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:SNOW j⚛e decker^talk 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theopolitical Capital of Sikhs and Sikhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dubious POV rant that largely duplicates Amritsar. Jpatokal (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:FORKful of nastiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Biased and insufficiently sourced article that doesn't even use the term "theopolitical" outside its own title, thus failing to explain its ostensible subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but merge parts complementing Amritsar and History of Sikhism (sans nastiness), which are not quite as detailed. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and I see no point in merging as there is no specific referencing for any of the material with only an indication that one book was used with no inline referencing, and no page numbers given. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - NPOV-violating fork; nothing there to salvage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not encyclopedic, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POV pushing, consider salting. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this? Jpatokal (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This leader of the student wing of a regional party only gets a single passing mention in the article's references. Newspapers also reported his arrest, but not in any great detail.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - His arrest was covered as a news item, and that's all in terms of any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as lacking in depth coverage, being aware that subsequent events may get them more coverage, which would make them notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. No in depth coverage. Vacation9 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A news search turns up only a smattering of articles, most of which are not solely about him. I'd support the inclusion of some information about him in the Telangana movement, but a merge doesn't seem appropriate because the article doesn't contain anything about his arrests or involvement in that movement. Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG, but note that there is likely to be more coverage in the Telugu press; if this can be found and is significant, I'll change my stance. --Batard0 (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Schwartz (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actor is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Archaios (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, doesn't have non-inherited N from TF2 role. Page creator is making many pages like this—worth taking a look czar · · 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NACTOR and lcaking indpeth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Let's do a source review:
  • Quite a long article in the Seattle Times that is assuredly about him, not his roles. This is one example of significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. Let's see what else there is.
  • There's some discussion of Schwartz here, although it's in the context of a play and the source seems local in character.
  • Some more coverage in the Seattle Times, but this amounts to several paragraphs, not a whole article.
  • There are quite a few more articles, including reviews of performances in stage plays and so forth.

There is enough amount of coverage to concoct a short article with, but I'm not persuaded that we're quite at WP:GNG with this. There has been coverage in reliable secondary sources, but what I have found has tended to be either trivial in character or in the context of local events. He has not had major roles or made a significant impact on the industry; that much seems clear. In the sense that his contributions to larger productions have been trivial and the more extensive coverage comes in a local context, I don't think we're yet at coverage I'd call significant. This, I think, is the essence of the guidance provided by WP:NACTOR, a set of criteria he clearly falls short of. It's not a clear-cut case by any means, but I'm persuaded by the hyperlocal flavor of his most substantial coverage and the triviality of his other roles that delete is the correct course. --Batard0 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Artjunkie Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company; no hits for "saint artjunkie" on Google Books, News, or News archives. Also note that the article makes apparent legal jabs at various entities:

• In Early 2000 Stolen Retail went into adminstration owing Anthony a lot money for his design in which todate he has not recieved
• It has not been easy for Anthony Founder of Saint Artjunkie Label has had to defend his designs from larger companies Like Vivienne Westwood Ltd who took Anthony Knight in 2011 in which she won her case even though not providing any sort of evidence

CtP (t • c) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looks like a non-notable concept/product. See Google Books and News archives results, which all look like false positives. CtP (t • c) 23:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable/hoax. Searches for "Bob Dorlon" in the usual venues only turn up some false positives in Google News archives. It doesn't look like he won the Grammy, either; see this search. CtP (t • c) 22:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shelby Farms. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Farms Greenline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient claim of notability. No third party references support notability. Contested prod. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Understand entirely where the nom is coming from. I agree there are no sources now but a few exist. I question whether they are enough (quality, quantity and geographic scope) to be considered enough to pass WP:GNG but thought it would be worth "putting them on the table" for people to consider...

• This article from The Commercial Appeal about the second birthday of the Greenline.
• This editorial and this article, both from the same paper as the above.
• This article and this one; both include passing mentions but they do verify claims in the article.
• This entry from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
• This site which is obviously not independent but could serve to verify some of the claims in the article.

Would be interested in what others can find. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Shelby Farms. I don't see a lot of coverage about the trail beyond some local papers. As Shelby Farms is a terminus of the trail and both are the trail and park are operated by the same organisation, a merge seems to be the best option. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Shelby Farms. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Shelby Farms. Not notable enough to justify a stand alone article. Vacation9 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vedera. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Broken City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vedera as a reasonable search term. I'm not finding coverage in independent reliable sources for this EP; does not appear to warrant an individual article or satisfy the WP:GNG / WP:NALBUMS guidelines.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HueSatLum 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect to Vedera#Discography. I don't see any significant coverage of this EP. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOCAL.PT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a new online newspaper founded in 2012. No refs given. No other independend sources found. Article was written by one of the newspapers staff. [3]. Fails WP:SELFPUBLISHed and WP:GNG. Ben Ben (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence found of notability, at best WP:TOOSOON. I notice the equivalent Portuguese Wikipedia page is also up for deletion. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Deleted 03.11.2012 [4]. Comment was without reliable sources .--Ben Ben (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In fact goodness knows why this is at AfD: it's a perfect candidate for a {{db-web}} speedy deletion, as nothing in the article gives any indication of importance or significance. I am bewildered by why Rich Farmbrough declined the speedy deletion nomination. Searching for coverage is difficult, because you get numerous hits for web pages where the word "local" just happens to be followed by the abbreviation "PT". However, checking the first 60 Google hits I found precisely four that referred to the web site "local.pt": the Wikipedia article, the website local.pt itself, local.pt's LinkedIn page, and local.pt's FaceBook page. I tried including one or two common Portuguese words to try to force Google to give priority to pages in Portuguese (e.g. aos "local.pt", and dos "local.pt", and de as "local.pt", and so on). The result was that I found precisely one more page relating to this web site: local.pt's Twitter account. In fact, all my searches suggest that there is zero coverage anywhere on any independent source, since the Wikipedia article was written by an editor with a clear conflict of interest.JamesBWatson (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking independent sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks in depth coverage from independent sources and fails WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:GNG per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. An error appears to have occurred in which the incorrect article was nominated, per the nominator's withdrawing statement. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: struck part of this closure above per information received on my talk page from the nominator, which stated that the nomination was withdrawn due to significant improvements to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big.LITTLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are no independent sources available. The Banner _talk 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see independent sources. —Ruud 19:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Ruud. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazing! This is a completely other article then I nominated. So I have just one option left: Request speedy close as keep The Banner _talk 21:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia Institute of Technolgy, Management and Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fork of Institute of Technology and Marine Engineering  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zach Ryder. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:Notability Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete. It definitely fails notability. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Zach Ryder since he is the one that came up with the belt and it is mentioned in his article.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Nominator I would be ok with redirecting to Ryder's page over deletion.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Zach Ryder. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a merge is necessary since the main article appears to cover everything this one does. To be clear I am not arguing against the redirect which I think is a good idea.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Zack Ryder. Not official title. Deely talk 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company - 21 ghits Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet the standards for notability for corporates. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 20:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is consensus that the article is notable after the significant addition of reliable, independent secondary sources.(non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After pruning, it became clear to me that this does not appear to be a notable organization. Please view the history to see what I removed--you'll find that I did not prune a single, relevant, reliable source. The COI is evident from the history as well, by the way. A Google News search revealed very, very little--the most reliable thing I found was a mention in an article from the Huffington Post, but that says nothing of substance about the organization. All of the hits in a Google Book search that I looked at are duds (like this one)--which leaves this study guide and this mention in a note. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, some of the concerns by the nom are valid, but there is indeed enough coverage in news as well as scholarly sources from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to show secondary referenced discussion to retain and expand and improve the article going forwards. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Add them and we'll talk, Cirt! I searched and found nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Organization previously known as Woodhull Freedom Foundation, therefore additional sources may also be found at

1. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL in addition to
2. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and there are a few more results without using the last word, so
3. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was easy to have missed, as it appears the organization only recently changed their name, naturally there would therefore be more references found under the previous name, see pagemove at diff link. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Again, the nominator does raise some valid points about the prior state of the article. I think the best thing to try going forwards is to essentially gut most of the prior versions of the article (already done quite a bit by nom, which is a good thing when looking at prior state of article) and start over sticking to factual presentation of material with some primary and hopefully mostly additional secondary sources. I'll get on doing some more in-depth research for this soon. :) Meanwhile, as far as retention, it does look like there's enough secondary source coverage when taking into account both versions of the name of the organization as noted, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Okay, please see this version of the article after some research and additional sourcing. I've gone ahead and removed basically most of the info text from the prior poor version of the article, and built back in with info text from referenced sources. It's a bit better now. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Cirt's edits. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Cirt did an excellent job with the article and it definitely passes WP:ORG, but most of the links used mention the org in a peripheral way that wouldn't count for WP:N. This is more of an issue for later than for now, as the article has enough RS. Again, great work, Cirt. czar · · 08:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cirt's work. It sounds notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Bay Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am a motorcyclist and would like to see every motorcycle-related article on Wikipedia improved to show off my favourite subject, but in this case the article is nothing but a puff piece / advert about a non-notable internet forum. It has long been tagged for improvement and as non-notable yet little has been done. Wikipedia would be best served by deleting this poor article. Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — This is a run of the mill motorcycle club. The article makes no claim to any notable accomplishments or events associated with this club, and it fails both criteria of WP:CLUB. It is not national or international in scope, and does not have significant coverage in multiple independent sources. There's not even really one good source for notability purposes, let alone multiples. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jacobs (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article doesn't incorporate text from Wipipedia (see [5]), it copies the entire entry word for word, from the get-go. The person isn't very notable either--there is brief mention of the book here and here--but I found nothing about the man himself. It is possible that the book is notable, but I don't see evidence of that yet. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Regardless whether the book is notable or not, notability is not inherited and I haven't found any significant evidence of sources for Jon Jacobs. I began with searching "Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission Jon Jacobs" and found only two results. A search with both "Jon Jacobs sexuality writer" and "Jon Jacobs BDSM" through both Google News and Books provided the same results, Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission so this book was probably his only work or only significant and published work. As the two results provided by Drmies show, I found additional books that cited this book as a suggestion to readers. Although one of the links cited at Wipipedia here claims he coined a term, Total Power Exchange, but I haven't found any significant sources supporting this. Of course, considering this is a raunchy subject that wouldn't appear through your normal news sources, the book probably never received any other significant news coverage (probably mostly sex blogs) aside from the two news articles I provided at the beginning of my vote. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's very thorough. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Of Fireballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ridiculously non-notable comic book character which may not even exist. Searching for "Circle Of Fireballs" "s-men comics" on Google Books, News, and News archives turns up nothing. A general Google search for the term turns up only Wikipedia and Facebook. Admins, please consider closing early per WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, and WP:MADEUP. CtP (t • c) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search and came up with nothing. I don't think that this is a hoax as much as it's a case of someone of a very young age coming up with their own comic book character via an online game and decided to add it to Wikipedia. While I commend the young man for his imagination, Wikipedia is not a place to showcase characters that you came up with one day, so as such it needs to be deleted. Sorry kiddo, but thems the rules. I recommend that you look into putting your stories on fanfiction.net instead. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched this and came up with nothing. It definitely fails notability, so I believe it should be deleted. Eire102 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunately, I too am voting delete because I haven't found anything substantial with Google News (as well as a desperate search through the main Google search engine) to support this aside from one Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not sure it's a hoax, but there seems to be so few reliable sources to verify notability so as to suggest it barely exists or has only recently come into existence. Either way, nowhere near WP:N. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the text itself, this was an individual's self-written bio for a character in the (now defunct) City of Heroes MMORPG. It doesn't exist in any published form, as far as I can tell, much less one with substantial third-party coverage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Found zero coverage in reliable sources after several cursory searches. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per, well, WP:SNOW. The article's title pretty much says it all. An article about character made up by someone in one day with only a Facebook page as a source can't possibly survive through, well, a Circle Of Fireballs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER. No online RS available (only his own sites). PROD was contested. czar · · 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources are all either primary, or bare mentions of the subject such as soundtrack credits. I couldn't find anything better online.--Atlan (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His page on ASCAP and his credit on Resident Evil 6 are genuine and notable. Keep, or possibly merge with Pear Up Media 80.82.70.32 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited, so merely being part of the game's team does not make team members notable. Otherwise, we would have articles for all the programmers, designers, artists, etc. As a common example, even a game company that makes a game is not by default notable just because their game is. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • even a game company that makes a game is not by default notable just because their game is: I am sorry, not a fair argument. If a new company releases a huge game of the scale of Resident Evil 6, an article will be immediately and legitimately created about the company behind it. --Aaton77 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Product and company" are a typical WP:NOTINHERITED case. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is a member of the SCL where his name appear with other notable composers [6]. The link indicated as "reference 9" is taken from his webpage [7], but he is featured in the French magazine Écran Fantastique, which is apparently a reference when it comes to sci-fi in France. Finally, he appears to work with Thomas Parisch, so I think if we keep that article we should keep this one, too. Tarokoike (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCL is basically an entry in a list/directory, and that does not by itself make a person notable (unless there is consensus that membership at a certain group/list establishes notability). Re Thomas Parisch -- see common argument of "other articles exist". We do not judge an article's notability based on what other articles we have or do not, because we recognise they may not have been assessed/deleted/created yet. The magazine is an acceptable source though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re:SCL, I agree that a membership with SCL does not make someone famous, you have a valid point. But the rest of your argument is untrue: SCL is a society based on membership rather than a simple list. Re: Thomas Parisch, I understand your point, but I guess the argument there was that they both work together, so you cannot really consider it any other article, therefore it is not a simple case of "other articles exist". --Aaton77 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Working together is the same WP:NOTINHERITED case. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, simply because he meets WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", as co-composing the soundtrack of Resident Evil 6, which is notable enough. A valid reference would be the end credits roll of that game. If you absolutely need a link, it can be found for instance in this video from minute 07:07 [8]. --Aaton77 (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resident Evil 6 is a video game, not a composition, to which WP:COMPOSER refers. The songs themselves are not notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid argument. Most video games and movies do not have songs or notable compositions per se, but the background music is still considered notable, as a key element of the game or the movie. It is in fact the case of almost every film score. Therefore, WP:COMPOSER met.--Aaton77 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not correct; see what WP:NOTABLE actually means in Wikipedia's terms; music by Ziliani from RE6 (or whole score of RE6 combined) are not notable on their own unless you can show otherwise via GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG -- no multiple reliable independent broad coverage sources on the subject. Écran Fantastique magazine article appears to be a suitable source for WP:GNG, however it is just one for now. All other sources given are primary or lack any depth of coverage (i.e credits). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Écran Fantastique article is a first-person Q&A interview. It may establish that he was worth interviewing, but it doesn't add fact-checking: it is a primary source of very low reliability. The fact that it is put forward in his website's "Press Book" page does nothing to improve that reliability, though it does establish that he is aware that Écran Fantastique published the piece. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The music for RE6 is most certainly a composition. The video game is merely what the music was composed for, same as a movie, opera, play, etc. Whether RE6's music by itself is notable is another question, but the video game certainly is. Background music is now an integral part of both movies and video games, and since the Academy Awards has had an entire section on score since 1934, it doesn't seem much of a stretch, especially now that video games have evolved to the point where famous actors are hired for their voices and video games have almost as many sound credits as movies.  The Steve  21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show how RE6's music is notable on its own by providing us with WP:GNG suitable sources to establish its notability? If so, we can satisfy WP:COMPOSER#1; otherwise your argument does not address topic's notability at all. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discography_of_the_Resident_Evil_video_game_series?--Aaton77 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that's not convincing. Ziliani composed the discography of the Resident Evil series? I don't even see his name mentioned in the article. That article is simply a WP:SPLIT due to size. Every individual soundtrack got merged from AfD (1 2 3 4 5 6 etc.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • ?? I never wrote he "composed the discography" of the Resident Evil series. You asked if RE6 music was notable, and I proposed a link to answer your question. I don't quite follow you.--Aaton77 (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I assumed because notability of discography is only relevant with WP:COMPOSER#1. There are no other places (that I know of) in the notability guidelines that link the work and author like that. In fact, WP:NOTINHERITED does the opposite. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • So according to this source [9] the soundtrack will be released on November 14th — which would explain why his name is not in the Wikipedia article you just mentioned — yet. I suggest we wait until the release of the album on November 14th or so to determine so you can have the additional information that you demand. No doubt that there should be more info then, such as booklet, etc. As for notability, I found RE6 soundtracks sold on many websites including Amazon and are the subject of many many web results.Tarokoike (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Regardless, no one has yet shown how the Ziliani's soundtrack or the composer pass WP:GNG, which is the actual criteria. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It may be miscommunication or misinterpretation of the rules from either side, the notability of RE6 soundtrack was easy to establish to me. Anyway, I think we are going in circles. @Hellknowz you have been heavily weighing in in this discussion. It is obvious you feel strongly against this, making a point to have the last word on every topic. You made your point clear. Now let's leave it for the administrator to decide. :) --19:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaton77 (talk • contribs)
                  • • If it was easy to establish, please cite the sources that you found convincing so that others may be similarly convinced. All I'm finding are routine tabular directory listings and various versions of his bioblurb. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Right. But which are we talking about now? Notability of RE6 soundtrack or notable involvement of this composer in that soundtrack?207.233.120.5 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • This page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurent Ziliani. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Thanks for this dry answer, but if you actually take the time to read the top of this thread you will see Can you show how RE6's music is notable on its own. That's why I asked. So please before dismissing my question at least please assume I have a point.207.233.120.5 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Yes, RE6 2012 soundtrack (where Ziliani was one of the 7 composers). So I asked for WP:GNG on that so we could apply WP:COMPOSER#1. Not the discography, as previous soundtracks are not notable on their own (I linked the AfDs). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Note that the AfDs you mentioned resulted in a merge, not a deletion. Do you mean that, on their own, the soundtracks are not notable, but they would be, taken collectively, as a whole series?--Aaton77 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Most likely. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them could be notable on their won (though a series article is still more readable). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In general, there is a lack of significant coverage to establish notability. With respect to notability as a composer, he may be the composer of various music associated with RE6, but unless one can establish that as a notable composition, then criterion 1 is not met in WP:COMPOSER which seems to be the keep argument that is being pushed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If not composer, Ziliani certainly satisfies Category:Video_game_composers. With his credit on Resident Evil 6, which is genuine, he qualifies for that just as e.g. Akihiko Narita who is a video game composer and whose credits are soundtracks to video games each of which is equally or less notable than RE6. Egonhirsch (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game composers is not a notability guideline. LK (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Granted, but then what is the notability of a video game composer, apart from composing the music for a video game?--Aaton77 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Composing highly notable music makes a composer notable. If Ziliani's music is the subject of reviews and commentary in multiple reliable sources, that might make him notable. Composing music for a notable game does not make the composer notable. Not everyone who contributes to a notable work is notable. Notability is not inherited. To give an extreme example, is an artist who laid the tiles for a small mural in the Kuala Lumpur Twin Towers, notable solely because of that work? LK (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer of your specific example is most certainly no. But your example in no way applies to this. In the case of Resident Evil, (like it is the case of many major Japanese video games), every soundtrack is released independently, as a separate album, in this case with Sony music [10]). This is not at all the case of a small mural found only at a specific location. There would not be any such release if the music was not notable.--Aaton77 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' - Notability] as used on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning rather than the more general dictionary meaning. In the Wikipedia sense, what we are looking at is "inclusion criteria". So a work simply having been released is not notable in and of itself. -- Whpq (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seem to remember that 'having an album released on a major or well known independant label was one of the criteria for notability. Did that change? If the OST is being released on Sony and has Zilani's music one it, that would surely qualify. Though through all this I've been wondering -- just how much music did he compose for the game anyway? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That criterion is from WP:BAND and does not apply to composers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article says "90 minutes", for what it's worth. I have no idea if its true, how much of it may have just been ambience, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • He is one of the 7 composers for the 150-song a bit over 10 hours soundtrack, having composed around 1.5 hours. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where did you get those figures?--98.148.14.77 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • [11][12][13] —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am sorry, but 10 hours in 4 CD's just doesn't make sense, it's not technically possible. That figure of 10 hours is not reliable, it comes from some guy on a forum who has ripped the music directly from the game. The RE5 soundtrack was about 165 min long on 3 CD. If this one is 4 CDs, I would expect somewhere around 200-220 min.--98.148.14.77 (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are right, the soundtrack release does not include all the game's music, including ambiance, intro, outros and all the miscellaneous cues. I got that torrent though and the total game's music does add up to 10+ hours. I have no way of telling which is composed by Ziliani though and how much of his material is included in the soundtrack's release version. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Torrent? >:( Is that legal? ;) --Aaton77 (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In any case, the release of the CD on Nov 14 (as noted above) will probably tell who composed what and in what amount.--Aaton77 (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually it IS possible for game music, depending on how the '10 hour' figure is calculated. If '10 hours' referrers to two loops of everything, and there's very few tracks with no looping, then when changed to one loop it can easily get down close to the five+ hours than can easily fit on 4 CDs. But that's just speculation, and pretty off topic for this page... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Now, if someone could show that he meets the WP:GNG, I'd probably revise my stance, but as it is right now, I'm not sure COMPOSER was meant to be applied in situations like this. WP:COMPOSER seems more applicable to notability when the music is the only, or main, area of focus. (Albums, Musicals, etc.) However, this is not the case with video games, where, unless we're talking about Guitar Hero or something, is not the major focus of the work. Again, if it can be shown that there's good plenty of third party coverage in reliable sources, then that would trump any delete argument, but if the only rationale to "Keep" is WP:COMPOSER, then I'd say delete. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:COMPOSER is a subset of notability guidelines for composers and is not meant to supercede WP:GNG, but to supplement it. Several voters here, in particular the single purpose accounts, seem to be under the impression that simply passing WP:COMPOSER is enough to satisfy WP:N. In my opinion, the subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.--Atlan (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral:It seems to have enough references,but seems to short for anyone to finish,but I would know.maybe keep or maybe delete.~Tailsman67~ 98.71.52.245 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "seems too short for anyone to finish" supposed to mean? I don't understand conceptually, or how that would factor for or against deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking independent references with in depth coverage OR merge and redriect to a passing mention in Resident Evil 6. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution of farmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure WP:ESSAY with minimal sourcing, using lots of WP:SYNTH Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Abusively nominated for deletion 2 minutes after creation. It's not a finished piece, the question of sourcing remains open. I am going to put up a CONSTRUCTION banner on behalf of the creator, with my apologies to her or him. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a new editor this month. Trout to the nominator for biting the newcomer... Carrite (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The new content creator accidentally put up 3 versions of the same piece for 3 titles rather than using the proper method for creating redirects. I have BOLDly made two of these into redirects to this piece, removing speedy templates in the process. Feel free to check my work on this. I think this is the worst title of the three; in the event that this closes a Keep, which it should, a title change to 1970s Thailand peasant revolts or some such is in order, in my view. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've been in communication with the content creator off wiki. He is a serious person and this is a serious academic topic. Proper notability defense to follow if the nomination isn't withdrawn — which would be appreciated, of course. The title on the piece now is bad and needs to be changed for sure, the topic is the 1970s rural revolutionary movement in Thailand that paralleled similar events in Cambodia/Kampuchea, Laos, and Vietnam. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't read like an essay to me, but like an imperfect but sincere encyclopedia article in progress, about a genuinely notable topic, by a new editor whose only failing is not being familiar with some of the finer points of Wikipedia conventions (and since we were all newbies once, that isn't really a failing.) Additional sourcing is needed, but numerous valid sources are already present. The title isn't good, but that can be fixed. All in all, this isn't a deletion candidate -- it's an article that doesn't have anything wrong with it that can't be fixed through the normal Wikipedia processes of article improvement. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Striking my technical issue-based speedy recommendation and moving to a more typical defense. Multiple sources already showing. The content creator (newcomer) points in particular to these:

(1) Tyrell Haberkorn, Revolution Interrupted: Farmers, Students, Law, and Violence in Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books, 2011.

(2) David Morell, Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution. Germany: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, 1981.

(3) Hans U. Luther, December 1978). "Peasants and State in Contemporary Thailand." International Journal of Politics, vol. 8, no. 4 (December 1978), pp. 1–120. —JSTOR: Subscription required.

To repeat, this is a serious topic of scholarship among specialists in the history of Southeast Asia. A change of name will follow shortly after closure. A withdrawal of the nomination would be appreciated. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Hi Hi. Hope this is the correct way Y'All. Think theres a misunderstanding here. I deleted the previous versions cause i was surprised that the title was changed. I didnt know how to change the the title. Sorry. Still learning. This is part of my assignment for fulfillment of one of my modules for my grad studies. Am still in the process of doing up an article. Basically about the revolt in Thailand by the farmers during the 1970s. No harm intended here and hope you guys cut a newbie some slack. Am serious about my piece and any advice appreciated. User:ChristopherWB —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and discuss the article title on its talk page. Why is it that so many people, when they encounter a well-written article, claim that it is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article? This is far better written as an encyclopedia article than the vast majority of our content. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, likely rename, and improve - An inherently notable topic that is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and rename. The article has enough sources to establish notability. However, it should be renamed to signify that it is about farmers in Thailand, such as "Revolution of Thai farmers." Hadger 17:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep -- It is bad form to nominate an article so quickly. The article in its presetn form is clearly on a notable subject. I note that the map highlights only one province. I am therefore not convinced that the present name is the best possible, but that is a matter of detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I've done some GNews searching and what I'm finding is blog mentions, announcements of places they will play and chatter at sites that likely won't pass RS, but what I'm not finding is the significant coverage from reliable, third parties that get's the groups past WP:BAND. They've never charted, they haven't been with a major label and the indie label they were with doesn't appear very notable. 3 of 5 albums were self-releases, 1 was released by a local record store and the last was the indie label as a re-release. They're probably fine people, but I can't see where they've achieved the notability needed for the article to be here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly weak keep. There is enough coverage around, although mainly from sources in Colorado, but there is piece from NPR and a brief article on the AV Club, e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Probably enough, I think. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look at these. Admittedly, I don't put much stock in local weekly papers like the first one, or in local websites like the other two. The Denver Post one doesn't really sway me much either. The NPR piece is a good one and helps its cause. The one paragraph AV Club one would hardly be "significant coverage", nor would the HuffPo piece about an individual after they left the group. The second Denver Post one is pretty good.....but really, we have two articles from the same paper, talking about the same thing (that there is a collaboration). Incidentally, the last Denver Post source you provided is the article that the first one (the Newsbank) references. So, instead of 3 from the Post, there are two. A couple of these are better, but I'm still thinking that with the limited coverage they are getting being so localized, leaning towards delete is still the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. I found a couple more sources in Highbeam. Still local, but different locale:

• "WILD BUT MUSICALLY ARTFUL; PAPER BIRD MAKES AN AUSPICIOUS RETURN TO TAOS". Taos News. August 19, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• De Vore, Alex (March 9, 2011). "REQUIRED LISTENING". Santa Fe Reporter. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "THE HUM: VARIETY IS THE SPICE; YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE DURING GRACE O'MALLEY NIGHT AT SECO PEARL". Taos News. March 26, 2009. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)  The Steve  21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that mean you will improve it then?Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Give me a few days...  The Steve  09:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per the sources presented above by User:Michig and User:Thesteve. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Ok, I've added a musical style section and cites from NPR, the Denver Post, the Weekly Boulder, Huffpo, and Taos News. They are a successful indie folk band, *but* only locally successful...  The Steve  08:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer Contradictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod appeared disputed. No evidence of notability that I can find. Fails WP:GNG Nouniquenames 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or Merge into author's page Stan Kelly-Bootle. No need to be so drastic. - Altenmann >t 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From [25]: Favorable reviews of The Computer Contradictionary (The MIT Press, 1995) have appeared in:

Nature, Vol 376, August 31st, 1995

UNIX Review - Editorial August 1995 (Andrew Binstock)

WORD - The Literary Magazine, Premier Edition, June 1995 (Nomi Eve)

The New York Times, July 18th, 1995 (L. R. Shannon)

Windows Developer's Journal, October 1995 (Ron Burk)

;login - The Usenix Association Newsletter, June 1995 (Peter H. Salus)

Reader's Digest, February 1996 (they quote a piece from the NY Times review)

ACM Book Reviews, March 1996

• Keep I added 2 more references; it's got enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep simply because it passes the threshold for notability and is verified as such by its references. L A Times is good enough for anyone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone would be kind enough to forward me a list of the other articles affected by this decision, I'll happily go through and remove them as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loon, Bohol Elected Barangay Officials (2010-2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is a reformatted copy of the list of winners of a local election. I am nominating per WP:IINFO. This information is readily available from the source listed in the article's External links section. If Wikipedia is to be a repository for worldwide local election results, it will be swamped. Note: there are 47 other such articles from this round of elections. This nomination of one, if approved, will be followed by a bulk nomination of the others. --Stfg (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete These appear to be the equivalent of city council members or, perhaps, county supervisors. At that level, it's likely that many of these elections don't have a single notable member, let alone the election being notable itself. As Stfg says, if elections at this level are included in Wikipedia, we'll be swamped. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Disqualify. Consensus has determined that barangays are not inherently notable, and neither are barangay officials inherently notable. Thus, the elections themselves are not notable. This is also an indiscriminate list of information, something that we greatly frown upon. Better let the COMELEC disqualify this candidate from the elections. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per above. This article's subject matter is not notable. Paris1127 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, was going to nom all of these myself. Wizardman 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no need for the lists. (Note: barangays are below city or municipal level in the Philippine, though barangays can represent up to several thousand citizens. I would put them on par with small city or town elections in the United States for significance.) --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is what the barangay's website is for. MER-C 10:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. This could have been speedied, or prodded. -Splash - tk 23:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #20) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a self-published ad for the company. Not notable. No real references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Did you do WP:BEFORE or just base your decision on that market survey you quote? I'm seeing some Google News results.[26][27][28][29][30] [31][32][33] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of those only the IDG new story (reproduced in PC World, Infoworld etc.) is significant independent coverage. You obviously know next-to-nothing about start-ups if you think CrunchBase is an independent source. And Atlanta Business Chronicle is too local/obscure to impart much notability. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Not Notable. Article was created by user with no prior edits, and his/her only six(6) edits have been designed to promote this company and nothing else.OfficeGirl (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment.Should also consider speedy delete under G11. OfficeGirl (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 23:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net-results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #17) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Appears to be a self-published company. Bad references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #18) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Appears to be a self-published company. Bad references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Little coverage of the subject by secondary sources outside press releases, which are not reliable. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

According to the notability requirements for companies, individual products should not have their own pages unless they are notable in their own right, or adding them to the page of the company's wiki entry would be impossible. This product does not meet either of those criteria and the article does not assert any claim to notability. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly merge. The argument above does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON), but does qualify for a merge with Qi hardware (See WP:ATD-M). Milkymist would also be a candidate for merging into Qi hardware. On reflection, I agree with xanchester below. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DEL-REASON - "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" and according to WP:COMPANY - WP:COMPANY#Products_and_services)"If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion." I don't really think that the company itself is notable, and if it were a full merge is not in order (I would think simply listing this product with a reference to a few of the articles or technical specifications would be appropriate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient coverage by secondary sources: Engadget [34], PC Magazine [35], Linux Magazine [36], Linux.com [37], and The Register [38]. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find more coverage at [39] and at slashdot. Despite its name, slashdot is an RS for core technology news, and so are the publications previously mentioned. Churn and change (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Good coverage by secondary sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I took the liberty of cleaning up the intro and adding a "Reception" section. It still needs some work but it's better now. There's clearly a lot of third-party sources out there on this. Faustus37 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per perfectly adequate secondary sourcing, and with particular props to Faustus' work cleaning things up. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reading through some of the coverage found, I agree, it clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Mar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination: a representative of the company has requested deletion of the article due to the potential for vandalism. The company is small and may possibly not meet the requirements of WP:ORG.

The history of the article shows that it has quite probably been edited in a promotional manner by a representative of the company. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This search would appear to indicate that this company is probably notable, although I'm not interested enough to wade through the results to confirm it for certain. Did this request come via OTRS? Are you (Tom) at liberty to reveal any more about any reason given other than the potential for vandalism? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The request did not come via OTRS. The person who emailed me has not given any reason for deletion beyond their unhappiness over past vandalism and the future potential for vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From the history it seems that the vandalism happened over a few days at the beginning of October and came from unregistered editors. If it continues then shouldn't it be dealt with by semi-protection, rather than deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, that's broadly my view. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The vandalism happened for a period from September through October and only stopped when the page was blocked and the unregistered user blocked. In addition vandalism was undertaken from more than one unregistered user (IP address) but never by registered users - clearly an attempt to be anonymous. The page was vandalised with false and misleading information and possible breach of confidential information of a private company. This misleading information now exists no where publicly other than in the Wikipedia page history. There is no value to this information and it may in fact be damaging were someone in fact to rely on it. It also breaches the neutrality guidelines for Wikipedia. the page is an orphan, has been edited in a very minor manner prior to this recent period (so question its value to the community) and the organisation does not have a significant amount of coverage in secondary sources - those that do exist are usually resellers of the organisation's products. It appears that the page was originally posted to be promotional rather than for another notable reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynoise33 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources don't really establish notability and promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynoise33 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable and no references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - I'm skipping the ususal WP:GNG review. For this topic, I think it reasonable to delete until an editor desires to develope an article on the topic using reliable sources. If the representative of the company would like me to write such an article, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - am inclined to agree with Uzma. Notability is questionable anyway as is general encyclopaedic value. Any kept page would probably require a history purge, lest the legal guys get a complaint (it sounds like the editor above is suggesting non-free-use information was posted by someone who confirmed, by posting, that they had a right to release the information which was not the case). Though not a BLP, the size of the company suggests WP:HARM might come into play given the close connection some "LP"s might have to the subject. On balance, there seems no reason to keep it for the sake of keeping it. Uzma's offer to produce a new article (post-deletion) seems eminently "good faith" in nature. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with addition comment "pure spam irrespective of notability". (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ullens Center for Contemporary Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, fails WP:NONPROFIT can't find in news references, if someone fluent in chinese can help show other sources that'd be great but with the info I can find to show it operates on a national or international level that's related to the museum. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im very fluent in Chinese. Haha, Thats an overstatement, but i can help. Note, searching for sources by its Mandarin name will yield much more results. Im now searching for sources to assert notability. Chinese is hard, so do wait. Thanks. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir. I do like your story btw i found your userpage very funny. Alas I need to learn Cantonese or at least a little bit will be in Hong Kong before the end of the year hopefully! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haha, you think so? Well thank you then! haha, anyway, after looking at sources both in English and Chinese, I feel that the centre is very notable, just needing cleanup, for its article. So, looking at the overwhelming sources, methinks notability is met, so I think we should Keep. It does need lots of broom power though. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: editors, do search for "尤伦斯当代艺术中心" too, as it yields more results. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks, any admin can consider this withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Haha.now that was a fast closure at record timee. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources: [40], [41], [42], [43] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Family Planning Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, it is a charity but it does not appear notable by itself. From what I understand when I read it there is one event that made it notable but that in and of itself doesn't make it a notable business.Specifically the only thing I see is the mention of reccomending people lie to their physician. Other then that it seems to be discussing the social aspect of contraception in Ireland. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC) it's also a WP:COATRACK article Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Google news provides a fair amount of 388 results, most of which are quite lengthy mentions of the organisation, meeting WP:GNG. They are not just notable for one event, they are notable by themselves, as a cursor search would show. :) Clearly you forgot about WP:BEFORE, "from what I understand". Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm well versed in it and if you actually read the article you'd see it's also a WP:COATRACK article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets notability, the reason for nomination. The quality of the article so far is another matter. RashersTierney (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability: the organization is culturally, historically and medically important in Ireland, and its existence has, and continues to, generate debate on a national scale. Please note that the article is still a stub, and will be expanded with further information in time, based on the current content. There are several articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia, such as Family Planning Association (UK), Japan Family Planning Association, The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong, Family Planning Association India, etc. Hohenloh ⁺ 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I was off base on this one. Suggest WP:Snow here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has to pass the GNG. There must be books out there on this if there's not enough online. Very famous organisation. Very surprised to see this up for deletion. Nearly knocked the keyboard onto the floor in shock. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are a couple of good citations already in article, although the Irish Times article does not mention the group by name. Yes, I see that this could become a coatrack article, but it is not there yet. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage, ample satisfaction of WP:NOTE, and then some. — Cirt (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am not satisfied with the outcome of the previous discussion. (But please don't treat me like a trouble maker, and please don't mark this for speedy close, would ya.)

