Home • Search • Translate
Photos • Location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 June 11 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if articles (even stubs) on the other locations are written. The Bushranger One ping only 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Adelboden (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:MOSDAB disambiguations should only list red links when other articles also contain such links. Neither Canton of Lucerne nor Canton of Schwyz mention a place called Adelboden and all other instances of Adelboden I could find on a search of Wikipedia refer to Adelboden, Bern. A search for Adelboden, Schwyz and Adelboden, Lucerne did not return any direct hits. Therefore we do not need this disambiguation page. De728631 ( talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 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. Deleted by Jimfbleak as G3 (blatant hoax). Non-admin technical closure. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Teared up

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

A concern was raised that this is a hoax. It was listed for speedy but I declined on the basis that it is not a blatant hoax. Never the less, I am submitting it for AfD because I believe the concerns are justified. RA ( talk) 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Having searched for the film, the "acclaimed director" listed in the article, and all the actors who the article claims "went on to be famous", I can find absolutely nothing on google or IMDB which strongly leads me to the conclusion that this is a hoax. Article creator has made no other edits, so it's impossible to draw conclusions based on behavioural evidence. Valenciano ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously. Everything (and the kitchen sink) indicates this is a bleating hoax.  -- Lambiam 00:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Johnmoor, like others have said, she does great work but there's not quite enough coverage of it. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Danielle Cortes DeVito

Danielle Cortes DeVito (  | 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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. This pertains to the quality not the quantity of the references. The article has a some references, but the references are primary in nature or only briefly mention or quote the subject. Also not sure the awards mentioned are substantial enough to support the article. reddogsix ( talk) 22:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep! Although primary sources were cited to support the contents of the article, some significant secondary sources were also cited, including:

*Note that this copy of "Mrs. Chicago educates women on heart health" originally published by Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) is showing just few paragraphs and not the complete article. Thank you.
— JOHNMOORofMOORLAND ( talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete I am torn on this one. She sounds like someone who has done and continues to do important work. She clearly has some local notability, and in a city the size of Chicago, local notability is significant. But very little of her coverage is from major media, and what is consists of passing mentions. The awards she has won are local - they are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" which would qualify her under WP:BIO. I'm afraid I am going to have to go for "delete" as not quite meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Difficult. As the nom says, she definitely does good work, but I'm not sure any of the sources do enough to establish notability. There are plenty of sources listed, but they all fall into one of three categories: database-style entries (including pages on employers' websites), non-feature length articles and sources which only mention her in passing. Non of this amounts to non-trivial coverage and so she fails GNG. Basalisk  inspect damage⁄ berate 23:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not sufficient independent sources for notability. I see this article as promotional, and I do not see her as warranting encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) . reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

FaultTrack

AfDs for this article:
FaultTrack (  | 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 piece of software without evidence that it meets the notability criteria. A CSD:G4 was declined today on the grounds that the article is now significantly different from the version of this article deleted by AfD in October 2011. The references in the article are to download sites, but these attest only to its existence and do not demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD ( talk) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree - could have even been CSD templated. Fails GNG. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The Reviews section in the article is misleading as none of the entries are actually reviews and the Softpedia 100% Clean award is nothing excpentional as it simply certifies that somebody ran some tests to verify it was free of crapware. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It barely passed G4. Sources are not enough to get notability as they state not much about the subject. Changes made to the structure, make very little difference between the previously created article as still the problem of WP:RS exists. →TSU  tp* 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Zach Bonahoom

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

Municipal employee who fails WP:POLITICIAN, receives only local coverage, none of which seems to be of any depth and therefore fails WP:GNG also Valenciano ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Based on what I see and what little I found, I don't think he would have met the notability guideline even if he had won the election in question. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN in any respect and I can see no other way in which notability could be demonstrated. All the references I checked are entirely local and connected with the election. Ubelowme ( talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
You're quite correct that Sandy Kennedy is also not notable, so I've nominated that for deletion. That, logicially, nullifies your keep argument, also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Valenciano ( talk) 22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Cheats for WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne

Cheats for WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested by the author. Rationale was: WP:CHEATS Wikipedia is not a guidebook. RichardOSmith ( talk) 20:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 11 June 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. Deleted by Rannpháirtí anaithnid as A7 (no significance). Non-admin technical closure. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Yorkshire Travel York

Yorkshire Travel York (  | 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:N, WP:NOT. I can find no google secondary source for this company. It is purely a travel directory. Charles ( talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as a hoax ( WP:G3). The list of routes is pure fantasy - searching for any of them in Google or Traveline returns no hits, and where similar services do exist they certainly aren't run by this company, which doesn't appear to exist. Given its creator's history of hoax edits ( [1]) I think we can safely assume that this is another one. Alzarian16 ( talk) 22:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Oak Jubilee

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

As the article notes, this term is only a presumption of what an 80th anniversary might be called; there has never been such a thing, and no supporting refs could be found to support it or affirm notability. It is a neologism. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when notability is met. The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Kettering F.C.

