not see any hard arguments for deletion, except some private opinions. --BiH (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently some (or perhaps the same) of Mr. Graziosi's shills are getting really desperate by waging personal attacks on whoever disagrees with them. Note to administrators: shall this remain as a nomination for deletion page, and if so - for how long, or shall it be highjacked and used for skirmish purposes - aimed at diffusing the focus in question? Lionscitygl (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything against him. What I see is an advertisement, not an encyclopaedic article. I came across this article whilst watching recent changes, and saw it vandalised. I looked through the article history in an attempt to find a clean version, but could only find adverts or vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to hero worship people like Dean. Lionscityg1, normally articles for disscussion remain a discussion for at least a week so that interested editors can have their say.Martin451 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Keep People hate Dean for some reason, they are not being objective at all.. They are voting for deletion just because they think he's a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.79.154 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article, fully comprised of promotional content, is an attempt to dedicate a wiki page to an otherwise total nobody whose only 'fame' seems to stem solely from his taking advantage of the unsuspecting public 67.163.48.84 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever the reason for the fame, he's still a person of note. Should the article be edited and less promotional, I think we can all agree on that, but deleted? Wikipedia is meant to provide info on all types of notable subjects. If he's a scam or takes advantage of people, just add that with a legitimate source citing it and proving it. I don't know much about this guy in terms of national recognition, but searching through his site, he's been invited on to news programs like WGN ^[1], (I understand it's on his site, but it obviously happened). Obviously he's notable enough to be invited as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.163.98 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This man has always been on tv. You can also find all of the good things he has done for people on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.173.53 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that there is a very good number of people who are benefiting from Dean's books and training. Some of the sources quoted for deletion do not seem very credible or are highly manipulative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.42.56 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems to be a lot of IP users !voting keep. This is not a vote, and should be taken on merit.Martin451 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing the pattern and commenting on the matter before this charade got out of hand, as "their" behavior only further underscores the original issue at hand, not to mention the fact that the article fails to meet wiki notability criteria, by a few miles. I put "their" in quotes as it is more than apparent that it is no more than 1 or 2 individuals from Graziosi/PMI team who are posting here virtually identical 'keep' comments (all statistically improbable in frequency and full of promotional praise) while using internet masks and/or proxies which allow "them" to sign with numerically unrelated IP's. 99.135.168.169 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2013 (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} 07:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jannot

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

Subject is non-notable, apart from being a (former) chief editor of two magazines, and did assorted things for other magazines. Also, the person who created this article is named "Rjannot." Possible conflict of interest? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (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} 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 14 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dukes

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

WP:BLP1E Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hadn't refreshed and was adding an AfD tag myself. Although no one's death is truly minor, this was a minor event that happened to a not-notable person and had very limited news coverage. I'll add that this might be very painful to relatives and friends - we don't need this article and we should get rid of it as soon as possible. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that there's no basis for a bio article here. His death did receive significant press coverage, and it is discussed at Tilikum (orca)#Second incident. It's possible that a few bits of the content here, and the additional sources, could be used to amplify the discussion there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, it isn't actually a BLP1E since the subject has been dead since 1999. An analogous principle applies, though, amd we shouldn't keep an article about an otherwise non-notable person who received press attention only because of the unusual nature of his death. As Arxiloxos notes, the death is covered in the article about the notable orca. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abrantee boateng

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abrantee boateng (2nd nomination)

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

This article was recreated after the deletion discussion for DJ Abrantee, which was deleted and salted (Abrantee Boateng was also deleted under G4 as a recreation of DJ Abrantee). The user recreated the article again, and its prose is substantially identical to DJ Abrantee, but I wasn't comfortable G4ing it because they did add some references (and lack of those was the problem brought up in the last AFD). Most refs are to random websites for promotion of musicians, or youtube, or other sites with no claim to reliability that I can see. But one goes to the guardian.co.uk and another goes to the London Evening Standard which seems legit. I offered to userfy this for the author and help them work on it but no response in a week and a half. I did a Google search to see if I could turn up any reliable sources to add but no luck there. I think he's got the potential to become notable after a little more coverage but there's not enough written about him yet to have a verifiable article, so delete. delldot ∇. 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am not clear of the status of Choice FM, but it appears to be a broadcast station. If so, I would expect its daytime presenters to be notable. If kept, REname to Abrantee Boateng - correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2013 (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} 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this salt-evading title as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[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 Memory debugger. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MemCheck

