Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:02, 28 September 2012

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      December 24 (Tue)      December 23 (Mon)      December 22 (Sun)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ogün Samast

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

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

Article about the assassin of Hrant Dink. Falls under WP:1E all the relevant information is covered in Assassination of Hrant Dink George Spurlin (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:EVENT. The murder already has an article. SalHamton (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sprutt (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 07:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to the victim's page. Siuenti (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per not news / 1 event / etc. Notability needs to be a long term interest, and not merely a flash in the pan. Vcessayist (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

IQ Press

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

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

• Delete. Non-notable company. Refs are mainly from the subject. Contested PROD. PROD removed by the SPA who created the aricle. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The provided refs are primary and I can find nothing elsewhere to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a small, young, niche publishing house. Nothing notable about it. PKT(alk) 16:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be a promotional article with no reliable independent sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bell'Italia

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

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

• Delete. Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Soft Delete. Really, I'd go for a redirect to the parent publisher here, but that article doesn't seem to exist. There are a few English-language references to this magazine, but nothing substantive (see , ). The tone of the latter of those brief mentions makes it sound as though this title is relatively well-known, but I've failed to find sources that meet the notability threshold. I suspect they exist in Italian, but searching for Italian material is challenging because the magazine's title is a phrase in common usage. Combined with the failure of this discussion to obtain a quorum (or, indeed, participation) in more than two AFD cycles, and I think soft deletion is the best outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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:CDS#G7 article blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

JoshCartu

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

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

Unnotable individual. Multiple Google hits suggest a talent for self-promotion, but I can find no independent references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. After Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen - marginal sources, but a clear majority in favour of deletion. WilyD 07:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Salty Fingers (plant)

Salty Fingers (trademark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This product, as well as its makers, do not meet notability guidelines as set out in Misplaced Pages:CORPDEPTH Mootros (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In the meantime, the nominator has moved the article to Salty Fingers (trademark). When this discussion is finished, I shall remove the page to Salty Fingers (plant). For one has to distinguish between the article and its heading (taxonomy). Whilst the former focuses on the subject the latter focuses on the reader who seeks information. And the heading must be such that the reader will find the information sought. In fact, I have given it quite some heed when i decided for "Salty Fingers (plant)" rather than "Salty Fingers (vegetable)". However, "trademark" as a part of the title is very much beside what a reader needs. I would appreciate commets. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the aforesaid, I have found another product called Salty Fingers (http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/11077034/Salty_Fingers/showimage.html) which makes it mandators to remove the page to Salty Fingers (plant). Regards, Akolyth (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This article should not be deleted because the plant, i.e. the topic in question, is of relevance and it is well-sourced. The references will show that "Salty Fingers" are a ingredient in Haute Cuisine. Apart from that, the nomination by Mootros (talk is merely a retaliation for the fact that I object his vandalism w.r.t Bettina Wulff. He has also requested speedy deletion. A glance at my and his talk page will confirm this. Akolyth (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The first part of your argument is that WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. The reasoning was rather short - I admit. Now, Salty Fingers are an ingredient in particular used by Chefs in Haute Cuisine restaurants. As has been already mentioned below, trawling through the net you will find ample resources that confirm that Salty Fingers is on the menus of quite a many upmarket (e.g. http://www.kloster-hornbach.de/en/restaurants/gourmet-restaurant/refugium) and Haute Cuisine restaurants. It appears to me that it might be a succulent, halophyte plant that grows in salt marshes or mangroves. If so it might be similar to glasswort, pickleweed and samphire. It would be a Salicornia, thus. However, this is only my personal speculation and thus I didn't mention this in the article. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - the subject is notable and the references are reliable. Nowadays, one can find Salty Fingers on the menus of every other haute cuisine restaurant. Moreover, it is covered both by cooking documentaries and by cooking magazines. The references given are only a starting point. The article shall remain. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Since when are blogs reliable? With most sources cited there is no editorial control. Mootros (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources are fine. A Bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Commonly used ingredient in kitchens. Salty Fingers/Samphire (in Dutch: zeekraal) is used by restaurants with Michelin stars of with the Bib Gourmant, as mentioned here and here. This article mentions the commercial farming (!) and promotion in the Dutch province of Zeeland. The Banner _talk 16:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• We already have an article about samphire. Why would we want another about the same thing but with a childish trademarked neologism for a title? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Could you provide proof that "Salty Fingers" is samphire? As regards your comment below I doubt it but please feel free to provide it. And for what concerns this article, it firstly, doesn't mention Salty Fingers, and secondly, it it about a samphire which grows in Europe. However, Salty Fingers grow in tropical Asia and America. So this article can hardly deal with Salty Fingers. In so far, Salty Fingers need an article all by itself. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The Banner made the claim that this is samphire, not me. If I understand you correctly you are saying that the fact that the sources linked by The Banner are not about Salty Fingers means that we should keep this article. That's very strange logic. What we need is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are about this 8-month-old trademark for a plant/ingredient. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Phil, I have read your comment now a few times and I still don't get the point. The key issue which I need your help with is "The Banner". Could you please tell me what you mean by it? However, in case you should refer to the first sentence (is that called a "Banner"?), which contains a reference to sea bean, please note that the reference says "...salicorne such as Samphire..." And this does not mean that "Salty Fingers" are samphire. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• "The Banner" is the editor who made the claim above that this is samphire, and claimed that sources about samphire demonstrate the notability of Salty Fingers. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, Phil. As the name "The Banner" was printed in gothic letters I didn't really read it. But for what concerns his remark I think you may misunderstand it a little. He does not say that Salty Fingers is samphire - none of his references say so. But he points out that both (the latter being called 'zeekraal') are being used in The Netherlands. And his examples for zeekraal show that Salicornioideae find culinary use in haute cuisine restaurants. However, should there be proof for your hypothesis I would support to have both articles merged. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The following table on Seavegetable shall help you two in your discussion. It clearly shows that Salty Fingers is not samphire. I will add it to the article, too. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having a look at p24 of this article you will find that "zeekraal" and "Salty Fingers" are to differenr things in Dutch. However, both are being used just as "The Banner" said. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Is this anything other than a silly trendy name for samphire? If not it should be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I have wondered about this myself, but I can find absolutely nothing which would confirm this. And mind you, it might be either Salicornia or Sarcocornia which brings different varieties into the play. This said, I somehow wonder if the proprietor of the trademark even tend to sell different varities under the same trademark which would be an appripriate work-around in order to cater to seaonsonal availability of one variety or the other. However, even if all that were the case I still see a substantial added-value in a distinct article as it helps the user who wants to find information on Salty Fingers which he or she may know from a restaurant's menu. Accordingly, this article could be biased into the culinary use of the plant. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If we can't even confirm such basic facts as what plant species (singular or plural) this is then I don't see how we can have a meaningful article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The meaningfulness of an article does not solely depend on a precise botanical classification. This holds in particular for a food-related article. But I agree that the botanical classification would be most helpful. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Pls note the article is not about a plant but about a trademark. Mootros (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue was already discussed above. Akolyth (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Relister's comment - There's obviously nothing wrong with having both a botanical article and a culinary article (e.g., beef vs. cow), but what I can't identify from this discussion (nor easily in non-English sources) is whether sourcing really is sufficient for WP:N or not, on which there's some asserted disagreement but no real discussion. WilyD 07:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, this article is about a plant which is sold under the name "Salty Fingers" which is a trademark. But it is a plant still. And for what concerns your request for sources, please have a look at (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6). These references will show you that "Salty Fingers" are on the menu of nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant. There are more references still, but I think that these and the ones in the article shall suffice. Akolyth (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable trademark for a non-notable product sold by a non-notable company! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This was already discussed above - the article is about a plant and a trademark which refers to that very plant. Secondly, I would appreciate if you didn't vandalise the article in future. Akolyth (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that the article is about a plant which finds quite some culinary use. This is why I consider it of substantial added-value for WP:Food and Drink. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article is about a plant. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have redirected the page to where it belongs. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral, I would consider any specific plant species as notable, but the lack of references in scientific/botanical publications gives me some doubts. Cavarrone (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Salty Fingers is a notable plant. MountWassen (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