Kettering F.C. (  | 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 proposed football team. No evidence that this football club exists as anything other than a proposal made in April 2012 on page 64 of a local newspaper. The cited newspaper report is not online but does seem to be discussed here. The team, however, has no website and is not included in the league that they had hoped to be playing in (see [2] and [3]. Pretty Green ( talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

When the article was made, it was expected that more information would come out. There is now online evidence: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/community/fans-planning-a-new-town-club-1-3856970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.211.37 ( talk) 19:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Also just found more information: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/local/club-s-future-hope-1-3871112

  • Delete Club does not meet generally accepted criteria of having played in the FA Cup or FA Vase or playing at Step 6 or above. The United Counties League has announced its member clubs for 2012–13 and Kettering FC are not members. Number 5 7 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL; if this club becomes notable in future that will be the time to have an article on them -- John ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for a club which only exists on paper and has no players, no ground and no league membership to be deemed notable, the level of coverage would have to be pretty exceptional. IMO two brief articles from the local paper which both basically say the same thing doesn't cut it -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 21:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Murda Weapon

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

Per WP:MUSIC, shelved albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Speedy deletion declined (criterion does not apply). Previously deleted via prod, so I'm treating this as a challenge to the prod. SummerPhD ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:25, 10 June 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) →TSU  tp* 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Quinn Norton

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

Unmaintained stub from several years ago Jes5199 ( talk) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - being "unmaintained" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. (Incidentally, the article has recently been worked on/improved by multiple editors.) A quick GNews search shows that Ms. Norton's activities have been noted by several reliable sources, which makes her notable enough for inclusion. (There are also several articles by her in the search, but not nearly all of the hits are articles by her.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article is well-sourced, in harmony with WP:BLP, has recent activity, and is not embarrassingly stubby. As a journalist frequently published by major news organizations, Ms. Norton often decides what is and isn't notable according to Wikipedia. Her article helps Wikipedia users put her words into the context of her life, and it would be a disservice to users to delete the article. Pro crast in a tor ( talk) 09:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not convinced notability is established yet. Most of the sources in the article are written/spoken by her. The only 2 independent reliable sources are the Guardian article about her ideas on copyright, and the Sunday Mirror article about her living arrangements which doesn't really discuss her work or ideas. If there are more articles in WP:RS about her that she didn't write, e.g. on her magnetic implant, then that would be sufficient to establish notability. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
It didn't take long to find a few more references about her, rather than by her:
There's likely more out there, I just stopped at five. Pro crast in a tor ( talk) 21:54, 11 June 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 Fabian Tassano and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Mediocracy

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

WP:NEO, unsourced article. Claims in article appear to be based on a single primary source, a book by Fabian Tassano. CosmicJake ( talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. This has been relisted more than enough times, consensus seems to be that the current article is too promotional but enough people are demonstrating that it could be improved with available secondary sources. - filelake shoe 09:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

ClueNet

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

Subject is not notable. Tow talk 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: Currently, all the references provided in the article are either primary or unreliable. Also, I think that ClueBot might have been subject of many articles but not ClueNet. ClueBot might be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but not ClueNet. Due to this I think the article should be deleted. -- Tow talk 00:44, 3 June 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, Tow talk 06:28, 4 June 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,  TOW   talk  18:06, 10 June 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 Fulton County School System#Westlake cluster. WP:OUTCOMES The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Camp Creek Middle School

Camp Creek Middle School (  | 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 middle school, fails WP:CORPDEPTH William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 10 June 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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination with no other delete votes pending. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Phillip Goldfeder

Non-Administrative Closure The result was keep. Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Phillip Goldfeder (  | 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 politician doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. He is an elected official, but the Politician notability guidelines say that just being an elected official does not meet the notability guidelines, and is therefore does not meet WP: POLITICIAN Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 17:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep- Meets the primary clause of WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (emphasis mine). The 'just being elected' caveat is for local officials. I'll add his conglinks momentarily. Dru of Id ( talk) 00:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 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) →TSU  tp* 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Brendan Doherty

Brendan Doherty (  | 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 to meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Suggest redirect to election article. Arbor8 ( talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 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) →TSU  tp* 06:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Bestgore.com

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

Although the page title is Bestgore.com, It needs to be decided whether the article is about the store or its named owner who falls under WP:BLP. In either case, the guidelines at WP:1E and WP:N(E) should be taken into consideration when voting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I am the creator of the article. The bestgore.com website and the owner Mark Marek are notable, please see the citations. A general google search provides the following: Google search: "bestgore.com" About 137,000 results (0.18 seconds) It is public knowledge and the citations support that the website Bestgore.com is under criminal investigation by the Montreal Police. There are several similar shock sites in Wikipedia: Ogrish.com, Rotten.com, Stile Project. The article was just created today, it is a +stub and has the potential to expand over time. JunoBeach ( talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm trying to find sources now and there's enough evidence to make me think that this site is notable outside of the now infamous Luka Magnotta video. To be honest, I don't really think that the owner is notable outside of the website. Most of what I'm seeing in the article mentions him within the scope of the website, although if I find enough to show that the owner has individual notability I might change that opinion. In any case, the Magnotta video has brought the website into the public eye and now there's articles that are focusing on the website itself. It's not as focused on as the murder for obvious reasons, but there's enough to suggest that it has notability. Anywho, I also wanted to state that the presence of other shock site articles on Wikipedia does not mean that an article on Best Gore should be kept if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. It just means that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - there seems to be an awful lot of reliable news coverage about the recent controversy and, while a lot consists of brief mentions of the website, there may be just about enough to scrape together a meaningful article. However, the current article reads like it is trying to redress a legal argument. It needs to provide more basic description and history of the website but, if this can't be done using reliable secondary sources I'll probably change my 'vote' to 'delete'. Sionk ( talk) 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The site is sufficiently notable for its identification of Luka Magnotta alone, and for the obscenity prosecution alone; there is at least twice as much notability as needed per WP:GNG. The person maintaining the site might be a WP:BLP1E (I haven't looked into it); in any case it's clear that BLP will favor speaking about what was done on the site, the more directly verifiable data, rather than taking everything the extra step to the more specialized topic of considering one person's role in running the site. Wnt ( talk) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 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 (WP: A7) ( non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 11:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Anish jerome