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

Uncited mention of how the term is used by multiple people. Half of the article's text lists similar terms. Not encyclopedic nor a dictionary definition. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Memory debugger. MemCheck is the name for a few different programs that perform memory debugging functions to test software programs. There are already two MemCheck entries and a Valgrind entry in the list of debugging programs at Memory debugger, so the article is a natural target. I recommend redirect instead of deletion because I think MemCheck could be a popular search term for this kind of program. It's unclear whether this article has any content useful to merge into Memory debugger. --Mark viking (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes good sense to me. But as the nominator, I'm not going to "vote". – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memory debugger; Hal Duston's Memory Allocation Checker (see [6]) seems to be the only content from this article worth a one-sentence mention (but not an entire section) inside Memory debugger. Toffanin (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2013 (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. Wifione ^Message 07:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mandalawi

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

This subject fails both WP:BASIC (no substantial coverage by independent reliable sources actually about the subject except his own interviews) and WP:CREATIVE, as his works appear only in private collections, none of which are themselves notable, and none of which are permanent or approach any other factor of the alternative criterion. Not surprisingly, this article is a family project by someone who, as best I can tell, is a family member of the subject. The most reliable coverage, that of the LA Times, is about cartoonists, but this subject's place in it is scant, and he is not the actual topic of discussion (he talks about being a cartoonist, just like the several others in the story — cartoons are the actual topic). The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES in previous versions contained trivial mention, and some were even associated with the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have anyone checked the Arabic/Farsi sources to determine the consensus for AFD? I'm surprised this isn't mention, and that may make him meet WP:GNG. Secret ^account 20:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Arabic sources; my Arabic reading (that is fuṣḥa 'l-3aṣr) isn't that of a native, but I can indeed read, and generally better sourcing didn't jump out at me. FWIW, the Arabic Wikipedia article was written by the same family member as this one, and isn't sourced to anything better: insubstantial coverage in reliable sources (example, example) and deeper coverage in completely unreliable sources such as self-publications and things the subject has been involved in (example, example). The best coverage I could find was this, which is a perfect example of mid-grade human interest journalism (Firas Hajjaj isn't well-known in this field) that should never underpin notability alone. Otherwise, things that Mandalawi wrote (example) do not indicate their own importance and must be discounted without third party coverage. Finally, I'm not sure why Farsi would be relevant, and I didn't get any noticeable Farsi results. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seem to be enough plentiful notable results for علي المندلاوي, such as article on him I just added article at external links. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to an article on Mandalawi by Mandalawi... Hard to see how this adds to his own notability. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (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. With no prejudice to recreation if more reliable sourcing is created/found. Secret ^account 01:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relyon

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

Non-notable company. Article is cited entirely to primary or unreliable sources. Article's creator has been blocked for using a promotional username. A search for sources turns up some stuff for another company called Reylon who manufacture furniture. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-primary reliable sources found that would demonstrate this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete - It could be the language barrier but multiple detailed searches including the key people and products haven't provided anything substantial aside from a search with only "Saral" in which I found this 2007 crn.in link. Additional searches at The Hindu found links here and here (brief mentions for a job fair). Searches at Indian newspapers Deccan Chronicle, Times of India, Economic Times, The Financial Express and The Telegraph yielded no results. A search at the Financial Times provided one result here and a search at The Business Standard provided four results from nearly ten years ago for their other products (CompTax and software CDs). There may be some non-English articles out there but I would have expected to find something more significant among these searches and news websites. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 15 February 2013 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low participation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Model United Nations conferences

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

This is a list of club events, none of which is independently notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect target, if anything. I don't think it fails WP:LIST as indiscriminate. Also, while each Model UN may be NN, the concept of such conferences, and the circuit of clubs, are inded notable, as shown by many citations in article already. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is already an article about the Model United Nations. As a general concept, it is quite notable. However, the list of individual branches seems excessively trivial. The many citations in the article are merely links to each individual club's website. That does not confer notability to any of the individual clubs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:15, 21 February 2013 (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. Not one of the keep commentators mentioned any type of policy here, clear consensus it fails WP:V.Secret ^account 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mouldings Industry Association