— MountWassen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 09:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, let's take a look at the available sources. From the article (using the reference numbering from the current version:

• 1 is a blog with an eleven-word sentence about salty fingers. An unreliable source without significant coverage.
• 2 is a trademark listing. A primary source without significant coverage.
• 3 is from the trademark holder's web site. Not independent.
• 4 is an advertisement with no content about salty fingers apart from a picture. Not independent and not significant coverage.
• 5 mentions salty fingers in a recipe, but says nothing more about them. Not significant coverage.
• 6 mentions salty fingers in a caption, but the associated text mentions them as "Queller-Tempura". Dictionaries that I have consulted translate "Queller" as "samphire" or "salicornia", so this is referring to a dish of one of these plants in batter, not "a sea bean growing along the coasts of tropical America and Asia". Not about this topic, and not significant coverage anyway.
• 7 has a passing mention without even a sentence about salty fingers. Not significant coverage.
• 8 is an advertisement in a blog, complete with "©Koppert Cress" and text directly translated from reference 3. Not reliable and not independent.
• 9 is the best of a bad bunch, with a few sentences about salty fingers in the preamble to a recipe. I note that it was published before the trade mark for this product was applied for. Borderline significant coverage.

I've spent long enough on this for the moment, but will check though the other sources listed in this discussion later. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Phil, you are continously re-iterating one and only one argument which is Not significant coverage'. And only for sources 3 and 8 your statement is Not independent. Now let's have a look at it. There are nine references given and you really want to say that there is not significant coverage? This needs to be squared with your last sentence in which you concede not to have checked the references that have been provided in the discusssion. Your position does not sound plausible. And if you had a close look at ref 4. you would be able to see that Salty Fingers and samphire are two different plants. I have advised you (and Victor) to do so days ago (see above) and you haven't done so, obviously. To sum up, nine sources (including two dependent sources) are coverage enough for any article at Misplaced Pages. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am saying that sources 1-8 certainly do not constitute sugnificant coverage, and that it would be a stretch to consider source 9 to do so. I haven't yet had time to write a detailed review of the additional sources listed in this article, but will try to get round to it today. I understand that Salty Fingers and samphire are different plants - that is precisely what shows that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is using the phrase in a different sense, as it descibes the same thing in the text as "samphire tempura" and in the caption as "salty fingers". That source is therefore irrelevant to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To consider germany's most distinguished newspaper, the Francforter Algemeene Zeitung irrelevant is most imaginative!!! That is tantamount to considering Le Monde irrelevant, which I no Frenchman would ever do. I start to have quite a many doubts as regards "Phil"... A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant when it is writing about a dish of samphire tempura, not the plant described in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Akolyth is right. Nine sources (incl. two dependent sources) are enough. Phil Bridger is simply repeating his completly wrong assumption that Salty Fingers is samphire. We've been through all of this. So let's simply keep the article. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am not making any claim that salty finders is samphire. As I explained above that claim was made by User:The Banner, rendering the sources that he or she listed irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The Banner" has not made such a claim. This was discussed above. However, you keep bringing up this claim over and over. Now, kindly do not keep revisiting discussions that were closed long before. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please read the discussion above, noting who wrote what. This is the edit where The Banner claimed that this was samphire, offering sources that are about samphire, not salty fingers. It is impossible to give this article proper consideration when you continually lie about what I have written. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Again, kindly refrain from reopening arguments solved long ago. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is Akolyth and you who have reopened old arguments - I simply provided an analysis of the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Now let's look at the additional sources that have been offered in this discussion:

• This is a mention on a menu, with no content other than these two words.
• These three sources are about samphire, with no mention of salty fingers.
• This is a mention in a recipe. Nothing beyong the two words "salty fingers", except that the appearance of samphire as another ingredient confirms that they are not the same.
• These are more menus that do no more than mention salty fingers.
• This article from a web site called The Test Kitchen has one sentence about salty fingers: "At the recent SIAL in Montreal, attendees sampled "Salty Fingers", a sea vegetable with crunch!".
• This article in the Bangkok Post mentions salty fingers in passing without saying anything about them: "The pop-in-the-mouth dairy dainty was followed by a very tasty corn salad (200 baht if ordered a la carte) featuring tandoor-roasted corn kernels served with salty fingers and freeze-dried corn powder as a dry dressing." As with the New Straits Times article cited in the article it predates the trade mark application and doesn't capitalise the name, so it seems to be being used generically rather than for the specific KoppertCress commercial product that was the original subject of this article.