Anish jerome (  | 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 don't know if he meets WP: NOTABILITY and it seems only for promotion, so I am taking it to AFD. Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete It may fall into CSD G11. No reliable source (e.g. in Google)
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. Davewild ( talk) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Timothie Fielder

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

Has not played at a fully professional level, nor won a major award or gained significant coverage in independent reliable sources for his performances at a lower level. The-Pope ( talk) 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 06:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 06:47, 10 June 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 Mayor of Fair Lawn, New Jersey. Consensus is that he is not separately notable. I'm redirecting for now to the article on mayors, with no prejudice against further merging of that into the main article DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Marty Etler

Marty Etler (  | 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 local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage in reliable sources. WWGB ( talk) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN (#3) to be notable as a politician and WP:ANYBIO as a person in general-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete Light even on routine coverage. EEng ( talk) 13:22, 10 June 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) → B music ian 02:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Driptech

Driptech (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Significant coverage: [6]
  • Significant coverage: [7]
  • Significant newsblog coverage: [8]
  • Significant coverage: [9]
  • Short article, yet significant coverage (entire article about the product): [10]
— Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I could almost flip a coin on this one. The delete "!voters" and the nom make sound arguments but Metropolitan90's mention of possible non English sources provide just enough reasonable doubt for a no consensus close. If those sources are evaluated and turn out to be sub par then no prejudice against a quick renomination. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Gerry Joe Weise

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

no real claim to notability, charts are not goodcharts, award minor, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
His albums are on the Blues Breaking Records label, not Tower. That Tower linked in the article is just a shop. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:31, 2 June 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, Black Kite ( talk) 01:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability because his name comes up with valid Google News hits in four languages (English, French, Polish, and Portuguese) reflecting performances in multiple countries. That may not be a WP:MUSIC criterion itself but it leads me to think that he probably meets at least one WP:MUSIC criterion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can find no significant independent reliable sources to establish notability. With respect to releasing aklbums on a major label or significant indie label, he has not as Tower Records is acting as a distributor for the label that he released on. With respect to international coverage, what I could find was only concert announcements and listings. As for touring internationally, there appears to be no coverage about his touring. What I see is a working musician. nothing worng with that but that isn't sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:40, 15 June 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 Billy Talent discography#Singles. The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Viking Death March

Viking Death March (  | 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 single released by Billy Talent. No coverage from reliable sources or charts. The parent album hasn't been announced. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 21:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:58, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Seconding redirect to the band's page. This page doesn't contain enough information to warrant its existence, and it can always be re-created should the single become notable. Not much would be lost as the information regarding its notability would have to be added in either case. President Evil Zero ( talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I seethe consensus as delete; there's no needto merge as the content is already in the main article, and the title does not seem to be a plausible search term--surely anyone would look for the main article. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Luna Blanca (Book 1)

Luna Blanca (Book 1) (  | 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 niotable philippine TV show. No coverage from third party reliable sources. A search on Google returns close to nothing. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep This is about the first season (the first "book") of the Filipino tv series Luna Blanca, which has demonstrated notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:04, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Joel Casamayor

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Joel Casamayor (  | 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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The lone source is from directly after the fight and there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 ( talk) 04:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy ( talk) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:09, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik

Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik (  | 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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The single source is from directly after the fight and there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy ( talk) 05:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:30, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:39, 10 June 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 Al Bano and Romina Power. Merge to Al Bano and Romina Power, barring sources demonstrating notability for the album. j⚛e decker talk 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Atto I

Atto I (  | 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 studio album. No media coverage has been provided. I searched for reliable sources and found nothing. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 00:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 28 May 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:35, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:39, 10 June 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. Non-notable, unref'd promotion ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

WatchIndia.TV

WatchIndia.TV (  | 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 TV subcription service from Cyprus, a subsidiary of Live Asia TV. No references provided. After a search on Google, 3rd party reliable sources doesn't exist, only publicitary sources. Also, the article seems to be written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 06:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 June 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:39, 10 June 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 Qarsita to preserve the page history and the title. Consensus is that the current article is unsalvageable, but may in future be replaced by a well sourced and properly written encyclopedia article about the named geographic feature. - filelake shoe 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Qarn Jayroun

Qarn Jayroun (  | 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 "farms area". Article is totally unsourced and written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The place the article is about is apparently at 34°26′31″N 36°07′08″E / 34.442°N 36.119°E / 34.442; 36.119 - Google identifies it as Qarn, with Jairoun perhaps a mile to the south-west. It uwually seems to be identified simply as "Qarn", which however seems to be a fairly common Arabic place name - so that might explain the article title. Also, the Google translation of the corresponding Arabic Wikipedia article is close enough to this article to confirm that this has largely been translated from there - which may explain the inadequate sourcing and the occasionally promotional wording by our standards. So far as notability goes, I would be going straight for a Keep vote if I could be certain the place is inhabited - while there are extremely clear signs of human activity there, I can't see anything I would definitely class as habitation. So I will leave it to others to judge whether it meets our usual standards for geographical notability. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 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 seems agreement that the article as rewritten about the current subject is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Madhurima

Madhurima (  | 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 TV anchor from India. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 21:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 28 May 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, SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