Now I'm arguing about WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. If a song has not been released, it cannot have gained notabillity, the main criterion being that of its position in the charts. The only exception would be bootleg recordings that have reached sufficient notoriety to have been extensively reported in the press. WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is another factor you should consider. Mostly sourced to one single source, which methinks is a breach of WP:POV, regardless of the source's trustability. WP:WAX aside, consensus is that most unreleased song lists should not stay, though it is a pity to see this go. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, way too soon to renominate too! There are other avenues you can go to if you want to argue this but this should be closed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how long must I wait to renominate? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's base this on I do not think you are a troublemaker. I think you are acting in the best interests as you see them for the encyclopedia, I would refer to this WP:TALKEDABOUTIT and really there isn't a set time but two weeks and a day is a bit soon. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure WP:CRYSTAL is really violated here. It's not an article about a possible future album that may or may not exist, it's an article about songs that actually exist. Now, that leaves other notability issues and while it's extremely rare for unreleased material to reach notability, I think this is one of those very unusual instances in which it is justifiable. There does appear to be quite a bit of coverage of Jackson's unreleased material as a group (obviously, individual songs would not reach that notability level) in the context of an important historical figure in music. Now, none of this is a slam-dunk, but given that this AFD was very recently discussed, I think if we err, it should be on the side of acknowledging the previous consensus. The article really should be cleaned-up considerably, but that's not really an AFD issueCoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So long as not released, the song's existence can be questioned and will be in doubt. Furthermore, these songs were only mentioned by one party, not really extensively verified and agreed upon by other sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinese Democracy is a primary example as to why that's wrong. That was a rumored album that didn't come out until 08 and we have a article about it in 2006 [[44]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if I don't consider WP:WAX, I must say that THAT was an album, not a song, and that album was more extensively talked about in numerous third party sources than this one was, and more verifable. So there. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right to a point, it's also one of the songs on there and part of the rumors leading up to the album. You can wikilawyer this however you want but the bottom line is that this has already been discussed and ended less then 3 weeks ago, just because you aren't satisfied with a result doesn't mean you should waste our time trying to get your preferred result this soon, consensus doesn't change over night. It's a hard pill to swallow but we have to remember that consensus is what have to bend over for...I hate it sometimes but it happens and our ideas of what's acceptable doesn't always translate to what the community thinks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hahaha, yes, consensus does not change overnight, but it does change in three weeks, a.k.a twenty one nights. Also, a lot if the questions I raised in the previous discussion was never answered, so it's a questionable keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment *Individual* songs maybe, but as a whole "Unreleased Michael Jackson material" has extensive notable coverage. That is the subject of the article. If an individual song describe within "Unreleased Michael Jackson material" does not have enough sourcing, that's an argument for removing that song from a "List of unreleased Michael Jackson material" not axe the entire list. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NSONGS doesn't apply because the issue is not the notability of individual songs, but whether the article should exist as a whole, which is a lower standard. Even the entire topic of unreleased MJ songs needs to establish notability to the same standards as a stand-alone article, since the article could exist as a spin-off of the main Jackson or the Jackson discography articles. However it has clearly received some coverage in reliable sources. As long as material is sourced, it would be allowed in the main MJ article, and also in a spin-off of that article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. There is no way generally a list of unreleased songs can be notable in their own right, therefore any such list must fail WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Michael Jackson is notable but that notability is not inherited by anything and everything he did. Merging, as I have suggested means the information can be kept (subject to necessary pruning of hoaxes etc. as Bonkers the Clown as pointed out) and solves the very arbitrary difference between "recorded" and "released." This is what I wrote last time and I repeat. Nothing has changed --Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody's saying that a list of unreleased songs is generally notable in its own right. The argument is that a list of Michael Jackson's list of unreleased songs is notable. 99.9% of artists will not have notable unreleased material. Michael Jackson does and there's no shortage of sources. The main issue is that the article needs to be improved, but that shouldn't be the issue in an AFD debate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to CoffeeCrumbs. Actually what you are saying is that icebergs should have two articles, one for that part above the waterline and another for below the waterline. The argument here, similarly, is the difference between released and unreleased songs. Why exactly should there be two separate articles for what are still, essentially, songs recorded by MJ? The other article title List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson is inclusive by its very name! By merging the two lists with dates of recording, co-writers, dates of release you are helping to build up a picture of the recording career of MJ, but separated this list non-notable. This is why I am an advocate of merge here. If there hadn't been the list of songs recorded by MJ, then I would have voted delete, because as you said, Nobody's saying that a list of unreleased songs is generally notable in its own right That's a pretty good argument for delete if ever I saw one! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources cover the released and unreleased group of songs separately. An example is hackers stealing songs from Sony Music—stealing unreleased songs is a different news item. At least as per one source, Jackson's unreleased songs were intentionally kept so to be a legacy to his kids: Guardian, UK. If news sources treat the group as a separate entity to be covered (and in this case provide reasons why they are doing it, though WP doesn't require that), we also need to treat the group as separate. Also extrapolating from "list of unreleased songs not being generally notable" to being non-notable in this case (this case being that of, well, Michael Jackson) doesn't work. Churn and change (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there is a reason to create articles relating to Sony being hacked, and possibly legacy to his kids. Unreleased songs over a 30+ year period are not, and can not, be specifically relevant to either of those two events. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An article on "legacy to his kids" when the newspaper material really is about his unreleased songs, and the "legacy to kids" a mention in relation to that? His unreleased songs are the main subject of many of the sources mentioned in the WP page and here; the songs are a related non-trivial mention only in a few articles. The RSes sometimes point out reasons why they are mentioning the unreleased songs as a single entity; we should not create articles for each such reason. The "unreleased songs" considered and covered as a single entity is what those RS articles have in common; and it is that entity the WP page should be about. Churn and change (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Guardian article is about an unreleased album, not songs recorded over a 30+ year period. I can't see your objection to agreeing with yourself! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and contemplate a procedural close. The previous AFD was just earlier this month, with the same nominator. Last time, the argument was that at least one of the sources used was a hoax; it wasn't. This time, the argument is that we lean too heavily on a single source. Irrespective of the merits of that argument, it is an editorial one. And the closing admin of the previous AFD, all of 15 days ago, noted that "[c]leanup ... is not a reason for deletion." That's still true. And 15 days is not, in my opinion, a reasonable time between nominations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Disruptive tagging, 16 days after previous Afd ended with a "keep." An item related to this made it to WP's news of the day. There is significant coverage of posthumous unreleased material, at least in ABC news, Mercury News and MTV news, as cited in the article and various other places I found with a simple search. Jackson's unreleased songs as a group are talked about by mainstream media: Telegraph, on the economics of it here at Daily Finance, MSNBC, The Atlantic and so on. Churn and change (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, yes, maybe I was a tad too quick to renominate, next time I will wait for a while more... But I must say, the largely referenced book, Michael Jackson For The Record - 2nd Edition Revised And Expanded, tells us just the existence of the song and often credits are incomplete. It tells us not what purpose the songs are for. Equally hundreds of artists have unreleased songs. They are not notable. Additionally mentioning leaks has no purpose but to promote the leaks unless there is specific coverage from a reliable source about that particular leak! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention a book which does not have much on the unreleased songs. You ignore the many RSes posted here and present in the article which do have coverage of the unreleased songs as a group. And comparing Michael Jackson to the hundreds of artists out there (emphasis yours) is nonsense. We mention what reliable sources mention, leaks or not. Churn and change (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The debate is not about whether or not Michael Jackson is the only artist that has unreleased songs. The issue is whether Michael Jackson's unreleased songs have notability when taken as a whole. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that the Enola Gay isn't notable because there were lots of planes used in World War II that don't have pages. It's like the corollary of WP:OSE CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There has been a recent wave of AfDs involving "List of unreleased (Artist X) songs/material", and in most of these instances, the topic of "unreleased (Artist X) songs" did not meet that standard. In this case, however, the topic of "unreleased Michael Jackson material" has been discussed as a group [45][46][47][48][49][50]. If there are issues with individual songs on the list, that can be addressed at the list's talkpage. WP:LISTN suggests, for example, a limit on large lists so that each entry has independent notability. I don't know how practical that would be here as very few of the songs satisfy that threshold. But whatever the solution, it would seem to involve cleanup rather than deletion.  Gongshow ^Talk 07:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Discussion merged to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Osasuna_VS_Calgary. Gigs (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG—can't find RS after good faith search. See related group AfD. czar · · 06:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG per search. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards potential future discussions of renaming or merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Fatehpur Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 15:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 22. Snotbot  t • c »  16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The event has significant impact on the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh, as it constituted a gross human rights abuse similar to the 2012 Ramu violence. The event was widely by the Bangladeshi press and media. Considering factors such as Geographical scope, Depth of coverage and Diversity of sources, this article should not be deleted. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was no way near to the Ramu violence. It didn't have much news coverage by the media, especially the electronic media totally refrained from covering this. No diversity of sources as only few newspapers covered it, besides it shows different things like violence in Assam or Bihar when searched in Google. The article surely doesn't meet the criteria of notability to be in Wikipedia. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this - Satkhira violence. It will show reports from the Financial Express and other Bangladeshi news sites. The title may have been 2012 Satkhira violence.BengaliHindu (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This is not a small incident at all. This incident was covered by notable Bangladeshi newspapers like Prothom Alo, Janakantha, The Independent etc. at least for two weeks. Ssitaa1814 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Ssitaa1814 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Oppose: Don't throttle truth and freedom of speech. It will be a great disservice to humanity. Krishnendudelhi (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Krishnendudelhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Nonminator's vote): The news was only covered by few newspapers and renowned local English newspapers like The Daily Star (Bangladesh) showed no interest on the incident. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the electronic media (TV channels) totally refrained from covering this incident. Not to mention the international media also didn't show any interest. Surely it doesn't meet the WP:DIVERSE. It doesn't meet the WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE as well since no analysis about the incident was found in TV news specialty shows, books or in feature length articles in major news magazines and it doesn't have any significant impact over a region or a community. It doesn't pass the WP:EFFECT also. Zayeem ^(talk) 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not true that The Daily Star did not show any interest. On 7 April, it reported that the then Railways Minister Suranjit Sengupta had urged Home Minister Sahara Khatun to visit Satkhira - Suranjit asks Shahara to visit Satkhira. WP:DIVERSE doesn't explicitly specify that an event in order to be notable has to be covered by the electronic media. Further there is a The Daily Star op-ed piece which has analysed the recent instances of minority repressions in Bangladesh, including that of Fatehpur, Satkhira - The minorities of Bangladesh, which satisfies WP:INDEPTH criteria. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DIVERSE recommends that an incident should have significant national or international coverage and with being covered by only few local newspapers, this incident doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion for sure. Besides, the article "The minorities of Bangladesh" mostly analyses the 2012 Ramu violence or the overall condition of minorities in Bangladesh, even though because of its similarity with the topic, 2012 Fatehpur Violence also got a little thematic mention there but the incident was not actually analyzed by the daily as required to pass the WP:INDEPTH criterion. Zayeem ^(talk) 09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Kmzayeem - I struck your "Delete" since your AfD nomination counts as your one iVote. You can comment as often as you want, but only iVote once. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I had also written "(Nominator's vote)" beside "Delete". --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose : Coverage or non-coverage by a certain newspaper house does not prove/negate an incident. Leading Bengali dailies pratham alo and janakantha has provided widespread coverage to this incident with far reaching consequences. Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— Unknown.citizen12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I'm not talking about only a specific newspaper, I said only few newspapers covered it and no interest was shown by the electronic media (TV channels), hence, it definitely lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Zayeem ^(talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Most Bangladeshis are totally unaware of the incident and as mentioned earlier, it didn't get enough media attention as well, so can't really agree with your comment. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep: Just because the state media of Bangladesh doesn't report on the persecution of its minorities, it does not mean it is not notable. If the Turkish mass media does not report on the persecution of Armenians or Kurds, it does not mean that the persecution is not notable at all. The same with Tibetans and everyone else. It was also reported outside of Bangladesh, this article from Jihad Watch reports on it citing Indian media. http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Satkhira&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20 It would also be possible to merge the 3 articles into an article on Religious conflicts in Bangladesh in 2012 --Trphierth (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody here is talking about state media. The point is, the incident doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion since only few newspapers covered it. As mentioned mentioned in my earlier comments, it also lacks other criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, hence the article is definitely not eligible to be in wikipedia. Besides, the link which you posted talks about something else not this incident. The article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the persecution was reported at least in some newspapers, both nationally and internationally, and you cannot expect books already when it just happened this year. And you are the only one claiming that it was not reported widely in the Bangladeshi press. But even if you read every newspaper, which you probably don't, I would need to know from a more neutral observer. (Bangladeshi media is ranked at 136th out of 178 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which in some cases should also be taken into account.)