I think I've covered all of the sources that have been cited in either the article or this discussion. If I've missed any then please let me know. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment you have precisely covered (again) the salient point - "Salty Fingers" is a plant which is an ingredient in nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant. Thank you so much. However, you are back where we started from. You truly have a tendency of reiterating yourself. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• That is not the salient point. As far as Misplaced Pages notability guidelines go the salient point is whether there has been significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. And, anyway, half a dozen or so is not "nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant", and I am not reiterating myself, as this is the first time I have provided a detailed review of each of the sources offered. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Time to come off the fence. The test for notability is that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My analysis of the sources offered in the article and in this discussion only finds one independent reliable source with as much as a sentence about salty fingers, this article in the New Straits Times, which has about 150 words in a preamble to a recipe, without giving any concrete information about what salty fingers are. I have been unable to find any other independent reliable sources with significant coverage. This hardly constitutes the significant coverage required, and is only one source. I held off from expressing a firm opinion previously because I had hoped that those editors who claimed that this was notable would respond to my analysis with better sources, because I recognise that there is a strong bias against gastronomy in Misplaced Pages, but the only response has been misrepresentation and belligerence, so I can only conclude that they are unable to find such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Watch your tongue! There was never any misrepresentation and belligerence. There is absolutely no justification for your wrongful accusations. But if you ever had a look at yourself you'd find yourself in quite an awkward position, for it was you to use intolerable and inappropriate language like "childish" and "stupid". And now, you even resort to libel. Besides, your analysis is wrong - the references are fine. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation. Two editors (including you) accused me of repeating the claim that salty fingers and samphire are the same when I did no such thing, and concentrated on this false accusation rather than the substance of what I wrote. Misreprentation. Misreprentation. You and another editor reopened an old discussion about whether salty fingers are samphire and then you twice accused me of doing so. Misreprentation. An editor accused me of reiterating myself when my previous edits were a one-by-one analysis of the sources, which had not been performed previously in this discussion. Rather than just saying "the references are fine" tell us the specific references where my analysis is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And, as regards "childish" and "silly" (not "stupid"), I didn't direct those at any person, but at the name "salty fingers", and I stand by that. It's the type of name that a parent would use when trying to get children to eat something that they claim not to like. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why a serious restaurant would want to use such baby-talk in a menu that's written for adults. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The subject itself is notable and the coverage is sufficient. I do not demand more references than were given in the article. Misplaced Pages's key idea is to provide content rather than to prevent it. And a notable subject like Salty Fingers must be kept. Apparently, this discussion has gone a little out of hand. CeesBakker (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

— CeesBakker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You may not demand more coverage in independent reliable sources, but Misplaced Pages's definition of notability does. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources, such as the The Bangkok Post, New Straits Times and Frankfurter Allgemeine. Additionally, many further references are provided. The additional references to recipes and menus substantiate that the plant is a valid gastronomical subject. It passes WP:GNG and is thus within the scope of WP:Food and Drink. SirAppleby (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

— SirAppleby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The Bangkok Post and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung articles don't have as much as a sentence about salty fingers, so how is that significant coverage? And the FAZ article equates salty fingers with Queller-Tempura (samphire tempura), so, as our article is not about samphire, is using the phrase "salty fingers" to describe something other than the subject of our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as per CeesBakker, SirAppleby, MountWassen, Akolyth, VictorVautier, The Banner. Hope that this longwinding case will come to a keep now CamillePontalec (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

— CamillePontalec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation in relation to this discussion at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I like the name and it's general usage is interesting, the most common being in reference to the sea: The seas salty fingers reaching in to spoil drinking water for people. Norway's North Sea inlet fjords being referred to as salty fingers. Ocean fishermen using their salty fingers to clean fish, tie deft knots in their nets. "The sea breeze tangling its salty fingers through my hair." Salty fingers from eating peanuts from those little bowls set out in bars. Peshawari kebab being long, salty fingers of soft ground beef.. Salty fingers that comes from making ice cream.
  However, I didn't find anything on salty fingers related to the nominated AfD topic. I don't think the underlying plant is specific to KoppertCress (there's no mention of the plant being patented), so there would be no reason to redirect the article to the Misplaced Pages article on the underlying plant. The article doesn't even mention the underlying plant (trade secret?) or its scientific classification, so its hard to tell. The product grows along the coasts of tropical America, but salty fingers is not US trademarked. (search "salty fingers" at TESS). The European trademark covers "Agricultural and horticultural products and grains not included in other classes, including fresh fruits, vegetables and microgreens," so I don't see this topic being limited to one, identified plant sold by Koppert Cress B.V. I only found about eight articles having recipes that merely mention an ingredient "available from koppertcress.com," so it is unlikely koppertcress doesn't meet WP:GNG and there would be no reason to redirect Salty Fingers (plant) to koppertcress.com (a cool name). However, the Dutch vegetable and fruit producing company Koppert Cress appears to meet WP:GNG, so those of you iVoting keep may want to write a Koppert Cress Misplaced Pages article. If we had more information on the scientific classification of the plant that is covered by the trademark, we may be able to find more information. As it stands, I don't see this plant/trademark topic receiving received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster Pollard