DELETE - Not notable enough to be on wikipedia and does not meet any notability guidelines on wiki. No external/ third party/ reliable links provided by the creator of the article. Anyone can upload videos on youtube. So DELETE.--Bharathiya 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There is a far better known actress named Madhurima than this TV anchor. Most Google results lead to that actress, hence I have reworked the article and added couple of sources. Johannes003 ( talk) 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Johannes003, did you change the content of the whole article to this other Madhurima that you are mentioning? That means basically deleting the old article and thus making this AfD redundant? §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Exactly, that virtually means the earlier article has been deleted and replaced by a new one about another person. Johannes003 ( talk) 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP - New version of the article. Bharathiya 02:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC) ( talk)
    • Comment You've !voted Delete and Keep in the same AfD. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: True. please check with the history of the page. Earlier there was no reference at all. Please Note that user:Johannes003 has changed the whole article and virtually the old article has already been deleted and another article is in place!!!. The old article was recommended for deletion since there was no reliable links attached. Meanwhile I agree with User:Animeshkulkarni above.- Bharathiya 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 1-up (keep). The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thor Aackerlund

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

Won a videogame competition called the Nintendo "World" Championships (by "world" they mean only the United States of course). He's one among thousands of people that have won these kinds of tournaments. Already mentioned in Nintendo World Championships article, not notable enough for a separate stand-alone article. œ ™ 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) œ ™ 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found a few paywalled news articles which discuss him, e.g. [11] [12] [13]. As well as the Nintendo World Championships, I see coverage about his Tetris playing and his promotions for Camerica, so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. I would be happier about !voting keep if there was more coverage, but even so I think he just about qualifies for a stand-alone article. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep' Only if the article gets better sources. It seems that there is more than enough information to write a good article on him, but whoever created the article didn't use those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert'sscribe ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 10 June 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. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 12:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Adult grooming

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

No references supplied, appears to be original research. If and when references to reliable sources are found, it can always be recreated. Attempted prodding for these reasons but was deprodded, so now it's time for AFD. Maratrean ( talk) 10:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Proposer doesnt seem to have taken any notice of the discussion on the talk page. To summarise, the word "grooming" is in frequent use in both a child and adult context for the purposes of exploitation of one sort or another. "Adult grooming" is really just grooming and there should really be a general "grooming" article covering both child and adult grooming instead of having child grooming. There is no magical psychological reason why grooming can't happen once the age of 18 is reached. The psychological processes are basically just the same below or above 18.-- Penbat ( talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Your arguments are just WP:OR and do nothing to change the fact that we have no WP:RS Maratrean ( talk) 11:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
      • No you have got it wrong, AFDs dispute the credibility of the subject of an article's existence not the content. Quite a few Wiki articles dont have sources and that in itself is not a reason for deleting the article.-- Penbat ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
        • WP:NRVE - an article lacking reliable sources can be kept, sure, if the topic itself is notable. But, if notability is challenged, then reliable sources are required to demonstrate it. So far you have failed to produce any reliable sources, which goes against notability. 60.225.114.230 ( talk) 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to child grooming; I couldn't find any sources using this term in the sense it's used in the article. All the searches of scholarly journals yielded only "Primate adult grooming", etc.-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unsourced. I don't deny that "grooming" techniques as applied to children can also be employed towards adults, but I have never heard it referred to as a separate topic. Perhaps a section saying as much on child grooming is sufficient? Famousdog 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. wikt:groom#Verb includes To attempt to gain the trust of a minor or adult with the intention of subjecting them to abusive or exploitative behaviour such as sexual abuse, human trafficking or sexual slavery. (That entry also appears to have been edited by the creator of the article in question here, but I don't think they're responsible for including the word "adult".) -- Trevj ( talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Half the commentators consider that the sources are sufficient to make this company notable; half the commentators consider that the sources are essentially press releases and are insufficient to make this company notable. There have been two relists and I am not confident that yet another relisting will produce a clear consensus. It is not the role of the closing admin to cast a supervote to referee between the opposing camps, by giving a personal view of the strength of the sources, when the Community is clearly undecided. At the moment, this seems to be a rapidly growing company; consequently it is better to let a reasonable period of time pass and, if considered appropriate at a future date, revisit this article at a fresh AfD. TerriersFan ( talk) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Genetec

Genetec (  | 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 tech company. Unreferenced. Also, it's written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 27 May 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,  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Also search for "Genetic Inc" for some possible refs, like: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ "Company Overview of Genetec Inc". Bloomberg Businessweek.
  2. ^ "Here are Montreal's top employers". canada.com.
  3. ^ "Technology cuts 2 ways in traffic field". Chicago Tribune. Genetec Inc., the Canadian company from which Chicago bought ... (subscription required)
  4. ^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181204777.html Gager, Russ. "Urban security infrastructure: wireless mesh complements the fiber backbone in Chicago's 'Operation Virtual Shield' project.(Technology @ Work)(Editorial)." Security Distributing & Marketing. BNP Media. 2008. HighBeam Research. 4 Jun. 2012 < http://www.highbeam.com>. (subscription required)
  5. ^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-153895271.html Longmore-Etheridge, Ann. "Security renewal goes Royal: the jewels in the crown of the Royal Ontario Museum's security upgrade are seamless management of digital video and alarm-sensing technology.(SMART SOLUTIONS TO SECURITY PROBLEMS)." Security Management. American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS). 2006. HighBeam Research. 4 Jun. 2012 < http://www.highbeam.com>. (subscription required)

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Note that the following sources are not press releases; they're articles written by staff writers at their respective publications:
— Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Essentially all the references are press releases. "24th fastest growing technology company in canada" reads to be like good evidence for NOT YET NOTABLE. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NorthAmerica1000. ZackMartin ( talk) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Shouldn't WP:TRIVCOV be the main source of the discussion here? "notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention". If the articles are press releases, then it is not a good source for material or coverage. However, it there are enough articles that make more than trivial mention there are possible grounds for notability. In my opinion, the article as it stands is not encyclopedic and doesn't display notability. -- Loukinho ( talk) 00:18, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_10&oldid=1142634828"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 June 11 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if articles (even stubs) on the other locations are written. The Bushranger One ping only 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Adelboden (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:MOSDAB disambiguations should only list red links when other articles also contain such links. Neither Canton of Lucerne nor Canton of Schwyz mention a place called Adelboden and all other instances of Adelboden I could find on a search of Wikipedia refer to Adelboden, Bern. A search for Adelboden, Schwyz and Adelboden, Lucerne did not return any direct hits. Therefore we do not need this disambiguation page. De728631 ( talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 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. Deleted by Jimfbleak as G3 (blatant hoax). Non-admin technical closure. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Teared up