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

No independent coverage or references to be found anywhere - not notable -- _nonsense ferret 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage and references, even though that notability is not proven by a Google Result, a search does not give any result. Is this fabricated? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Looks to me like a significnat industrial association. An association of this kind with nearly 4000 members ought to be notable. I agree it is a bad article, but that is not a reasaon for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion isn't because it is a bad article, but because none of the details from the association's website are verifiable - can you find a single independent source anywhere? notice for example the picture of 'mouldings house' in telford [7] - you might be forgiven for noticing a remarkable similarity to Spear House in Staffordshire [8]. Bit disappointed in your research on this one to be honest.---- _nonsense ferret 13:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed odd, and Google Street View confirms that the image is indeed that of Spear House. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe Spear House was the call centre where many of the calls were routed, but postal address is a different location, which explains the confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) — Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - I can find no coverage about this organisation. I agree wtih Peterkingiron that large industry associations ought to be notable, but in this case, the lack of coverage would indicate that notability is not met, and indeed, verifiability is an issue as I found no third party sources that confirm any information in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that the page needs to be improved, but again number of members is significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) — Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply Number of members does not denote notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Yes perhaps, but quality of members is considered important, and I note that many of the largest retailers are members such as DadoRails.co.uk, SkirtingBoards.com, SkirtingBoards.co.uk, SkirtingBoard.co.uk, TimberMerchants.net, Architraves.co.uk, Architraves.com etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shy Suzy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Notability is not inherited from its members. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Must agree that the quality of the members, combined with the quantity makes this a notable organisation. I shall reach out to some of them to contribute further information to improve the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcelBrandon (talk • contribs)
Delete - Notability is not shown and can't be established due to lack of coverage or any sources. "Mouldings Industry Association" hits are either pages of its "member" sites or various advertising boards. Ezhuks (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iff verifiable, then keep; else delete and block submitter as hoaxer. DS (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Verifiability does not equate to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2013 (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} 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be art

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

Non-notable art movement. No significant improvement in the refs since the PROD was removed two years ago. The French version has been deleted for the same reason. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Available refs are outdated, no further sources otherwise on Google. hmssolent\Let's convene 03:05, 14 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serv-U FTP Server

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

Non-notable software. No references to assert notability other than state "it exists". Bob Re-born (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source in the article is a press release, searches for it don't return any non-trivial RS mentions, and neither do searches for the supposed award that it won. — daranz [ t ] 20:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no significant coverage. Press releases are from the company. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 03:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked salmon cheesecake

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

Not notable: no evidence this is a notable recipe, being mentioned briefly on a television program. Also doubtful whether it describes one thing or a class ("cheesecake made with Salmon") – a Google search, especially an image search, turns up images almost all very unlike the included one. Probably wikibooks:Cookbook is a better place for it.

De-prodded with the reason "I disagree, the program cited shows the dish is locally well known."; but being locally well known is not enough for notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image search throws up thousands of images, which by itself indicates some notability. Most of these images seem consistent with the article to me. Just because some are big cheesecakes and some are small doesn't indicate a contradiction. Did you search on the term "smoked salmon cheesecake" in quotes, or were you searching without quotes, on the individual terms smoked, salmon, and cheesecake? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This dish is locally well known in Scotland, and apparently also Canada. Even seems to be available in the US. There was much more than a brief mention on the TV program, it was a major segment of the cited episode and was covered in depth. I note that the nominator is still pointing to the inappropriate image, but has cut from the quote of my reason for challenging the prod that I agree the it is a bad image and does not represent the dish. This might be grounds for removing the image, but it is not grounds for deleting the article. Spinning Spark 22:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough sources are available about this topic to support an article. A cursory search has revealed sources that are beyond recipe listings. Some are paywalled, so the depth of coverage in those is difficult to ascertain: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Meets WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- That just looks like a list of search results. The ones I looked at are recipes. I don't see any that provide significant coverage of the topic beyond that. WP doesn't have a policy on recipes but then it doesn't need one: the content of recipes can't be copyrighted so they are widely reproduced with minor variations in many publications, especially now in web encyclopaedias. For a recipe/food to be notable it needs significant in-depth coverage other than in recipes. If it's e.g. a significant regional dish it should be easy to establish this from sources. But the local site in the references doesn't mention it at all.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Garden of Skye Smokehouse website does talk about the dish on this page. Spinning Spark 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a comment thread and all they say is Please contact us at "info@gardenofskyesmokehouse.co.uk" and we will be happy to send you a price list with details of how to order, etc.. Not a reliable source or in-depth coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't say it was, just countering the assertion that the site does not mention the dish. Spinning Spark 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - recipes do not establish notability. The provided sources are not about the item but just show it exists. Notability has not been established. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly notable. Discussed, for example, in 85 books according to Google Books, including the iconic Betty Crocker Cookbook and other publications such as 1001 Recipes: Ultimate Cookery Book, Prizewinning Recipes: 200 of the Best Dishes, Red, White & Blue Ribbon: Winning Recipes and The Best of New Wave Cooking.
Delete - Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The classic opening line is worthy of repetition: "Smoked salmon cheesecake is a savoury cheesecake containing smoked salmon." Well, that explains everything, does it not? Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikibooks:Cookbook, per JohnBlackburne. While many recipes and images exist, there don't seem to be other sources about the dish to demonstrate notability; the TV-show source discusses the program itself, not the article's subject. Miniapolis 21:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Foods and dishes (recipes) can be encyclopedic. But there needs to be something other than appearance in a number of recipe books or mention in a television programme. Cultural or historic importance would be examples, whilst the fact that some people liked the taste generally not. I have not seen anything here to persuade me that this passes the test. --AJHingston (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, perhaps a merge to cheesecake would be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several editors have given "Wikipedia is not a cookbook/recipe book" as the deletion rationale. Actually, there is no recipe given in the article for that very reason. There seems to be some knee-jerk reaction against food articles going on here. And the idea that a recipe book cannot be a reliable source for a food article is quite baffling - that is just the place one would expect to find reliable information about a food dish. As for notability, it has been said that appearance in recipe books does not establish notability. If only in one or two isolated books maybe, but if it is found in numerous books it does show just that: that is how we define notability. Spinning Spark 07:45, 17 February 2013 (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) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork universe theory

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

Whereas there's a popular analogy, there's no "Clockwork universe theory"... Most of the citations fail WP:V and the page has become a POV WP:COATRACK, as evidenced by the TOC: 1 Art; 2 Opposition; 3 World-machine; 4 Objections Due to Free Will; 5 Objections Due to Entropy; 6 Objections Due to Axiomatic Mathematics; 7 Objections Due to Chaos Theory; 8 Objections Due to Quantum Mechanics... A redirection to either Determinism or Mechanism (philosophy) has been proposed.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:30, 13 February 2013 (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/2013 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand the thinking. Clockwork universe has been in vogue as a theory describing the predictibility of the universe coming out of the renassaince since at least the 17th century. It resonates in popular parlance as a metaphore described in the introduction. Recent (mostly last 40+ years) discoveries have sharpened our understanding as the whether the universe is mathematically predictible. If these discoveries are discomforting, don't read about them but don't supress them... Just a thought... this section as you must have noted bears mostly on Newtonian dynamics which was the underpining of the theory... JudgementSummary (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename to Clockwork universe~~ Speedy Keep: The paradigm of the clockwork universe has been a notable topic of philosophical discourse since the time of Isaac Newton. A Google Books search on the phrase "clockwork universe" turns up several thousand results. The article already contains over two dozen references, many of which qualify as WP:RS and the "Further Reading" notes that an entire book is devoted to the subject (The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World). "Clockwork universe" has even become a notable concept outside its original domain of philosophy and classical mechanics (e.g. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy). The article readily satisfies WP:GNG and the topic is sufficiently distinct from both Determinism and Mechanism (philosophy) that a merge is not required. Any portions of the article having issues with WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, or citations which fail WP:V can be corrected through ordinary editing. These are all surmountable problems that do not represent good reasons for deleting the article. I agree with the nom that there is no Clockwork universe theory per se. It's more proper to speak of the topic as a paradigm that is based upon a philosophical interpretation of physical science, especially Newton's theory of classical mechanics, than a "theory" in its own right - a word which should be reserved for scientific predictive/explanatory models which have become established through a substantial body of supporting experimental evidence. So I would support renaming the article to Clockwork universe (which currently redirects to clockwork universe theory). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Based upon subsequent discussion, it appears the nominator's arguments fall within the scope of WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:MOVE. WP:SK criterion #1 applies. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of improving the article as opposed to removing all mention of the subject, I think that dropping "theory" from the title is a good idea. While the concept has elements of "theory" and "paradigm" and "metaphor" and whatnot, I think that "theory" is the least supportable for the reasons given eloquently above. "Paradigm" is a big improvment but has the connotation of being an archetype or example as if the subject involved different types of clocks/watches. "Metaphor" is the best in my opinion but also lacks something of the essence of its widespread usage... and "concept" is too generic and lacks color JudgementSummary (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: While I agree that the WP:TITLE, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and WP:V issues could be addressed by stubbing the article and moving it to Clockwork universe, I'd like to clarify that no one has actually suggested 1) that Clockwork universe be deleted, 2) that Clockwork universe is not a notable analogy, 3) or that the misapplication of the sources in the Clockwork universe theory article also fail WP:RS. MA, are you suggesting the subject of the article ought to be that of The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World? From the NY Times review: "London before the mid-1600s was a general calamity. The streets were full of thieves, murderers and human waste. Death was everywhere: doctors were hapless, adults lived to about age 30, children died like flies. ... This little history begins Edward Dolnick’s “Clockwork Universe,” so the reader might think the book is about the Royal Society and its effects. But the Royal Society is dispatched in the first third of the book, and thereafter, the subject is how the attempt to find the mathematics governing the universe played out in the life of Isaac Newton."—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "that no one has actually suggested that Clockwork universe be deleted." Clockwork universe currently redirects to Clockwork universe theory. By nominating Clockwork universe theory for deletion, you effectively did suggest that it be deleted. Should your statement be interpreted to mean that you are now withdrawing your nomination? And no, I am not suggesting that the article's contents ought to mirror the contents of that book, but it may provide one useful reference regarding the cultural impact of the "clockwork universe" paradigm. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why someone couldn't just change clockwork universe now/recreate that title later, as proper article/stub about the analogy (not a "theory" or "paradigm").—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be two elements in your comment: (1) A WP:MOVE from Clockwork universe theory to Clockwork universe, and (2) Editorial cleanup of the article's existing problems. For the purpose of this discussion, I would point out that neither problem necessitates an AfD (Articles for Deletion) process. It would be a good idea to discuss both concerns on the article's Talk page to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS first, both for the proposed move and for any major revisions of the article that you believe are warranted. Given your comment that "no one has actually suggested that Clockwork universe be deleted" it does not appear that you (or anyone else) at this point is arguing that the topic be deleted completely, which is what the AfD process is about deciding. I'm going to change my vote from "Keep" to "Speedy Keep" so that the discussion about the article's WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems can be moved to where it should be held - the article's Talk page. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, once again, nothing's stopping you from surmounting the article's talk page. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what this article is about... much less the mutant "paradigm" in the stories you're telling. For my part, "stubbing" was a euphemism for deletion and again, just to clarify, IMO the target of the clockwork universe redirect should be to one of the mature articles on topics for which the analogy is primarily known, regardless of whether or not this "theory" gets deleted.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: Speedy+Talk pageI should clarify that the issues mentioned + the two suggested redirects in the nom came directly from the article talk page and OR noticeboard. (It seemed to me, had I created the article, that a choice between redirecting it or gutting the OR, would both suck... that some suspiciously like-minded handful of objection-raisers were effectively deleting it either way). The article's talk page is wide open, and with regard to WP:TONE, at least, improvements to the article are being made. It's not unheard of that the exposure an article receives during AfD precipitates some consensus, discussion or wider input than its normal traffic might otherwise have yielded. Surely the intention was not to thrust this article back into obscurity ASAP, but it seems facile to argue the nom has no merit owing to content issues which, evidently, are insurmountable for a newcomer in relative isolation.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid a complete deletion of the section on "entropy" by MachineElf which is well supported by the literature. Indeed entropy is so fundamental to physical processes in clockwork universe that it determines both the beginning and end of all physical law. q.v. "heat death" of universe for instance... would appreciate knowing your thinking on the subject before wholesale deletion of major portions of article thanks JudgementSummary (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step through the WP:COATRACK...

The 1st of the 3 short paragraphs in the contrarily named "Objections Due to Entropy" section is some vanilla 'what is entropy' copy with some OR about "the Multiverses", the only non-theological mention of entropy, and the duller of the three mentions of thermodynamics, etc... It caught my attention because you had just added the Hawking citation, (that would have doubled the number of cites, had it not failed WP:V).

2nd paragraph... now this is some top shelf OR: Science proves non-ex nilo whatnot to be impossible... many invoke a supernatural being... (who finds them delicious) but has nothing to do with the clockwork universe, which is well described by (lake of) thermodynamics and supernatural origin of all pre... no, on second thought post—Newtonian mechanics "thus raising the possibility of a higher order than can be described by physics alone"... (they should have sent Brian Greene)

The 3rd paragraph claims the laws of thermodynamics support Saints Thomas and Augustine before degenerating into bizarre claims about Atheists renouncing science and entropy. Although it sports the suggestive title: “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event”, the 2nd citation fails WP:V for want of Atheists.

A or B? A: Self-revert; or B: coming along quite nicely, thank you—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep" per Mike. Diego (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I agree with Mike Agricola that the topic seems notable, that this is a dispute about article content, and that AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTFORCLEANUP. The article should be kept and the dispute resolved on the article's talk page, and if necessary, other dispute resolution mechanisms per WP:DISPUTE. --Mark viking (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBATTLE Please don't encourage farcical WP:DISPUTES. I have better things to do than clean up an analogy/redirect.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being a little off-topic in responding to a difference of opinion on editorial content in a section devoted to your nomination to remove the entire article, nevertheless appreciate your response. It's probably better to give reasons first rather than to cut out an entire section without comment as I noted. It's a little ironic that my adding an additional citation by Stephen Hawking "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever... The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang..." which in my experience is well supported science [entropy] and which is the entire point of the first paragraph, sparked your deletion. Also whether time had to logically begin at the "beginning" [at that ill-defined moment] was a pivotal point for Augustine marking a significant departure from the widely accepted Aristotelian philosophy of the time and based purely on reason without experimental evidence. Didn't want to get much beyond the physics vis-a-vis Newton to delve into history of philosophy. Nor is the use of "multiverse" non-scientific... Rather the entire thrust of string theory is the proposal of colliding branes [multidimensional surfaces enclosing higher dimensional spaces] which may generate sequential big-bang explosions... but even these highly speculative [because they are elegant math but unverifiable] objects would not remove entropic considerations, i.e. would still require a begining.... And also this is not a section on the validity of atheism but rather on the consequence of the current science... I had been distracted by removing suggestions of "theory" in favor of "paradigm and metaphor" but will rewrite my section on entropy [very fundamental to the clockwork universe with lots of fast moving new science] and see if I can (sorry) satisfy your objections... hopefully in a different forum... thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still ignoring the reasons I gave in the edit summary, the intent of which is to give an example of what the other editors and I were objecting to, when we tagged the article with WP:COATRACK and to demonstrate the remedy which is to be expected. Such tags are not meant as a badge of shame or warning to the reader, but rather an invitation to collaboratively address the outstanding issue. Consider how the final paragraph of your latest revision brushes aside all the string theory you've added... honestly, I don't quite know how to disabuse you of naïvely brushing aside the unanimous objection to such WP:OR as a "difference of opinion on editorial content" rectified by switching up the coatrack. One can't be blamed for genuinely failing to be informed, but by undoing the efforts to directly or indirectly address the issue, you're simply insuring that whatever sourceable contributions you may make are so entangled with coatrack OR, that regardless of whether clockwork universe theory is retained in addition to clockwork universe, it's unclear which, if any of your contributions, might help improve such an article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:48, 20 February 2013 (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. Very soft delete; the equivalent of an uncontested PROD. No previously contested PROD and the deletion rationale stands unopposed for over 7 days. NPASR. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid World

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

Possible WP:Notability, no references, looks like an ad. PhantomTech (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 14 February 2013 (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.

^ http://www.deangraziosi.com/wgn

[1] ttp://www.deangraziosi.com/wgn

[1]