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

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

Non-notable company - 76 employees, privately held, most references derive from press releases. John Nagle (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Article is basically an ad created by a WP:SPA. On a strange note, Barnes and Noble has a self-published book that appears to be a copy of the article.. --John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Benzinga

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

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

Article describes a "financial news" site of extremely marginal notability in typically sugarcoated promospeak. Going through the "references" provided, we find most of them to be self-published material (or simple reposts thereof) or simple passing mentions in this or that publication. The strongest thing this has going for it is probably its Forbes blog, but I'm not sure that alone is sufficient. Overall, the article is written almost entirely in an unencyclopaedic fashion and seems to fail WP:ORG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be a scraper/aggregation web site of no particular notability. --John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Several of the references are either posts by Benzinga or insignificant. Google News provided several links to benzinga.com. One of the third-party sources is this promotional press release (but then again, aren't nearly all press releases promotional?). There was also another small mention here. There is little significant content and coverage about the company itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient sources to establish notability. Cannot meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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. Ks0stm 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yasunize

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

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

• Delete. Rarely used neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yasunize Misplaced Pages and delete a neologism that has gained no traction whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Compit educational centre

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

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

• Delete. Non-notable private school. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a verifiable secondary school, which we almost always keep. No good reason given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We make a differentiation between privately owned and govt run schools. This one is the former. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know where you got that one. No we don't. A secondary school is a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Necrothesp. Try bringing a Catholic or other non-state secondary school to AFD, and you'll get the same reactions that you'd get with a comparable state school; I can't remember ever seeing someone's comments at AFD being influenced by the private or state status of a school. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Yunshui under criterion G7 due to the author creating the page at the wrong title. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

2013 NRL Grand Final

2013 NRL Grand Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete or move to user namespace. It has insufficient content at this stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I'd made a typo when creating 2012 NRL Grand final.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Well, just blank it, or ask an admin to delete it. I'll have a look into this.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is simply a placeholder with hardly any substantive content-- no opposition to recreating the article when sources have provided the necessary info. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Weimin Fan

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

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

• Complete mess. Only reference is to own Web site. Given that the article also previously blatantly contained e-mail address, appears to be advertising. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find any references to Weiman Fan other than refs to Misplaced Pages and own site. May be notable in non-English sources, though. --John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

GaiaEHR

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

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

Non-notable software, no reliable, independent, verifiable sources. No GNews, GBook hits. GHits limited to company self-published sources and non-reliable sources. Promotional. CSD tags repeatedly removed. GregJackP Boomer! 04:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Query - Non-notable software and "no reliable"? GaiaEHR is just getting started but, we have provided downloads, git repositories to allow other developers to contribute.

As for the, "No GNews" and "GBook hits", not sure what is this.Vela1606 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable means that there are no secondary sources, such as books, magazines, or news coverage of the software. Reliable comes from the type of source. Social media such as facebook, myspace, blogs, youtube, etc., are considered to be not reliable. Reliable comes from an established source with a strong editorial control policy, such as the NY Times, PC World, etc. GNews is Google news and GBooks is Google books, meaning a search turned up no sources that could be used to show notability.

If GaiaEHR is just getting started, I doubt that it will be notable enough to merit a Misplaced Pages (encyclopedia) article on it. Misplaced Pages is not designed to promote or provide information about new products. The download links will be removed as they are against Misplaced Pages policy (see WP:ELNO). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I miss spoke, the first beta version just came out, but the project have been under development for more than 2 years. Our intention is not to promote, but to inform.

Gnews - I understand, GaiaEHR doesn't have any source like that for now. As for the download, I apologized for that. Vela1606 (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If it "doesn't have any source like that", then it likely won't meet Misplaced Pages's General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG. Articles on Misplaced Pages need to be notable (WP:N) and notability must be verified (WP:V) by reliable sources (WP:RS). It doesn't matter how long the product has been around because notability is not temporary - it either is or it isn't. However, it might be that an article for the product has been created too soon (WP:TOOSOON) - if that is the case you can userfy the article (have it put into your own space where it is not visible to the public) and you can continue to develop it by adding reliable sources to verify your claims (if / when they exist).

You should also have a read of Misplaced Pages's Conflict of Interest Guideline (WP:COI) if you have a connection to the product or company selling it. COI editing is strongly discouraged. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - for all the reasons outlined above. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand. just to clarify, this software is not for sale (is an open source project).Vela1606 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus about subject's local coverage addressed by sources which appear to constitute significant coverage. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Erika Lauren Wasilewski

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

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

Erika is just a local DJ. She is already detailed on the page for The Real World: DC, which also includes an update on what she does now.