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

A concern was raised that this is a hoax. It was listed for speedy but I declined on the basis that it is not a blatant hoax. Never the less, I am submitting it for AfD because I believe the concerns are justified. RA ( talk) 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Having searched for the film, the "acclaimed director" listed in the article, and all the actors who the article claims "went on to be famous", I can find absolutely nothing on google or IMDB which strongly leads me to the conclusion that this is a hoax. Article creator has made no other edits, so it's impossible to draw conclusions based on behavioural evidence. Valenciano ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously. Everything (and the kitchen sink) indicates this is a bleating hoax.  -- Lambiam 00:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Johnmoor, like others have said, she does great work but there's not quite enough coverage of it. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Danielle Cortes DeVito

Danielle Cortes DeVito (  | 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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. This pertains to the quality not the quantity of the references. The article has a some references, but the references are primary in nature or only briefly mention or quote the subject. Also not sure the awards mentioned are substantial enough to support the article. reddogsix ( talk) 22:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep! Although primary sources were cited to support the contents of the article, some significant secondary sources were also cited, including:

*Note that this copy of "Mrs. Chicago educates women on heart health" originally published by Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) is showing just few paragraphs and not the complete article. Thank you.
— JOHNMOORofMOORLAND ( talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete I am torn on this one. She sounds like someone who has done and continues to do important work. She clearly has some local notability, and in a city the size of Chicago, local notability is significant. But very little of her coverage is from major media, and what is consists of passing mentions. The awards she has won are local - they are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" which would qualify her under WP:BIO. I'm afraid I am going to have to go for "delete" as not quite meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Difficult. As the nom says, she definitely does good work, but I'm not sure any of the sources do enough to establish notability. There are plenty of sources listed, but they all fall into one of three categories: database-style entries (including pages on employers' websites), non-feature length articles and sources which only mention her in passing. Non of this amounts to non-trivial coverage and so she fails GNG. Basalisk  inspect damage⁄ berate 23:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not sufficient independent sources for notability. I see this article as promotional, and I do not see her as warranting encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) . reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

FaultTrack

AfDs for this article:
FaultTrack (  | 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 piece of software without evidence that it meets the notability criteria. A CSD:G4 was declined today on the grounds that the article is now significantly different from the version of this article deleted by AfD in October 2011. The references in the article are to download sites, but these attest only to its existence and do not demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD ( talk) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree - could have even been CSD templated. Fails GNG. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The Reviews section in the article is misleading as none of the entries are actually reviews and the Softpedia 100% Clean award is nothing excpentional as it simply certifies that somebody ran some tests to verify it was free of crapware. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It barely passed G4. Sources are not enough to get notability as they state not much about the subject. Changes made to the structure, make very little difference between the previously created article as still the problem of WP:RS exists. →TSU  tp* 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Zach Bonahoom

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

Municipal employee who fails WP:POLITICIAN, receives only local coverage, none of which seems to be of any depth and therefore fails WP:GNG also Valenciano ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Based on what I see and what little I found, I don't think he would have met the notability guideline even if he had won the election in question. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN in any respect and I can see no other way in which notability could be demonstrated. All the references I checked are entirely local and connected with the election. Ubelowme ( talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
You're quite correct that Sandy Kennedy is also not notable, so I've nominated that for deletion. That, logicially, nullifies your keep argument, also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Valenciano ( talk) 22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Cheats for WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne

Cheats for WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested by the author. Rationale was: WP:CHEATS Wikipedia is not a guidebook. RichardOSmith ( talk) 20:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:51, 11 June 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. Deleted by Rannpháirtí anaithnid as A7 (no significance). Non-admin technical closure. Ymblanter ( talk) 07:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Yorkshire Travel York

Yorkshire Travel York (  | 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:N, WP:NOT. I can find no google secondary source for this company. It is purely a travel directory. Charles ( talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as a hoax ( WP:G3). The list of routes is pure fantasy - searching for any of them in Google or Traveline returns no hits, and where similar services do exist they certainly aren't run by this company, which doesn't appear to exist. Given its creator's history of hoax edits ( [1]) I think we can safely assume that this is another one. Alzarian16 ( talk) 22:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Oak Jubilee

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

As the article notes, this term is only a presumption of what an 80th anniversary might be called; there has never been such a thing, and no supporting refs could be found to support it or affirm notability. It is a neologism. RichardOSmith ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when notability is met. The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Kettering F.C.