Also, I take objection to your comment on the Bangladesh notice board, because you seem to imply that you know just from their edits if they are Bangladeshi are not, and you seem to imply that editors writing from the point of view of minorities in Bangladesh are not really Bangladeshi editors or that only right-wing Muslims can be Bangladeshi editors. It is surprising that nobody has commented on this at the notice board. --Trphierth (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may find "you don't read newspaper" type comment little bit excessive. Stay clam and continue! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article appears to have a topic that will be able to meet the notability threshold. I have reviewed the talk page of the nominator in this AfD and he appears to have a history of disruptive edits in favor of his views regarding his country. However, the article itself needs a lot of work. Presently it reads as a news report. I would encourage the proponents of this article to do some more work on it to make it more encyclopedic in tone and content. Voting is not enough-- you need to make the article MEET THE QUALITY of an encyclopedic article-- that is the best thing you can do to save it from deletion now and in the future. OfficeGirl (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hope, next time when you post, you will keep the WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies in mind. Besides, many disruptive editors tend to hide their obnoxious history in wikipedia by archiving it while I haven't archived yet, so there is no logic in judging an editor through his/her talkpage. As for the article, I've already mentioned some reasons why the topic is not notable at all. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are two write ups, Daily Star April 6, 2012 and New Nation April 6, 2012. They both are on the same day (April 6). The Wikipedia article indicates that things happened around 31 March 2012. The six day delay in news coverage may mean a low reliable source interest in the topic. Also, if there was news coverage in May or June or later in 2012 following up the event, the aftermath, etc. that would give more perspective and evidence at least some persistence in reliable source coverage on the topic. There are no reliable sources that support calling the topic "Fatehpur Violence." The lack of evidence of reliable sources giving a name to an event also shows low reliable source interest in the topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and without evidence of sufficient reliable source interest in a topic, that would put Wikipedia as an originator of that interest, which is not what Wikipedia is. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant event and per OfficeGirl! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Titodutta (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: OfficeGirl simply said that the topic is notable without giving any logical reason. Please elaborate the reasons. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl had three points 1) the topic meet the notability threshold 2) the article has a disruptive edit history 3) article needs improvement. On 1, it is so. Though, it may not been covered by all leading newspapers of both countries, at least few newspapers (links above and in reference section in the article) have covered it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your elaboration. 1) It was covered by few newspapers, but was not covered by the other newspapers, the electronic media or the international media. Hence, it fails to pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion. The incident also doesn't have any significant impact on the community (according to sources) thus it fails to meet the WP:GEOSCOPE. It also fails to meet the WP:INDEPTH since it has not been analyzed in books, feature length articles in major news magazines, and TV news specialty shows. It also fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. Considering these points, the topic is definitely not notable at all. 2) OfficeGirl actually said that after reviewing the nominator's talkpage (my talkpage), she found that the nominator (me) has a history of disruptive edits, she wasn't talking about the article and the article also doesn't have any disruptive edit in its history. 3) The article surely needs improvement but I don't think it can ever be an encyclopedic article, since the article is already 6 months old, still not up to the mark. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this incidence has been covered by few newspapers as main topic then it can be kept. Depending on "I like it", "I don't like it", "I can't publish it (even if it is a news) because it will be against my sponsors", "I must publish it (even if it is not a news) because it praises our community" many incidences are covered/not covered in newsmedia. I read mainly Bengali and English newspapers. And in Indian newspapers it is not very uncommon to find a news being covered in first page of a newspaper and missing in another one. If you have heard about Singur conflict, Nandigram violence etc you may find different opinions in different newspapers. I hope it is more or less same in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka too. I don't expect all Bangladeshi newspapers will cover the same event in same tone.

I have been working in some Bangladesh related article. I wish to do some work on Bangladeshi theatre, I have started writing one or two articles too, for example Bahurupi Natya Sangstha. Well, when I work on Bangladesh related articles I mainly depend on 1) The Daily Star (as you can see in the linked article too I have added a bunch of Daily Star citations) 2) BDNews24. And a Daily Star article like this forces me to ponder on the subject! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) typo correction signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand the criteria. It doesn't matter to who the dailies belong or what point of view they posses while judging the notability of an event. Notable events are covered equally by the whole media, take 2012 Ramu violence for example. Besides, the source also mainly focused on the traffic gridlock caused by the demonstration by the students. And even though the incident is covered by few dailies, it's still not sufficient to pass the WP:DIVERSE. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Initially I was not so sure about this one. However, I see the incidence has been covered in some newspapers, and had some impact in the vicinity as well as far places like in the capital. We should keep in mind that in the Indian subcontinent (probably all over the world!) the newspaper coverage is often influenced by the nature of the news and the publication group, as explained by Tito above. Perhaps more so in the Islamic nation of Bangladesh where the influence of fundamentalists are even more. So, after going through the coverage, I feel this meets the notability criteria. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dwaipayanc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: Well, as replied earlier, it doesn't matter by who the dailies are influenced, notable events are equally covered by the whole media as it happened with 2012 Ramu violence. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the incident also fails to pass the WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dwaipayan.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Nobody canvassed me. What made you think so. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I replied to Dwaipayan, it doesn't matter whether the dailies are influenced by a group or not, notable topics are covered by the whole media no matter whom it belongs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I demand to know what makes an editor (who does not care to sign after expressing a concern) that I have been canvassed here (I can see he has added the same template for two other editors too, Dwaipayanc and Shyamsundar)? This editor has been a subject of India Noticeboard for a long time now. See report one, and the latest report. There may be more reports, I don't know! If I have been asked by someone to vote. I should have voted in all nominations. I take this as a personal attack! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to sign after the canvass template, however editors can get to know who added the template by watching the history. I have added the template since it seems the participants who are voting for Keep belong to a particular group and have a common and predetermined viewpoint which might be a result of Votestacking or Stealth canvassing. It is also to be mentioned that editors belonging to a particular group were invited to take part in these AfDs through some noticeboards here and here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your tongue if you can not control it. Reporting in a noticeboard without mentioning anything to vote or not to vote is not necessarily canvassing. And there he linked 4-5 articles, I have voted in one. If you see that version of India Noticeboard you'll find my reply in each and every post of that page. How does it become a canvassing? I participate in such discussions every day. Right now I have at least 2 more issues which are either reported to ANI or admins are handling it If you see my contribution list, I am a regular AFD participant and have given few more votes in AFDs in last few days too!

And even if I consider it mentioning articles in a noticeboard is canvassing, what is this? You reported the same thing in Bangladesh noticeboard! There might be more similar posts, I have not checked. Should I go ahead and add "This user is canvassing"? Forget it, I am not gonna do so.

About signing canvas template, it is a common sense- when you read "an editor has expressed some concern", you immediately ask "Who?". So, signing should be a good etiquette here!

In this very recent sockpuppet investigation you made the SPI admin "fed up" who felt it was a "a gigantic waste of time" and "You're clearly not getting the picture." So we are now. In this AFD you have cited WP:DIVERSE in your every second or third line. What do you think? We are not reading the discussion so that you need to keep repeating the same thing again and again (and again)... The SPI admin was fed up! So, I am! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more, this is somewhat weird! If you see above, I have criticized someone since I felt he was talking rudely with you! If I am invited here to oppose you why should I post in your favor there? If I am remembering correctly, I added some positive comments in one of your band related articles which was in danger at that moment!

The word I was expecting from you here is a simple "Sorry"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC) pen slip correction signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, by tagging the template I've expressed concern that you have been canvassed here by some other editor who wants to distort the consensus here, that means the accusation is against that editor who has canvassed you, I'm not accusing you, which is why I felt surprised when you said that you are feeling attacked because of that template. Secondly, you need to understand the meaning of canvassing, the tone of the posts here and here is simply indicating inappropriate canvassing and the posts are clearly inviting other editors to take part in the AfDs. About the sock puppetry investigation, well it was because I was unable to show proper evidence but you might have also noticed that the admin has also declared those user ids as meat puppets who also took part in this AfD. And the notice which I reported in Bangladesh noticeboard is definitely not about this article or any AfD, hence it can't be termed as canvassing. You don't want but I would request you to check if I've made any canvassing since I know I haven't made anything which violate the policies of wikipedia. And, yes, I have cited WP:DIVERSE and many other links quite often that's because everyone here is raising the same reasons again and again without even considering that I've already countered those reasons earlier. This indicates that many editors joined this discussion with a predetermined point of view. You have expressed that you are feeling personally attacked but it's only me who has actually been attacked here several times, pointing at my past experience. I am never shy of seeking apology, but here, I don't think I've made or posted anything against the policies. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted A7 by Bbb23 (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abd allh Mmdooh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

delete claims notability but fails to provide sources and appears to be self authored Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:COI by username and no signs of notability. czar · · 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retagged as A7 - Actually, Hell in a Bucket, I would have supported the speedy deletion as A7 because there is virtually nothing to support this biography and hardly indicates his significance, aside from primary social media pages. As a result of this, I have restored the A7 tag. Additionally, the article contains poor English and, as mentioned with my speedy deletion edit summary, it's unlikely this young man has established a sucessful career yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of titles by Pink Pineapple. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Search for reliable, third-party sources only turns up the one review that is already linked in the article. This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:NOTE. All of the keep comments from the previous AfD were citing the raw number of Google hits, that it was licensed in English, that it has an IMDb entry, asserted that it was notable without giving an other argument or evidence, or gave no reason at all. —Farix (t | c) 20:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. While the series does appear to have some degree of popularity, and it is licensed, there appears to be a lack of reliable coverage in either English or Japanese. There isn't even an ANN link announcing its licensing (although I could have missed it). The reason for the "weak" is because it is licensed, which IMHO can be an assertion of notability if it were a regular series, but it's a hentai so it doesn't count. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak Keep. Valid movie; is listed on I.M.D.B. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a movie, but an OVA, which was released directly to video. During the 90s, Japanese studios would produce an OVA on just about anything so long as someone paid them. The results was that most of those OVAs were terrible. But most importantly of all, they did not get any of the coverage that would have been given to an actual film. —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources here to back notability, I have seen no valid keep arguements here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect to List of titles by Pink Pineapple. I found two sole sources for this and I have a feeling that there might be a little more out there, but is probably lost to the sands of pre/early-Internet time. Pink Pineapple itself is rather notable, having produced several series and being a known name (despite the article for them needing a ton of work), but not everything they've done is individually noteworthy. I say that it'd be a good idea to redirect this to that page and work on fleshing out that page as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) - Closed partly because of consensus to keep and partly because of possible Sock problems. Because of possiblility that the Keeps aren't socks, I can't close as delete. Vacation9 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article is allegedly for a baseball player agent, but according to its text, the only specific Major League Baseball player he can be said to have represented had a very brief career and retired in 1998. Much of the article consists of listing more famous people with whom the subject's various lower-level jobs put him in "degrees of separation."

Also seems likely to have been written by the subject. DwaynefromME (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This article has 29 citations & the subject has 129 hits in the U.S. Google News Archives, over 200 hits at U.S. NewsLibrary & 15 hits at U.S. Google Books. It appears nominator DwaynefromME created his account just so he could nominate this page for deletion, but the citations in this article easily surpass WP:GNG. Nominator also alleges the article was written by the subject, but I don't see any violations of WP:NPOV. // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While this subject appears to be to be very borderline in notability, there appears to be an additional complicating factor in this listing. It appears extremely that someone registered and posted the article for deletion stemming solely from a political fight on a http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/ot_politics_-_october_2012_-_the_race_as_candidates_prep_for_debate_attenti/P3500 baseball website between Joe Kehoskie and other people. Though this doesn't affect the notability of Joe Kehoskie, some action must be taken because I think it's clear Wikipedia is not a tool intended to be used for individuals to play out their grudge matches. An experienced editor may be needed on this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 October 2012

If that thread is going to be entered into evidence, please note two points about it:

1. Mr. Kehoskie threatens to "dox" his enemies, thus the desire for anonymity;
2. He is repeatedly accused of writing the Wikipedia entry and never denies it. DwaynefromME (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith The preceding comment by DwaynefromME sounds like a clear admission that he nominated this page in bad faith, as the result of a political argument. Not cool. (If the nominator didn't know about that political argument, why would he have a "desire for anonymity"?) // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I think we've cleared up any ambiguity about the motives of the nominator or whether or not the nominator is connected to a heated argument over on some baseball website. WP:SK seems applicable, as I now have little doubt that the nomination was made solely for harassment. To the original nominator, that you apparently had a fight with the subject of the article has little bearing on this issue. Last I checked, there's no Wikipedia: Subject of Article Displeased Me. This is an extremely awkward nomination, so I've requested additional input from editors on how to deal both with this nomination and any possible further actions that need to be taken. Wikipedia is not a playground for people to hash out their disagreements from elsewhere. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable, some references are broken links, and in others he is not the focus of the article at all; he only has been quoted saying one or two sentences. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few sources out there that clearly establish his bonafides when it comes to Cuban baseball (NY Times, PBS, ESPN) and a piece from Westlaw http://lawschool.westlaw.com/shared/marketInfoDisplay.asp?code=CR&id=25 makes a better case, though I think it's close. The article should definitely be a lot shorter and more focused as there's a lot of extraneous links and information in there. A relatively unknown figure doesn't need that much bloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Leaving aside the COI issue, this is an article about a non-notable individual. As far as I can tell, that Westlaw source is the only one that discusses the subject in a non-trivial manner. More than one non-trivial source is required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about sources It looks like people are voting before looking for sources. This article is entirely about the subject, as are references #1 and #9 on the Wiki page and this Toronto Globe and Mail article (not listed on Wiki page). This major Vanity Fair article includes several passages about the subject, as does this Sporting News article (not listed on the Wiki page), this Washington Post article, and two different Seattle Times articles (#1 (2005) (not listed on Wiki page), #2 (2007) (not listed on Wiki page)). The subject was also featured in this ESPN show (article not listed on Wiki page), this ESPN show and this PBS documentary. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources: The Daily (not on Wiki page), Life in the Fast Lane (not on Wiki page). - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are what LogicalCreator described above. Providing brief support quotes for an article does not make the article "about" the person providing the quotes.

As I read the article's text, the subject has been a baseball agent for 16 years, yet at best has represented one highly obscure Major League Baseball player. (Clever wording in the article implies that he has represented José Bautista and Félix Hernández, but it seems clear that that's not the case -- click name links for Google searches.) That is not a notable person, even if said person has been quoted/appeared in media a few times in those 16 years. DwaynefromME (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More bad faith from bad-faith nominator There's no special Wikipedia notability guideline for baseball agents. All that matters is that the subject passes WP:GNG for any reason, and the list of references above establishes that he does. (If he's not notable as a baseball agent, why does the media quote him as an expert on a regular basis?) Also, contrary to your continued bad-faith claims, the list of citations above are not "the same as LogicalCreator described." I just listed at least seven (7) new references above (ESPN, Toronto Globe and Mail, The Sporting News, Seattle Times, etc.) that aren't currently cited on the Wikipedia page in question. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean (or write...) that they were literally the same cites. My point is that they share the quality LogicalCreator described of mentioning Kehoskie in passing while discussing the article's true subject, rather than being articles about him in any meaningful sense.

Regarding the criteria for agents in general, I note that Category:American_sports_agents has 81 entries. Considering the size of the American sports industry, that seems to be pretty exclusive. And some of those 81 can't be challenged on notability because they are former major league players. Of the remaining number, I'd be curious to know how many have as little verifiable record of representing major leaguers in their sport as Kehoskie appears to. DwaynefromME (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Your curiosity isn't a Wikipedia standard. The only thing that matters here is WP:GNG.

If your point was that the subject is only "mentioned in passing" in the references listed, you were incorrect. This Toronto Globe and Mail article mentions the subject in five out of six paragraphs. This WestLaw article is entirely about the subject. This ESPN article says he was one of the two central figures in a 60-minute ESPN show, and this PBS page shows he was one of the main figures in a PBS documentary. If not for the ax you have to grind, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let folks evaluate the other cites for themselves, but I will say that claiming that the Globe and Mail article is about Kehoskie because he's "mentioned in five out of six paragraphs" is disingenuous IMO. Yes, his name is mentioned... giving quotes about the World Baseball Classic final game and the players involved. That is what the article is about. If the author Jeff Blair had seen the game himself and repeatedly written that "I" saw this and that in the game, would that have made it an article proving that Jeff Blair was a notable person? I would hope not. If we were to evaluate Blair's notability, it would be based on his accomplishments in his career as a Globe and Mail reporter.

Each of the 30 Major League Baseball teams has bloggers whose opinions of games and players are cited throughout both the blogosphere and mainstream media on a daily basis, far more often than we're seeing here. Again, though, the bloggers' notability is based not on digging up a handful of name-mentions, but on evaluating their success in their careers as bloggers (and few have been found to be notable).

In the same manner, Kehoskie's notability rests on his accomplishments as an agent. DwaynefromME (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making up your own Wikipedia standards. Clearly, reliable sources are quoting Kehoskie as an expert in the field. Under guidelines for notability, the subject does not have to be the main subject of an article. A reliable source searching out and mentioning someone specifically for expertise is more than a passing mention. Why do you keep making up a WP:SportsAgents guideline and then strictly comparing Kehoskie to this guideline, ignoring all evidence of notability? God, do you think David Berkowitz's page should be removed because he doesn't match up to some ridiculous WP:Mailman guideline you made up?

As I said, he appears to be borderline, but being widely cited by his peers is a guideline under WP:BIO. You haven't quoted a single Wikipedia guideline in support of your nomination other than your assertion to lack of notability. Why does Wikipedia have to be subjected to your personal grudges? Are you 5? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn't the most interesting article on Wikipedia, but the current sources plus the new sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG. Here's another new reference (Edmonton Journal) that mentions the subject almost 20 times. || Note: Voting from IP (AT&T Business); don't want any retaliatory edit wars with the nominator, who seems like a man on a mission. || 64.134.103.30 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Highly Irregular Goings-On. Apart from the merits of whether we should keep or delete the Joe Kehoskie article, somehting very odd is going on in this AfD discussion. Other than User:Moboshgu and User:LogicalCreator, every other participant in this AfD is either a newly created account or an IP address (in two cases, from a country where baseball has a very minor following):

1. . User:DwaynefromME – Nominator is a newly created account;
2. . User:91.105.232.27 – First-time IP participant with Russian Federation IP address;
3. . User:CoffeeCrumbs – Newly-created account;
4. . User:202.71.129.154 – First-time IP participant with Indian IP address;
5. . User:64.134.103.30 – First-time IP participant with a corporate account dynamic IP address in Austin, Texas.

This whole AfD smells a like a giant sock farm. I would suggest that one of our Wikipedia administrators check out what's going on here. Apparently this article and/or Joe Kehoskie are the subject of some off-wiki controversy, and that this AfD is being used to continue that off-wiki combat here. This merits closer investigation, and I would suggest that this AfD be placed on hold while that investigation takes place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's difficult to have an open, good-faith AfD discussion when the nomination was made in bad faith. It's clear this nominator has an ax to grind; anyone who votes against him from their main Wikipedia account is opening him or herself to retaliation. Brand-new accounts can't create pages; they probably shouldn't be able to AfD them either. -202.71.129.154 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, this is a new account. That's why, if you check the edit history, I put up a block to ask for experienced editors to bring in input for a difficult situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you DirtLawyer. That Baseball Think Factory link up above demonstrates that there is something fishy here. There is a good chance those above listed accounts and IPs are socks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral This discussion should be closed pending potential investigation on account of it smelling like dirty socks. It's really a profound stench. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep I am Dennis Brown, and I am not a sock. Just wanted to make that clear since I feel like I'm in a sock drawer here. There is at least one article where he is the primary subject, and in several articles, he is quoted and was contacted, assumably as an expert on the subject. Those alone would likely quality as he wasn't just mentioned, but was sought out for his opinion by the reliable sources. In the end, while he isn't the most famous person I've seen, he cleanly passes the requirements here as the sources have demonstrated that they consider him notable. Our job is NOT to determine if WE THINK he is notable, it is to determine if the sources consider him notable, and they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BASIC  The Steve 

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.