Please Note This article was nominated for deletion by user Ew0sdc (talk). Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Real World: D.C.. The sources in the article predominantly focus on her as a person who was on TRW. The sources all come from one set period in time, which was during the airing of the show. A search brought up no coverage from any time period after her appearance on the show. There's no coverage to show that Wasilewski has any notability independent of TRW or that her role on the Alan Cox Show is so notable that it'd merit her being redirected there as opposed to TRW:DC.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is permanent. If we shifted time back to when she was on TRW, we would have said that there are sources that provide us with a basic biographical sketch and that she passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect - Being a cast member of 1 season of a reality tv series is not inherently notable. Routine pop culture coverage on the likes of HuffPo's College section, EW's Pop Watch, TMZ, etc...coverage that no doubt exists for all the cast members from all seasons...do not contribute significantly toward satisfying the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Erika is not a "DJ". DJs are mostly voice-tracked and have limited on-air time; Erika began as a phone screener but her role has grown to "co-host" on a highly rated talk show (see coverage in Talkers article published two full years after TRWDC: "Alan Cox Talk Show Rocks Cleveland on WMMS-FM"). Secondly, the issue isn't whether there are sufficient sources in the article itself, but whether there is sufficient coverage of the subject (there is). Beyond TRWDC and "Pop Watch"-type media, coverage ranges from controversy surrounding Erika's fake cancer claim, to her involvement in Chicago and Cleveland area bands, to her role on The Alan Cox Show at WMMS, and more recently, to her recurring role as guest host on local daytime TV talk show (Time Out Chicago, The Huffington Post, Metromix Washington, D.C., AllAccess.com, FMQB, Cleveland Magazine, Metromix Cleveland, Cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer, Cleveland Scene, WKYC.com, etc.) WP:GNG is met. Does the article need more work? Yes, but notability is not based on the quality of a subject's article at any one time. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect (Super-duper-strong) -I question Levdr1lostpassword's ability to judge the notability of Wasilewski accurately as nearly all their edits has been based around Cleveland, Ohio, or Cleveland-based media entities and personalities. Erika is notable on the larger scale of Misplaced Pages, and making an occasional appearance at a Cleveland bar does not make her notable. The status update provided in the Real World D.C. Wiki article is more than sufficient to cover Wasilewski. She is not a DJ, she is a afternoon drive talk show sidekick in a small market. Sorry. Nothing mentioned above comes close to contribute significantly toward satisfying the notability guidelines. Ew0sdc (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I am a member of WikiProject Cleveland. I am also a member of WikiProject Radio Stations. I suggest all those following this discussion review Category:American radio personalities by city before broadly dismissing the notability of local radio personalities. Also, thank you, Ew0sdc, for correcting your own previous statement that "Erika is... a local DJ" (as she is not). And for what it's worth, I've noticed Ew0sdc seems to concentrate primarily on MTV reality shows — though I still welcome his/her input to this debate. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Please Note Although it should be clear to anyone reviewing this discussion, Ew0sdc ("super-duper-strong") is the same editor who nominated this article for deletion. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Placed note under unsigned nomination. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 09:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep - I'm inclined to think that if the original nominator felt so strongly ("super-duper") about the need for a redirect (rather than deletion) then perhaps this should have initially been raised on the article's talk page first. Nonetheless, having considering the sources provided above, I'm inclined to think the subject passes WP:GNG. I would caution the use of some of those sources (like the one from the Huff Post which seems to have been a non-oversighted "student contribution" and so might fall under WP:USERG and the couple that are blogs) but on balance there's a few there which, in my opinion, constitute enough significant coverage to justify the view that the subject meets notability requirements. The Cleveland-based ones, especially, provide plenty of "significant coverage", with enough non-Cleveland coverage to avoid WP:LOCALFAME arguments. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect - Very clearly a WP:LOCALFAME issue. Articles cited are mostly about her days on the TV show, or mention her being hired for the small radio gig as an update to her reality days. Not significant. Most former cast members of the series do not seem to have their own pages unless they have made it on the national level. Should be speedy deleted. User: Heavy2fall3 (talk) (UTC)

Comment Above user created account yesterday (Oct. 16). No user page or talk page. Only two edits unrelated to this discussion, both of which are MTV-related. Nominator has also concentrated on MTV-related content. Surprisingly knowledgeable about WP policy. Certainly, this could be an anonymous IP user who just recently registered. Then again it may not. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Nominator, user Ew0sdc, has not edited since Oct. 6. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Update Nominator, user Ew0sdc, began editing again on Oct. 18, and this edit directly relates to this discussion. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Megan Nicole

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

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

Unable to establish notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO. Previously deleted four times, but at this point, subject signed with Bad Boy/Interscope, so bringing it for discussion. At this point, subject is merely signed and has not released or charted. Cindy(talk to me) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect to List of YouTube personalities/Protect and salt. This is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. A search doesn't bring up enough sources to show that Nicole is ultimately notable enough at this point in time to warrant an article. There's some mention of her here and there, but never really big enough or in sources that could count towards notability. At present the biggest mention of her is that she was signed to a label. Will she become notable? Maybe, but we can't guarantee that she will. For every one person that gets signed and makes it big enough to warrant an article, there's at least four who are signed and never really get that level of attention and/or the contract fizzles before anything is actually recorded. Being signed in itself is not enough to warrant an article, which is why people have to have released a few albums on the label to pass WP:MUSICBIO on that front. That being said, there might be merit in including her on the list of YouTube personalities and redirecting there for the time being. Whatever the decision is, I recommend that the closing admin protect the article name in order to keep someone from re-adding the article to the mainspace before the singer passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete lack of coverage in secondary sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to list of YouTube personalities and sysop protect for 6 months or so - Not quite notable for Misplaced Pages at this time, having 1 million YouTube subscribers is not notability as several users have thousands of subscribers. The best source I have found is this Billboard article mentioning her Twitter, YouTube and Facebook fans, her Bad Boy/Interscope affiliation and one iTunes single. Although the article mentions that she plans to release a debut album, this is not written to stone and may be cancelled therefore it's better to redirect the article for now. I know today's social networking world introduces several well-known personalities and artists but not all of them are going to establish themselves as serious individuals. Google News provided several mentions of the Bad Boy/Interscope signing and Google News archives provided several mentions for collaborations with other YouTube personalities. EDIT: I have now added "sysop protect" to my vote after viewing the deletion log which contained two copy violations, one from Megan Nicole's website and the other from her Facebook page. It's better to protect the article to prevent new users, especially her fans, from starting the same content. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Brethren Reformed Church

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

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

Un-noteworthy church among many in the world. Misplaced Pages is not a guide to churches or church advertising portal. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certainly leaning delete on this. I can't find third party sources. This is a special case in that it seems to be its own church and denomination. If it has a wide enough following, it might be notable, but I'm not seeing anything to show that right now. Ryan Vesey 04:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Independent churches aren't any more notable for being independent; if they were, every Baptist church, tons of Pentecostal churches, and most self-described fundamentalist churches would be under serious consideration for notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "Independence" is not really a meaningful distinction when it comes to churches. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, not notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Pardon my original research, but I grew up not all that far from where this church is and I can assure you there is absolutely nothing inherently notable about an "independent" church. Southern Ohio is part of the Bible belt, I am sure you could find dozens of similar churches within 50 miles of this one. Nothing about this one seems exceptional. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I never said there was anything inherently notable about an independent church. I just meant to state that if the belief system this church held was widely followed, that would create notability. A Methodist church is not notable by virtue of being methodist, a church that is an ofshoot of a denomination or a new denomination might be. That being said, I find nothing to show that this one is. Ryan Vesey 19:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• "it seems to be its own church and denomination" All independent churches are in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Founded in 2007, it has hardly had time to become notable and nothing that is said in the article gives the impression that it is anything but a "run-of-the-mill" church community Jpacobb (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like WP:SNOW, almost as if a simple WP:PROD could just as easily have handled this... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sellmark