Kettering F.C. (  | 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 proposed football team. No evidence that this football club exists as anything other than a proposal made in April 2012 on page 64 of a local newspaper. The cited newspaper report is not online but does seem to be discussed here. The team, however, has no website and is not included in the league that they had hoped to be playing in (see [2] and [3]. Pretty Green ( talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

When the article was made, it was expected that more information would come out. There is now online evidence: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/community/fans-planning-a-new-town-club-1-3856970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.211.37 ( talk) 19:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Also just found more information: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/local/club-s-future-hope-1-3871112

  • Delete Club does not meet generally accepted criteria of having played in the FA Cup or FA Vase or playing at Step 6 or above. The United Counties League has announced its member clubs for 2012–13 and Kettering FC are not members. Number 5 7 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL; if this club becomes notable in future that will be the time to have an article on them -- John ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for a club which only exists on paper and has no players, no ground and no league membership to be deemed notable, the level of coverage would have to be pretty exceptional. IMO two brief articles from the local paper which both basically say the same thing doesn't cut it -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 21:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Murda Weapon

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

Per WP:MUSIC, shelved albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Speedy deletion declined (criterion does not apply). Previously deleted via prod, so I'm treating this as a challenge to the prod. SummerPhD ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:25, 10 June 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) →TSU  tp* 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Quinn Norton

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

Unmaintained stub from several years ago Jes5199 ( talk) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - being "unmaintained" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. (Incidentally, the article has recently been worked on/improved by multiple editors.) A quick GNews search shows that Ms. Norton's activities have been noted by several reliable sources, which makes her notable enough for inclusion. (There are also several articles by her in the search, but not nearly all of the hits are articles by her.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article is well-sourced, in harmony with WP:BLP, has recent activity, and is not embarrassingly stubby. As a journalist frequently published by major news organizations, Ms. Norton often decides what is and isn't notable according to Wikipedia. Her article helps Wikipedia users put her words into the context of her life, and it would be a disservice to users to delete the article. Pro crast in a tor ( talk) 09:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not convinced notability is established yet. Most of the sources in the article are written/spoken by her. The only 2 independent reliable sources are the Guardian article about her ideas on copyright, and the Sunday Mirror article about her living arrangements which doesn't really discuss her work or ideas. If there are more articles in WP:RS about her that she didn't write, e.g. on her magnetic implant, then that would be sufficient to establish notability. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
It didn't take long to find a few more references about her, rather than by her:
There's likely more out there, I just stopped at five. Pro crast in a tor ( talk) 21:54, 11 June 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 Fabian Tassano and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Mediocracy

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

WP:NEO, unsourced article. Claims in article appear to be based on a single primary source, a book by Fabian Tassano. CosmicJake ( talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. This has been relisted more than enough times, consensus seems to be that the current article is too promotional but enough people are demonstrating that it could be improved with available secondary sources. - filelake shoe 09:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

ClueNet

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

Subject is not notable. Tow talk 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: Currently, all the references provided in the article are either primary or unreliable. Also, I think that ClueBot might have been subject of many articles but not ClueNet. ClueBot might be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but not ClueNet. Due to this I think the article should be deleted. -- Tow talk 00:44, 3 June 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, Tow talk 06:28, 4 June 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,  TOW   talk  18:06, 10 June 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 Fulton County School System#Westlake cluster. WP:OUTCOMES The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Camp Creek Middle School

Camp Creek Middle School (  | 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 middle school, fails WP:CORPDEPTH William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:27, 10 June 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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination with no other delete votes pending. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Phillip Goldfeder

Non-Administrative Closure The result was keep. Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Phillip Goldfeder (  | 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 politician doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. He is an elected official, but the Politician notability guidelines say that just being an elected official does not meet the notability guidelines, and is therefore does not meet WP: POLITICIAN Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 17:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep- Meets the primary clause of WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (emphasis mine). The 'just being elected' caveat is for local officials. I'll add his conglinks momentarily. Dru of Id ( talk) 00:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 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) →TSU  tp* 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Brendan Doherty

Brendan Doherty (  | 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 to meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Suggest redirect to election article. Arbor8 ( talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 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) →TSU  tp* 06:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Bestgore.com

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

Although the page title is Bestgore.com, It needs to be decided whether the article is about the store or its named owner who falls under WP:BLP. In either case, the guidelines at WP:1E and WP:N(E) should be taken into consideration when voting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I am the creator of the article. The bestgore.com website and the owner Mark Marek are notable, please see the citations. A general google search provides the following: Google search: "bestgore.com" About 137,000 results (0.18 seconds) It is public knowledge and the citations support that the website Bestgore.com is under criminal investigation by the Montreal Police. There are several similar shock sites in Wikipedia: Ogrish.com, Rotten.com, Stile Project. The article was just created today, it is a +stub and has the potential to expand over time. JunoBeach ( talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm trying to find sources now and there's enough evidence to make me think that this site is notable outside of the now infamous Luka Magnotta video. To be honest, I don't really think that the owner is notable outside of the website. Most of what I'm seeing in the article mentions him within the scope of the website, although if I find enough to show that the owner has individual notability I might change that opinion. In any case, the Magnotta video has brought the website into the public eye and now there's articles that are focusing on the website itself. It's not as focused on as the murder for obvious reasons, but there's enough to suggest that it has notability. Anywho, I also wanted to state that the presence of other shock site articles on Wikipedia does not mean that an article on Best Gore should be kept if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. It just means that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - there seems to be an awful lot of reliable news coverage about the recent controversy and, while a lot consists of brief mentions of the website, there may be just about enough to scrape together a meaningful article. However, the current article reads like it is trying to redress a legal argument. It needs to provide more basic description and history of the website but, if this can't be done using reliable secondary sources I'll probably change my 'vote' to 'delete'. Sionk ( talk) 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The site is sufficiently notable for its identification of Luka Magnotta alone, and for the obscenity prosecution alone; there is at least twice as much notability as needed per WP:GNG. The person maintaining the site might be a WP:BLP1E (I haven't looked into it); in any case it's clear that BLP will favor speaking about what was done on the site, the more directly verifiable data, rather than taking everything the extra step to the more specialized topic of considering one person's role in running the site. Wnt ( talk) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 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 (WP: A7) ( non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 11:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Anish jerome