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

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

I can find no secondary sources of any significance to support this article. WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - This appears to be another non-notable company, I have found zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Considering that the article gives little information such as history, there is little to help broaden the search aside from that it is Texas-based. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – This company is somehow related to the Belorussian Beltex Optics (Russian: Белтекс Оптик). I do not know if it is a distributor or a subsidiary. The Belorussian company was one of the largest producers of binocular and military optics in the Soviet Union, at a time when Soviet binoculars dominated the cheaper end of the world market. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete does not appear to be a notable company. Sources do not exist that meet the WP:GNG. Might support a redirect if someone can verify a stronger connection to Beltex Optics. Vcessayist (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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. Author accepts that it is OR. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

One-based numeration

One-based numeration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A fork of Decimal without a zero, i.e. Bijective numeration#The bijective base-10 system, which doesn't add or expand on that in any meaningful way, and mostly consists of unencyclopaedic examples and calculations. Numerous formatting issues. Unreferenced and no indication it's independently notable, and the definition is basically the same as that in Bijective numeration, for the case k = 10 JohnBlackburne_deeds 02:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi John,

1. What do you mean by "meaningful way"? Please point it out.

2. Which specific topics are required here? Please point it out one by one.

3. As for citations, since this is my own work, I don't see any available citations on Google. Maybe I need to write a blog as the citation ...

Thanks, 02:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

4. The definition is NOT "basically the same as that in Bijective numeration" and the radix is also NOT limited to 10, please reread the original article carefully.

Thanks, 03:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

5. It's neither "A fork of Decimal without a zero" nor "Bijective numeration or even Bijective numeration#The bijective base-10 system", have you really read the article? ... I will remove the template due to there's no reason for deletion.

Thanks, 04:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, removing the AFD tag from an article not only does not end the AFD process, but it risks you getting blocked. Deletion discussions must run their course until they are properly closed, and they may not be unilaterally closed by the article's author just because he disagrees. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Deletion process. Doing so is considered unacceptable conduct and disruptive. I've accordingly reverted your removal of the AFD tag from the article, as well as your inappropriate, and incorrect, notice claiming the article is protected from editing, and you can consider this your one warning.
You also wrote: "As for citations, since this is my own work, I don't see any available citations on Google. Maybe I need to write a blog as the citation ..." Before you do anything else here, please read Misplaced Pages:Original research, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and Misplaced Pages:Notability. We do not accept content that has not already been published elsewhere by a reliable source, as Misplaced Pages is not a platform for original thought. postdlf (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR --John Nagle (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - whatever its mathematical merits, this is admittedly pure WP:OR created by the author, with admittedly no sources, reliable or otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is definitely an important topic, but the author should cite sources first, not formulate his/her own thoughts and, even worse, introduce a self-made notation. Also, I think that adding a section to the article "positional notation" was a mistake – it is only tangentially related. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The author seems to have spammed this stuff to several articles. -- 202.124.73.136 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and the fact that the article author admits to WP:OR. No sources found for the version of bijective numeration presented here, using "0" for the radix (and even if such sources existed, it's only a trivial variation). -- 202.124.73.136 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Something like this is not OR. Or at least, making one be the smallest digit and having a digit of value equal to the radix is not unknown in the scientific literature, whether or not the person who posted here knew about it. Foster wrote about this for decimal in 1947 and I have used the same idea in binary (cited to Foster) in my own research. That said, it's a somewhat obscure idea that may not justify an independent article, so I'm not !voting keep for now unless more sources turn up. Also the current article is really unclearly written so even if this does turn out to be notable enough (of which I'm not yet convinced) we may be better off deleting anyway and starting from scratch. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the fundamental idea adequately covered in Bijective numeration? -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Commnet

1. Bijective numeration is unrelated to this One-based numeration, i.e. The decimal number 16 is 16 in Bijective numeration's decimal, but is 26 in One-based numeration's decimal. So again, 202.124.73.136, please reread the original article carefully, your assertion is ill-founded.

You're saying leading 1's are treated as leading zeros. That seems a trivial (and unsourced/WP:OR) variation. -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

2. As for citations, I've seen a lot of articles created several years ago on the Misplaced Pages don't contain enough citations, but still haven't been deleted. Instead, just a Template:Original research or Template:Reliable sources was added, so please explain.

See WP:WAX and WP:N. -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

3. A lot articles such as Numeral_system only contain little "indirect" references or external links, is it also acceptable?

4. "... introduce a self-made notation"--Incnis Mrsi

I added a "definition" to the article just because the user JohnBlackburne required me to add some non-example content and to refer to the style of Bijective numeration article.

Thanks, 02:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If the last point is unclear I previously prodded the article when it consisted of a paragraph and some examples, and it is that proposed deletion that must be being referred to.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 02:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

5. I do NOT always have enough time on such meaningless issues, I've requested WP:CSD for that article. Thanks, 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Sorry about the delay in answering your questions, here it is:

2. See WP:WAX

3. Possibly, however WP:WAX still applies.

4. True, however WP:OR is looked down upon.

5. I'm not sure what this refers to?

LegoKTM 07:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church

Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is on a non-notable congregation. Google search shows that the it fails WP:GNG. The congregation is not tied to a Church so there is no architectural notability in that regard.  Ryan Vesey 02:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do you mean that the church doesn't have its own building? Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the distinction is that it is a Church (a congregation of people who worship together), but not a Church-building like Notre Dame de Paris. This Church congregation meets in a community centre. If the article was about a congregation and their building (with the same name) then it would have to be considered against notability guidelines in both contexts, eg. WP:NPLACE and WP:GROUP, in case it met either. At least I think that's what's going on. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct and I apologize for the confusion. I knew what I was thinking but not how to say it. Many congregations are not notable; however, the church building is notable (for architectural or other reasons). Most discussions of this sort would come down to the notability of the building. In this case, the church "has not held a dedicated edifice for the majority of its history". Ryan Vesey 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they meet in a community centre also used by a couple of other churches. Most of them moved there from other buildings damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. There are plenty of mentions in blogs, travel guides and the like, but not in reliable sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, not notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I had no problems finding reliable sources which is easier in the light of searching under "Metropolitan Community Church" and "New Orleans" rather than the link at the top of this page. This also represents the organization's new name per the group's own website "The members of our congregation met on January 22, 2012 and voted to change the name to the Metropolitan Community Church of New Orleans, to solidify our devotion to the beautiful and dynamic city we call home." A LGBT-welcoming church in the Deep South that's been around for decades is guaranteed to generate news and controversy. Even a good portion of the fire reporting covered the church as well. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL has some but there are better search engines available. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've followed the link you provided. Can you provide some of the reliable sources you have found? Ryan Vesey 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll work on it. If it looks involved I may just add them into the article. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I have to step out but will add more. Of note is 15-20 articles in The Advocate which I have to go through Google Books to see. Will add appropriate ones as I get to them. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to UpStairs Lounge arson attack for reasons that are clear from reading both articles. Since this apparently notable incident (of which I had never heard before) took place in conjunction with the lounge's use as the home for the church, it would be reasonable to include something about the church's subsequent history and renaming in the article about the incident. Another candidate for merger-redirection would be Metropolitan Community Church of which this church apparently is a local affiliate. Neutron (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Stricken per subsequent changes to article, now keep. Neutron (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Article pretty much rewritten, and sources added. I'm still finding more as the search churns different (and too broad) results when just doing MCC and "New Orleans". Obviously we're missing anything that doesn't include those but I think that gets more of the national news items. Presently I'm in the first pages of 200+ book search but will add appropriate ones as I find them. Insomesia (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep - I understand why the article was nominated, but since the article was expanded, there is clear and abundant notability. Here are some additional references:

– MrX 13:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Now, obviously meets WP:GNG from the article itself. Comment - If the tone of the Misplaced Pages article reflect a summary of the reliable sources, fine. But the article presents this Church as nothing more than a victim that continues to strive and overcome attacks and use its past victimization as a platform on which to grow. I don't think the people attending the church go there to become a group for others to attack or to sit there each week to listen to the preacher reminisce about the forty-year ago UpStairs Lounge arson attack or how the next attack is just around the corner. The topic is not Attacks on the Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church. The topic is the Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church congregation and if you want to write about them as a group, it should be less about others attacks on the group and more about the group itself. Others actions do not define the group, the group's actions define it and that is how the article should flow. It's website says it was "founded by Rev Troy Perry in 1967 to proclaim God's love and redemption to those who had previously been denied a place in Christ's church." The Misplaced Pages article isn't even close to that and instead is all about victimization. Also, the term "Church" in the article name usually is reserved for a building structure within which the congregation worships. I suggest moving the article to something like New Orleans Metropolitan Community Church congregation since they appearantly do not have an notable building like those listed at GA-Class churches. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. However, the word church has implicit meaning as congregation. As examples, we have Catholic Church, First Unitarian Church of Honolulu and Presbyterian Church of Wales. – MrX 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But both of those are refering to a larger body. Metropolitan Community Church is a church, and there is a church on the corner next to my house. In this case, there is no building (the latter) and this congregation is much smaller than the former. Even note the article for MCC, which says "many local MCC congregations". Ryan Vesey 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I concede that the MCC is a small church, and even smaller on a local level. I would point out though that the first Christian church didn't have a building and had only about a dozen members. – MrX 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Many if not most churches start out not owning their own building. Part of this churches history is that they have had to rent and borrow for much of their history due to arson and natural disasters. That doesn't mean the name of the article should not reflect who there are or be saddled with some qualifier that they don't own a building. They simply are doing their business in a shared space. Once this discussion is over the article should be moved to Metropolitan Community Church of Greater New Orleans, the name the congregation has chosen for itself. Insomesia (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge/redirect to UpStairs Lounge arson attack. The point here isn't how many members the church has, or whether it has a building. The point is whether it has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Based on the sources in the article, I would have to say that this church has not. Most of the sources provided are from special interest publications such as The Advocate and Ambush Magazine. The mainstream sources provided are either dead links or else are about something else (e.g. Hurricane Katrina). BTW I was living in New Orleans at the time of the fire and it was reported entirely as an attack on a bar or lounge; I can't remember any of the coverage ever mentioning a church. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The sourcing disagrees with your assessment. And LGBT sources are often considered reliable, especially in the context that they are used here. The Advocate is a well-respected national news magazine, for instance. Insomesia (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, sourced. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Prisoner of Conscious (album)

• Articles for deletion/Prisoner of Conscious (album)
• Articles for deletion/Prisoner of Conscious (album) (2nd nomination)

Prisoner of Conscious (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Well, this article was deleted 4 years ago, and since then I'm not sure much has changed. Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC#Albums as well as possibly the WP:GNG. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep a lot of blog coverage that isn't necessarily reliable. But I'm positive with a bit more digging, you'll find some coverage in more reliable publications, particularly in print. If I'm wrong, then go ahead and revisit this AFD at a later time. WP:CCC. Vcessayist (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete / incubate - really doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, though I accept that might just be a matter of time. Not quite "Hammer Time", more WP:TOOSOON. Might be an incubation candidate but probably only for a short period of time. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Georgia Bitner

Georgia Bitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This person does not appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. The article is presently sourced entirely to a blog, and Googling for "Georgia Bitner" on Google Books, News, and News archives didn't turn up anything that would satisfy WP:BASIC, only this (which is behind a paywall but appears to be an obituary with only a passing mention of Bitner) and this (which looks like a false positive). CtP (t • c) 19:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - She may have been a well-known actress at her time but I haven't found any evidence of this with modern technology and I'm surprised I haven't found anything with Google News archives. However, considering that she is African-American, there may have been little or few news coverage at her time. The nearest relevant mention I have found is to a Georgia C. Bitner who died in 1991. Unfortunately, delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a really tough one. There's an obvious (and I think valid) argument to be made that the subject is notable (given the assertion that she had "38 film roles and 87 television credits") but not necessarily notable in a manner that can be verified. I don't think its an imaginative stretch to suggest that a white actor with similar credits might have received more "significant coverage" in mainstream media. Many of the most high-profile African-American "celebrities" (in all fields) of the 40s and 50s received far less "coverage" than their white co-stars / colleagues. Unfortunately for the subject in question, gradually increasing press coverage of African-Americans through the 70s, 80s and 90s coincided with the end of her career and her retirement. Retrospective coverage of the career of a non-headlining actress is unlikely, regardless of the extent to which might balance out historically skewed reporting. Every argument I can give for keeping it would be resoundingly WP:ILIKEIT in nature and I won't insult your intelligence by trying. But I would ask that any closing admin give consideration to whether or not a strong and obvious consensus has been reached, in making their determination. Thanks all, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC).
• Delete as a probable WP:HOAX. That many roles, yet IMDb has no record of any of them whatsoever and refuses to list her as an actress? The Best Years of Our Lives, her alleged debut, has dozens of uncredited actors listed in IMDb, but not her. Same with the other very high profile films claimed. Very, very suspicious. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Although there are few sources about the subject, it is possible that IMDb may not have a record as a result of lost films or archives. However, it is suspicious that older actors from the 1900s and 1910s are featured through IMDb, and yet not this one. Suspicious indeed. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Leaning towards the hoax conclusion as well, but there's some strange info out there. Much of the text is a copy of this finadgrave.com entry. The Misplaced Pages article was created 13 Sept 2012 by a now-blocked user (with the same last name as the subject), and the findagrave entry on 14 Sept 2012 by a user there named Babe, the profile says this woman has been a user there for 7 years, so it's not a one-off troll account. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete diffidently a fake person no information can be found every actress can have and IMDB page its not hard and their are no sources to back up the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.60.150 (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ishtiaq Hussain

Ishtiaq Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete due to absence of secondary, independent, reliable sources about the subject under Misplaced Pages:BASIC Q1445 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:BIO. The majority of sources are YouTube , no in-depth reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep:The mainstream media coverage of the subject shows the notability clearly though not in detail. Anyhow the subject establishes and passes the notability as these sources; 1 2 3 4 5, should be read and accessed thoroughly.Justice007 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarity, reference 4, is the book written by the subject but the "Foreword" is about him too, by an academic on page 3. Justice007 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG per Justice007. Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete Most of the references in the article are written by the subject or are his youtube videos. He is mentioned in passing in several other articles. In my POV he is interesting but I'm afraid to say that is not yet reflected in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Notability clearly established as per Mar4d and Justice007. Subject is prominent in a growing area of international interest. Jzero1 (talk) 23.05, 05 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

HM Kansal

HM Kansal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Does not seems to be notable as per wiki standards. Bharathiya (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As you all know, that I created a page titled 'HM Kansal'. As some users have discussed about the references of the page being unreliable, I would like to know the reason behind the references not being good. It has almost been an year since this page was created & I as well as other members of Misplaced Pages have regularly added references to it. I have rechecked all the references provided and according to me, there are a sufficient number of sources to support this article. I went through the Misplaced Pages 'guidelines for creating a page' again and according to them, "at least one reliable source should be present to support the article". I definitely think that this article follows the Misplaced Pages rules. These are just my views. I would now like the suggestions of the users involved in this matter. I will still definitely try my best to provide some more suitable references for it. For the time being, removal of the deletion tag is my kind request and if not possible I request for some more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreator508 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: None of the references confirm to the WP:RS, at present. We need multiple reliable sources as Primary and secondary references. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails BIO. Around The Globe 07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Another spambio. Ok, the guy may have some coverage in a non-English newspaper once, which they even scanned and posted here. Not convincing it passes WP:BIO. 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability not established. Looks like an ordinary businessman; none of his activities look notable. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Genetics Policy Institute

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

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

Is this WP:ORG notable? They surely put out a bunch of press releases, but I wasn't able to find much else... The related article on Bernard Siegel (not surprising created & edited by the same set of SPAs) has a bunch of claims of importance, all of them vaguely referenced to two books. My impression is that of the two entities Siegel is more notable than his org, which is basically indistinguishable from him in those stories and mentioned less often. A bunch of contents in this article, especially towards the end, seems related only very strenuously related to this org. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete They got one brief mention in Wired in 2004 , but that's about it for non-press-release material. --John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Like the others here, I could not find significant coverage of this organization by independent reliable sources. I was going to suggest a redirect/merge to Bernard Siegel but I found his notability rather dubious as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Siegel has more coverage in Eve Herold's book . Herold actually wrote most of the Misplaced Pages article on GPI and that on Siegel. But she was associated with the GPI herself at the time, at least that's what I gathered from her 2006 appearance on The Daily Show. (Very boring, by the way.) I see you discovered that yourself from another source . Tijfo098 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Right. I found it hard to be impressed by a chapter in her book devoted to praising her boss! --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete — I can't find any significant coverage of this group by independent reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hotel Le Meridien Limassol Spa & Resort

Hotel Le Meridien Limassol Spa & Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Basically an ad for a hotel; the only "awards" listed are by non-notable organizations and publications. I see no credible assertions of notability exceeding those of an ordinary Hyatt. Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No notability asserted, quite adverty, and all unreliable sources. Electric Catfish (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete — Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. These awards in particular do not seem additive. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and nothing but an advert for the subject. ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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.