Anish jerome (  | 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 don't know if he meets WP: NOTABILITY and it seems only for promotion, so I am taking it to AFD. Electriccatfish2 ( talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete It may fall into CSD G11. No reliable source (e.g. in Google)
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. Davewild ( talk) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Timothie Fielder

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

Has not played at a fully professional level, nor won a major award or gained significant coverage in independent reliable sources for his performances at a lower level. The-Pope ( talk) 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 06:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope ( talk) 06:47, 10 June 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 Mayor of Fair Lawn, New Jersey. Consensus is that he is not separately notable. I'm redirecting for now to the article on mayors, with no prejudice against further merging of that into the main article DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Marty Etler

Marty Etler (  | 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 local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage in reliable sources. WWGB ( talk) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN (#3) to be notable as a politician and WP:ANYBIO as a person in general-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete Light even on routine coverage. EEng ( talk) 13:22, 10 June 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) → B music ian 02:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Driptech

Driptech (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Significant coverage: [6]
  • Significant coverage: [7]
  • Significant newsblog coverage: [8]
  • Significant coverage: [9]
  • Short article, yet significant coverage (entire article about the product): [10]
— Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I could almost flip a coin on this one. The delete "!voters" and the nom make sound arguments but Metropolitan90's mention of possible non English sources provide just enough reasonable doubt for a no consensus close. If those sources are evaluated and turn out to be sub par then no prejudice against a quick renomination. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Gerry Joe Weise

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

no real claim to notability, charts are not goodcharts, award minor, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply
His albums are on the Blues Breaking Records label, not Tower. That Tower linked in the article is just a shop. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:31, 2 June 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, Black Kite ( talk) 01:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability because his name comes up with valid Google News hits in four languages (English, French, Polish, and Portuguese) reflecting performances in multiple countries. That may not be a WP:MUSIC criterion itself but it leads me to think that he probably meets at least one WP:MUSIC criterion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can find no significant independent reliable sources to establish notability. With respect to releasing aklbums on a major label or significant indie label, he has not as Tower Records is acting as a distributor for the label that he released on. With respect to international coverage, what I could find was only concert announcements and listings. As for touring internationally, there appears to be no coverage about his touring. What I see is a working musician. nothing worng with that but that isn't sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:40, 15 June 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 Billy Talent discography#Singles. The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Viking Death March

Viking Death March (  | 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 single released by Billy Talent. No coverage from reliable sources or charts. The parent album hasn't been announced. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 21:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:58, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Seconding redirect to the band's page. This page doesn't contain enough information to warrant its existence, and it can always be re-created should the single become notable. Not much would be lost as the information regarding its notability would have to be added in either case. President Evil Zero ( talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I seethe consensus as delete; there's no needto merge as the content is already in the main article, and the title does not seem to be a plausible search term--surely anyone would look for the main article. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Luna Blanca (Book 1)

Luna Blanca (Book 1) (  | 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 niotable philippine TV show. No coverage from third party reliable sources. A search on Google returns close to nothing. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep This is about the first season (the first "book") of the Filipino tv series Luna Blanca, which has demonstrated notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:04, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Joel Casamayor

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Joel Casamayor (  | 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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The lone source is from directly after the fight and there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 ( talk) 04:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy ( talk) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:09, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik

Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik (  | 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 event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The single source is from directly after the fight and there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 ( talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy ( talk) 05:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:30, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:39, 10 June 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 Al Bano and Romina Power. Merge to Al Bano and Romina Power, barring sources demonstrating notability for the album. j⚛e decker talk 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Atto I

Atto I (  | 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 studio album. No media coverage has been provided. I searched for reliable sources and found nothing. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 00:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 28 May 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:35, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:39, 10 June 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. Non-notable, unref'd promotion ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

WatchIndia.TV

WatchIndia.TV (  | 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 TV subcription service from Cyprus, a subsidiary of Live Asia TV. No references provided. After a search on Google, 3rd party reliable sources doesn't exist, only publicitary sources. Also, the article seems to be written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 06:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 June 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,  — Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 June 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, →TSU  tp* 01:39, 10 June 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 Qarsita to preserve the page history and the title. Consensus is that the current article is unsalvageable, but may in future be replaced by a well sourced and properly written encyclopedia article about the named geographic feature. - filelake shoe 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Qarn Jayroun

Qarn Jayroun (  | 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 "farms area". Article is totally unsourced and written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The place the article is about is apparently at 34°26′31″N 36°07′08″E / 34.442°N 36.119°E / 34.442; 36.119 - Google identifies it as Qarn, with Jairoun perhaps a mile to the south-west. It uwually seems to be identified simply as "Qarn", which however seems to be a fairly common Arabic place name - so that might explain the article title. Also, the Google translation of the corresponding Arabic Wikipedia article is close enough to this article to confirm that this has largely been translated from there - which may explain the inadequate sourcing and the occasionally promotional wording by our standards. So far as notability goes, I would be going straight for a Keep vote if I could be certain the place is inhabited - while there are extremely clear signs of human activity there, I can't see anything I would definitely class as habitation. So I will leave it to others to judge whether it meets our usual standards for geographical notability. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 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 seems agreement that the article as rewritten about the current subject is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Madhurima

Madhurima (  | 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 TV anchor from India. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 21:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 28 May 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, SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

DELETE - Not notable enough to be on wikipedia and does not meet any notability guidelines on wiki. No external/ third party/ reliable links provided by the creator of the article. Anyone can upload videos on youtube. So DELETE.--Bharathiya 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There is a far better known actress named Madhurima than this TV anchor. Most Google results lead to that actress, hence I have reworked the article and added couple of sources. Johannes003 ( talk) 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Johannes003, did you change the content of the whole article to this other Madhurima that you are mentioning? That means basically deleting the old article and thus making this AfD redundant? §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Exactly, that virtually means the earlier article has been deleted and replaced by a new one about another person. Johannes003 ( talk) 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP - New version of the article. Bharathiya 02:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC) ( talk)
    • Comment You've !voted Delete and Keep in the same AfD. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: True. please check with the history of the page. Earlier there was no reference at all. Please Note that user:Johannes003 has changed the whole article and virtually the old article has already been deleted and another article is in place!!!. The old article was recommended for deletion since there was no reliable links attached. Meanwhile I agree with User:Animeshkulkarni above.- Bharathiya 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 1-up (keep). The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thor Aackerlund

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

Won a videogame competition called the Nintendo "World" Championships (by "world" they mean only the United States of course). He's one among thousands of people that have won these kinds of tournaments. Already mentioned in Nintendo World Championships article, not notable enough for a separate stand-alone article. œ ™ 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) œ ™ 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found a few paywalled news articles which discuss him, e.g. [11] [12] [13]. As well as the Nintendo World Championships, I see coverage about his Tetris playing and his promotions for Camerica, so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. I would be happier about !voting keep if there was more coverage, but even so I think he just about qualifies for a stand-alone article. — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep' Only if the article gets better sources. It seems that there is more than enough information to write a good article on him, but whoever created the article didn't use those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert'sscribe ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 10 June 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. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 12:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Adult grooming

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

No references supplied, appears to be original research. If and when references to reliable sources are found, it can always be recreated. Attempted prodding for these reasons but was deprodded, so now it's time for AFD. Maratrean ( talk) 10:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Proposer doesnt seem to have taken any notice of the discussion on the talk page. To summarise, the word "grooming" is in frequent use in both a child and adult context for the purposes of exploitation of one sort or another. "Adult grooming" is really just grooming and there should really be a general "grooming" article covering both child and adult grooming instead of having child grooming. There is no magical psychological reason why grooming can't happen once the age of 18 is reached. The psychological processes are basically just the same below or above 18.-- Penbat ( talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Your arguments are just WP:OR and do nothing to change the fact that we have no WP:RS Maratrean ( talk) 11:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
      • No you have got it wrong, AFDs dispute the credibility of the subject of an article's existence not the content. Quite a few Wiki articles dont have sources and that in itself is not a reason for deleting the article.-- Penbat ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
        • WP:NRVE - an article lacking reliable sources can be kept, sure, if the topic itself is notable. But, if notability is challenged, then reliable sources are required to demonstrate it. So far you have failed to produce any reliable sources, which goes against notability. 60.225.114.230 ( talk) 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to child grooming; I couldn't find any sources using this term in the sense it's used in the article. All the searches of scholarly journals yielded only "Primate adult grooming", etc.-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unsourced. I don't deny that "grooming" techniques as applied to children can also be employed towards adults, but I have never heard it referred to as a separate topic. Perhaps a section saying as much on child grooming is sufficient? Famousdog 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. wikt:groom#Verb includes To attempt to gain the trust of a minor or adult with the intention of subjecting them to abusive or exploitative behaviour such as sexual abuse, human trafficking or sexual slavery. (That entry also appears to have been edited by the creator of the article in question here, but I don't think they're responsible for including the word "adult".) -- Trevj ( talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Half the commentators consider that the sources are sufficient to make this company notable; half the commentators consider that the sources are essentially press releases and are insufficient to make this company notable. There have been two relists and I am not confident that yet another relisting will produce a clear consensus. It is not the role of the closing admin to cast a supervote to referee between the opposing camps, by giving a personal view of the strength of the sources, when the Community is clearly undecided. At the moment, this seems to be a rapidly growing company; consequently it is better to let a reasonable period of time pass and, if considered appropriate at a future date, revisit this article at a fresh AfD. TerriersFan ( talk) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Genetec

Genetec (  | 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 tech company. Unreferenced. Also, it's written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 27 May 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,  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Also search for "Genetic Inc" for some possible refs, like: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ "Company Overview of Genetec Inc". Bloomberg Businessweek.
  2. ^ "Here are Montreal's top employers". canada.com.
  3. ^ "Technology cuts 2 ways in traffic field". Chicago Tribune. Genetec Inc., the Canadian company from which Chicago bought ... (subscription required)
  4. ^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181204777.html Gager, Russ. "Urban security infrastructure: wireless mesh complements the fiber backbone in Chicago's 'Operation Virtual Shield' project.(Technology @ Work)(Editorial)." Security Distributing & Marketing. BNP Media. 2008. HighBeam Research. 4 Jun. 2012 < http://www.highbeam.com>. (subscription required)
  5. ^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-153895271.html Longmore-Etheridge, Ann. "Security renewal goes Royal: the jewels in the crown of the Royal Ontario Museum's security upgrade are seamless management of digital video and alarm-sensing technology.(SMART SOLUTIONS TO SECURITY PROBLEMS)." Security Management. American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS). 2006. HighBeam Research. 4 Jun. 2012 < http://www.highbeam.com>. (subscription required)

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Note that the following sources are not press releases; they're articles written by staff writers at their respective publications:
— Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Essentially all the references are press releases. "24th fastest growing technology company in canada" reads to be like good evidence for NOT YET NOTABLE. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NorthAmerica1000. ZackMartin ( talk) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Shouldn't WP:TRIVCOV be the main source of the discussion here? "notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention". If the articles are press releases, then it is not a good source for material or coverage. However, it there are enough articles that make more than trivial mention there are possible grounds for notability. In my opinion, the article as it stands is not encyclopedic and doesn't display notability. -- Loukinho ( talk) 00:18, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_10&oldid=1142634828"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE