Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

if page isn't updating.

Guide to deletion

Centralized discussion
Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

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The result was Speedy delete g11, this guy has created several articles on his own unpublished books and characters. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Two-Thousand Year Man

The Two-Thousand Year Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Two-Thousand Year Man" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article about a character in an unpublished book whose article does not exist and would likely not pass WP:NB. Could not even find the author in a Google search. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I had been hoping this article would be about the 2000 Year Old Man created by Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner. However, it isn't. The book this character will appear in has not been published yet, and may not even have been completed yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 February 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.

Alphabet of Classical Dance: 12th to 19th Century

Alphabet of Classical Dance: 12th to 19th Century (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Alphabet of Classical Dance: 12th to 19th Century" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found no significant coverage for this book. The author's article is up for deletion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varvara P. Mey. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Varvara P. Mey

Varvara P. Mey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Varvara P. Mey" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found no notability and her book appears to be non-notable also. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RZ DVD Creator

RZ DVD Creator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "RZ DVD Creator" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No indications of notability (neither WP:NSOFT nor WP:GNG way, not even editors' reviews on download sites! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another non-notable and overpriced video file converter among the many out there. Nothing here suggests notability. Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of people in Playmen 1968-1969

List of people in Playmen 1968-1969 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of people in Playmen 1968-1969" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Dubious notability. Few of the people in the list are notable. No sources, no relevance.

List of people in Playmen 1970-1979 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of people in Playmen 1980-1989 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, essentially per nom. WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LSC advise that we shouldn't have lists of people who are non-notable themselves, and most of these names are redlinks. (WP:LSC specifically advises that '"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace.') In this case, no reliable sources are provided for any of these names, and I rather doubt they could be. Robofish (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fraidy Katt

Fraidy Katt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fraidy Katt" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not a notable band. No reliable sources found to indicate notability. Mattg82 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Suso (footballer)

Suso (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Suso (footballer)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TMX Finance

TMX Finance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "TMX Finance" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I'm going back and forth on this one, but the whole thing is referenced to the company's own website or its SEC filings. I tried g-news searches and got some mentions in business publications, but they're all trivial and there's nothing beyond that. I can't bring myself to believe this company is notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While we are here, I'll bundle

TitleMax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TitleMax is a subsidiary of TMX Finance, and the TitleMax article faces the same problems: sourcing to SEC publications. The remaining cites (along with all the ones I could find) cover Titlemax's bankruptcy, a WP:SINGLEEVENT Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mayo & District League

Mayo & District League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mayo & District League" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No longer needed, because the page were moved through merging request. Abani79 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a cut and paste page move which cuts the content off from its attribution history. The next time the nominator wants to do a name mage, he or she should use the move tab. The article is listed in the WP:cut and paste move repair holding pen. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football)

Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable Canadian Provinces Gaelic football competition. PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Do you want to move for the 2004-08 Western Canadian Championship articles as well?Tyrenon (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Likely. I'll wait a moment, to see if there is reaction to this and 2 parallel noms.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Axed the article to a stub and added refs. Now good enough to stay. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Addition: The seperate year articles do not add anything of note that is not covered by the now stubbed parent. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Western Canadian Championship 2009

Western Canadian Championship 2009 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Western Canadian Championship 2009" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable Canadian Provinces Gaelic football competition. PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Western Canadian Championship 2008

Western Canadian Championship 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Western Canadian Championship 2008" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable Gaelic Canadian Provinces football competition. PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rouse Properties

Rouse Properties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Rouse Properties" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Current references are to the company's own website. I can find a few g-news hits: one is a writeup in a reliable investment blog, but I don't think this individually asserts notability. The rest of the dozen or so g-news hits are about equally split between press releases and trivial mentions when the real subject is a mall that the subject company owns. I'm just not finding enough independent, non-trivial coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)

• Keep, notable as a division of General Growth Properties and standalone notability of properties (e.g. Southland Center, Lansing Mall). That source asserts notability just fine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Further sources: this, this Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tivoli Pond

Tivoli Pond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Tivoli Pond" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Seems insufficient as a standalone article unlikely to get larger than a stub. I'd suggest that it be merged with the Tivoli Park article (there's enough material here for a subheading and a paragraph); I'll take care of moving the content over, but that will leave a redundant stub. Tyrenon (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the information has been transferred, so now this is a redundant article on a pond within a city park.Tyrenon (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The pond is covered in depth by multiple reliable sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6] (and others). If it is to be merged, there's at least as much reason to merge it to Tivoli–Rožnik–Šiška Hill Landscape Park (yet to be created), of which it is part, than to merge it to Tivoli Park. I think it is best to keep it as a stand-alone article and expand it with the material from the provided references. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some additional sources:

Articles: COBISS 901437 , COBISS 624189, COBISS 21680345, COBISS 625213, COBISS 895037, COBISS 625469, COBISS 14073916, COBISS 1228604, COBISS 14026556, COBISS 12815676

Books: COBISS 20057305, COBISS 571780, COBISS 1544131, COBISS 105587200

--Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The pond has an interesting social history in Ljubljana and the article can be developed further with this. It is featured on many old Ljubljana postcards, and it would be interesting to include some of these. It also appears in some works of literature (e.g., Mile Pavlin's Spomladanski mraz: roman; Bogdan Novak's Tiha zaobljuba), which could be further explored, and it played some role in the ethnic history of the city (e.g., hosting the Laibacher Eislaufferein). Doremo (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, there are many sources available and as said above, it has its own story to tell. --Tone 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming	Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (2nd nomination)	Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)	Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination)

DRVs for this article:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article is an inherently non-neutral WP:POVFORK with several problems related to WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE and other issues. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Snow keep and salt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (nth nomination) for the next 15 values of n. We've been around this carousel about 5 million times, with no significant change in the status quo. More seriously, I don't see a bland list of references to policies to be a good argument one way or the other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and restrict AFD nominations to one per year For reasons expressed by Stephan Schulz above NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Or No Consensus, if you prefer. Does the nominator have any new arguments over those used in the previous nomination (and review) from October last year? --Merlinme (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - renomination only 3 months after a Keep decision, with no new arguments ? Seriously ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HORSEMEAT.--WaltCip (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Per all the above. I would hope that nom will take the reaction to his nomination to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Honestly, I have never seen the validity in retaining an article on those scientists who hold a minority point of view on a scientific matter. What is notable about them collectively ? IMO this purpose of this is to hold a group of people up to scorn for holding an unpopular POV, much as List of congressmen who believe Barack Obama wasn't born in Hawaii or List of biologists who deny evolution would. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah let's get rid of that non-consensus galileo bastard as well. Obviously science is a vote not a process. Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – Wikipedia notability ≠ scientific importance. Article has sufficient notability per Wikipedia standard. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Is part of the problem the title of this list? It gives a characterization that is too strong for some of the scientists on the list. "List of scientists questioning the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" would be more accurate. "List of scientists who are climate-change skeptics" has the additional advantage of being much shorter.  --Lambiam 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hurrah, a positive suggestion Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and Comment This (edit) is "could be" a "hit list". It is possible that such articles are not neutral in point of view in general. Such articles may/could do little more then single people/persons out as possible targets for any number of abuses. Perhaps such lists require a policy review and amendment by the Wiki. in my opinion. That the article has been nominated for numerous deletions is an indication of an inherently flaw in the deletion process requiring perhaps administrative oversight or it is very likely we will review it yet, again. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment: Reopening debate per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 1. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Restrict Nominations to Once Per Year. Without discussing the merits of the article/list, there seems to be a problem with excessive nominating here. I think a restriction of the discussion is in order.Tyrenon (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See my speedy-delete policy proposal at the village pump. Specifically, I am proposing that any renom in under 6 months must set forth a new argument or it can be SK'd, but any renom based on a new argument would always be OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - a WP:QUOTEFARM, a WP:POVFORK, has NPOV problems - darn good reasons why people keep renominating this. The fact that a bunch of people like it doesn't seem like a compelling reason for keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• 'Delete: Clearly in violation of basic NPOV policies, and could never be brought within them in anything like its current form. An appalling article, probably the worst thing Wikipedia's made. It's had several AfDs which were closed as No Consensus in the hopes that it might be fixable; this only resulted in the WP:OWNers chasing off anyone who was trying to suggest changes, by insisting on endless bureaucracy before any changes. Everyone knows this is a problem article, no reasonable person thinks, after 4 AfDs, that the people who have claimed WP:OWNership will ever allow it to be brought in line with policy unless it's deleted. It's a Quotefarm, meant to push a signgle sifde of the devbate, by presenting arguments from one side in EXTREME detail, while forbidding the other side a response, because it's supposedly "just documenting views". And this is not going to change; it's been in this state since before the first AfD, and is only getting worse as time goes on. When an article violates basic Wikipedia policy - NPOV is one of the five pillars - and its very nature means that it can never be brought into line with this fundamental Wikipedia policy without throwing everything out and starting over, it must be gotten rid of. 86.** IP (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It had run for a matter of hours when it was closed. The abuse of process was the premature shutting down, when only the page regulars had a chance to respond. 86.** IP (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It's not a POV fork; the page clearly states what the consensus position is and how the people on the list are disagreeing with the consensus position. NPOV is defined as: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I don't see how this article takes sides. With specific reference to Undue Weight, the article even uses a graphic to point out in how small a minority the listed scientists are. WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, not a guideline, and the article is not even in violation of QUOTEFARM, as QUOTEFARM specifically allows as many and as long quotes as are pertinent; in this case, the quotes are no longer than necessary to demonstrate that the person belongs in the list, i.e. the quotes are all pertinent. I also disagree with many of 86.*'s assertions regarding the article "getting worse", being "chased off", etc. I have, for example, cut down the length of some of the quotes, and provided additional context for many of them (although I haven't finished this yet). Have a look at [7] for an indication of how 86.*'s suggestions were discussed on the Talk page; I don't think it's fair to characterize this as being "chased off". It would be more accurate to say that 86.* stopped contributing to the Talk page. --Merlinme (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (5th nominator) - I think 86 just summed up my reasons for nominating better than I did in the nom plate. I just don't see how any reasonable person can construe this article as anything other than a POV fork of Global warming - in just the same way that an article called, let's say, List of reasons to vote for Mitt Romney would be an obvious POV fork of Mitt Romney, or List of critics that gave Moneyball a negative review would be a POV fork of Moneyball (film). It seems so obvious that this article has gone way off the rails, and yet anyone pointing out that this article has serious, irreconcilable NPOV problems gets shouted down. The heart of my argument is this: WP:NPOV#Point of view forks states:

"A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article (in this case, Global warming), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia."

I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. [full stop]" It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion. What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's fundamental policies has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions. Do we really even need consensus to delete something that obviously contradicts WP's most basic principles? I would think the very fact that this article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, if anything, would indicate a vote of no confidence from the broader WP community. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, I'm not saying there is nothing of any value here at all, but that what's useful here can and should be merged into Global warming. If something here doesn't belong there, I wonder if it really belongs in the encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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:Mike Rosoft under criteria A10, as a duplicate of the Drew Brees article. non-admin closure. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Drew brees to the cowboys

Drew brees to the cowboys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Drew brees to the cowboys" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This is a non-notable "social media" movement to get an NFL player to switch teams (which all too often means that it is what one or two people are trying to throw together on Reddit or Facebook). Even such a campaign, unless sustained and high-profile in its own right, would be insufficient for an article. However, the use of the future tense, etc. add to my suspicion that this is something that doesn't "really" exist. I can't find any serious speculation about such a campaign, either. At the very least, we have WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL here as well as a general WP:GNG failure.

I've declined to PROD because my experience with articles such as this is that the author is likely to object almost as a matter of course, and this doesn't quite come across as CSD material (i.e. a hoax)). Tyrenon (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

...ok, withdraw this. Someone else beat me to the punch.Tyrenon (talk) 21:26, 8 February 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.

Killing Season (film)

Killing Season (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Killing Season (film)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have an article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. Possibly incorporate a mention into the director's page as an "upcoming project" if it starts to get actual news coverage.Tyrenon (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only add a mention to the director's page if a reliable source can be found for it. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

7 Secrets

7 Secrets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "7 Secrets" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article has only one source and not enough to provide it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cultural probe

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cultural probe

Articles for deletion/Cultural probe (2nd nomination)

Cultural probe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Cultural probe" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Last AFD speedy closed in good faith. The nominator saw a prod, and decided to send to AFD for further discussion even though he himself wanted it kept. I want this deleted, though, as it's a mere dicdef with minimal sourcing, and I don't see it ever being more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - brief though it is, there are plenty of sources about it, suggesting it may be a notable concept. (e.g. [8], [9], [10]) I'd say this is slightly more than a dictionary definition, although I'd prefer if there was somewhere we could merge it. Robofish (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Saumen Kar

Saumen Kar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Saumen Kar" – news · books · scholar · free images)

It is very difficult to find evidence for this which does not originate on Wikipedia, facebook, or blogspot. In October 2011 the article was completely unsourced, so I searched for references. The vast majority of the mentions that I found were copied from this Wikipedia article. I therefore proposed deletion (PROD). The author of the article then proceeded to remove the PROD without explanation. All of the "references" that have been added to the article have either been copies from Wikipedia, blogs, or sources that don't even mention Saumen Kar. (For example, the Asuilaak Living Dictionary doesn't mention it, despite being cited twice in the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dal Khor

Dal Khor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Dal Khor" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non notable WP: NEOLOGISM Neither of the sources in the article actually have the phrase in them, A search on Gbooks shows only one source which uses the term and does not describe it as a "Persian term pejoratively referring to Indians, Pakistanis or other groups from the Indian subcontinent." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: I've read and verified the topic from both books cited in the article. The term is not a newly induced term and is said to be well known in academic work. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone else care to verify? [11][12] The term Dal Khor does not appear in a search of either book. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's unfortunately a very common pejorative. I think the article could be sourced, but the sources in the article don't appear to use the word. What is this with the words sourced to references that don't have them? It might be better moved to wiktionary until sources are found. I'm not going to spend any time editing this article or fighting to keep it. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Actually this is a widely used term, especially among Afghans, to refer to South Asians (Pakistanis in particular). It's a bit like the Sardarji jokes phenomenon, which are used sometimes in the racist/pejorative sense or in a funny context. Mar4d (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mehrdad Abedi

Mehrdad Abedi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mehrdad Abedi" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Does not appear to be a notable academic. No claim to notability in the article, and Google Scholar has hits for a biologist M Abedi, but nothing on an engineer. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Doejo

Doejo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Doejo" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Another privately owned digital services agency (i.e. an Internet advertising agency) advertising on Wikipedia. Offered sources are startup-related local coverage or business and trade blogs. I find nothing better. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - The article was created by an editor who also created an article about its founder, Phil Tadros, which was deleted and recreated several times. The same editor deleted a "notability" tag from the article on spurious grounds.[13] It's apparent that the editor is closely connected to the company and its founder. As for the company itself, there's only a single passing mention of it in the Proquest newspaper archive. Of the sources used in the article, most are about Tadros with just passing mentions of Doejo. The only one specifically about the company is an interview hosted on what seems to be a consulting firm's website,[14] which wouldn't normally be considered a reliable source. Based on that, the company does not appear to meet the notability guideline: WP:CORP.  Will Beback  talk  19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pittura Di Strati

Pittura Di Strati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pittura Di Strati" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Does not appear to be a notable... err... practice. No hits at all for "Pittura Di Strati" except for this article. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree. I previously prodded it for failing WP:GNG and WP:RS and nothing has happened to change my mind. andy (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Zoran Ducić

Zoran Ducić (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Zoran Ducić" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails notability for assoc. football players - played for a team in the fourth tier of Serbian football, and does not appear to have international call ups. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Vulcano (band)

Vulcano (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Vulcano (band)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Does not meet WP:BAND. I'm not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only reference provided is to a fan written biography posted in AllMusic. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. The Allmusic biog is described as "fan-written", but is cited as written by Eduardo Rivadavia, one of the most prolific Allmusic heavy metal contributors, and an easy WP:RS pass. The biog contains a claim to notability in the description of Vulcano as "one of Brazil's first heavy metal bands of note" and "having no small influence upon" Sepultura. They pass WP:MUSIC #6 with multiple releases on the notable indie Cogumelo Records (see Metal Archives for discography here). In terms of print media, I found non-trivial coverage in Terrorizer 's Secret History of Black Metal (September 2009); there's a whole section on the band on page 17, focussing on the South American scene, which contains the quote: "Many believe that Vulcano not only kick-started musical blasphemy in Brazil, but throughout most of Latin America". I imagine there are more out there, but that's certainly enough to justify inclusion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If that Terrorizer ref can be cited in the article in a WP:V way, I'll consider withdrawing this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Reliable, significant coverage (calling the Allmusic source a fan written biography is ridiculous and I can confirm the coverage in Terrorizer), historical importance in Brazillian metal music, 2 albums on Rock Brigade which appears to fulfill criterion 6 of WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 20:02, 8 February 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.

KeyFS (software)

KeyFS (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "KeyFS (software)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable software product. No journal or news entries, few relevant g-hits. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge It appears to be a program that serves as a two-level file tree for manipulating authentication information on a Linux platform [15]. Any relevant information should be merged in the article Polish Grid Infrastructure PL-Grid using a KeyFs Deployment section header. OSU1980 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage into indicate notability. For that matter, it is unclear what importance it holds within the Polish Grid Infrastructure PL-Grid as I can see nothing that even denotes this as an important item to merge to the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Loud Online

Loud Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Loud Online" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Notability, lack of reliable sources to be found. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mad Tea Party (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

Mad Tea Party (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mad Tea Party (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable as a stand alone article. Redirecting didn't make sense considering it is unlikely someone would land here accidentally. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mad Tea Party (disambiguation) should be included in this as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree that the disambiguous page should be deleted as well.Rorshacma (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Hatter. This is the correct title of a very notable episode in the book though I have always known it referred to as the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. However since the topic is covered in detail in another article there is no need for both (though I would not argue too hard with somebody who argued that this should be the proper title since the Hatter is not really notable outside this episode which is known for much more than one character eg this 2011 Guardian headline). --AJHingston (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I would say merge, but there's no real content here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Surat Ikramov

Surat Ikramov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Surat Ikramov" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Pomsky

Pomsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pomsky" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not finding reliable sources for this unofficial cross breed. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Erkin Musaev

Erkin Musaev (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Erkin Musaev" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Michael siemsen

Michael siemsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Michael siemsen" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I cannot find significant coverage of this author in multiple reliable sources per WP:AUTHOR. Search for "Michael siemsen" dig results in mainly booksellers and blog reviews. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Pols in Ahmedabad

List of Pols in Ahmedabad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Pols in Ahmedabad" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Hodak

Jerry Hodak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jerry Hodak" – news · books · scholar · free images)

While he was a chief meteorologist for Detroit news channel for 45 years, he has received very little news coverage outside of his weather reports. The only significant coverage was several news stories released when he retired in 2010. It appears he fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep,. Fixture in Detroit local television. Numerous local awards: member of Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame and Michigan Broadcasting Hall of Fame. Emmy nominations, local Emmy winner. -- Samir 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article only mentions the local Emmy award and the television Seal of Approval from the American Meteorological Society. There is no mention of the other achievements. Do you have sourcing for these things. It would greatly assist in establishing the subject's notability. On a related note, four of the sentences in the article are closely paraphrased from [16]. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[17], [18]. Also, I would argue that the retirement press for a local news personality of 45 years meets WP:GNG on that merit alone. -- Samir 03:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "Fixture in local ..." to my way of thinking means not notable, as far as a general encyclopedia is concerned. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. Newscaster in major North American city for 45 years + recognition by peers at the top level statewide renders one's biography encyclopedic by my take. -- Samir 06:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

DST Global

DST Global (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "DST Global" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Notability. New company, sourced by blogs and press releases. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Him Ganga Hum

Him Ganga Hum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Him Ganga Hum" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable documentary. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Nathan L. Henry

Nathan L. Henry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Nathan L. Henry" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable biography. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Gabriel Akon

Gabriel Akon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Gabriel Akon" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Rapper who has not released any albums. Has released on mix tape. Claims it debuted #1 on a chart, but unable to verify the claim. No reliable sources to be found. Says he goes by "B-Real", but there is already a rapper who goes by that, so searching is futile under that moniker. Bgwhite (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep. As suchh , he has worked with Rihanna . but still dont has enough notability . Lets see what are other's views ! Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He never did work with Rihanna. He only covered her song. Akon is doing Drake's vocal's with Rihanna in the background. It was never sanctioned by her. His mix-tape is mostly covers by Drake. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Swedish Forn Sed Assembly

Swedish Forn Sed Assembly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Swedish Forn Sed Assembly" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not a notable organization, judging from the paucity of hits in Google Books and News (under the new and the old name). Article itself is unsourced. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia#Sweden, where most of the information in the stub is already also located. LadyofShalott 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I know redirects are cheap (I read that somewhere on Wikipedia), but why a redirect for a term with so little currency? While dinosaurs are dying to be turned into oil to provide the energy for Wikipedia's server to preserve the information? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, is this is our first quarrel? ♥ Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The problem was that an editor had changed the spelling of the organization's original name from Asatrosamfund to the incorrect Asatrusamfund. And it only changed its name in mid-2010. It's one of the most frequently mentioned Scandinavian heathen groups; lots of passing mentions in the emerging scholarly field of the study of neopaganism, and I hope to find online some of the newspaper coverage of the blót at Gamla Uppsala, which made a splash. In addition I discovered it was the primary subject of an academic monograph published in 2000 (Asatro i tiden), and there is a multi-page segment in another academic book (Hedendomen i historiens spegel, published in 2005, reissued 2009). I have not yet added the latter to the article or made the newspaper search, but I've fleshed out the article with references including a review of the 2000 monograph. At this point it clearly demonstrates notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Muther Grumble

Muther Grumble (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Muther Grumble" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unreferenced and non-notable newspaper Osarius Talk 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Far too short needs expanding--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO

• It is not unreferenced as there is a link to the archive.
• It is notable as it exposed a major corruption case (Poulson) TobyJ (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. The reference provided alone carries zero weight for notability - it has to be other people writing about you, not just your own website. Neither does association with a news event in most cases. However, I've had a look on Google Books and I think there's just about enough coverage there to scrape the bar. You're lucky you caught me in a good mood. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hans Wilsdorf Foundation

Hans Wilsdorf Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hans Wilsdorf Foundation" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This is not expplaining the significance or refrence  Sabeel Hussain  ^talk 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 1. Snotbot  t • c »  16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Possiblyredirect this to Rolex or to Hans Wilsdorf (both articles mention the Hans Wildorf Foundation's ownership of Rolex). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to Rolex. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Catalyst Arts

Catalyst Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Catalyst Arts" – news · books · scholar · free images)

While the organisation is doubtless laudable the article has been uncited since creation and flagged as such for almost a year. The article is a promotional essay and a link farm to the directors. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Whilst a hunt through the Google news archive reveals LOTSOFSOURCES, I can't find anything that's not either listings info, a quote from someone associated with the project, or a passing mention. No in-depth coverage, so fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment sufficient mentions in reliable sources that are incorporated into the article as citations would save the article, I think. It is the reliability of the sources that contain the mentions that at least asserts verifiability. Notability is, of course, the other side of the pancake. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment for just now. A long-standing organisation well known in its field, but I recognise the article sorely lacks refs. Google Books turns up various more solid refs though frustratingly mainly in snippet view. Catalyst is mentioned among "influential groups" (Grant Kester, “Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art"), as a notable surviver (Flash Art in 2001), as "exciting" ((World Literature today, 2007), and among "Notable independent, artist-run spaces" (Manifesta 2: European Biennial for Contemporary Art, Luxembourg). It has a paragraph in Belfast in Your Pocket and is discussed in Variant magazine. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment including the things that you find in the article to assert and verify its notability (assuming what you have found can do that) would be a beneficial outcome, please. My view is that the article as it stands at present is inappropriate here, hence the nomination. A good outcome of this process would be the saving of the article by relevant work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • ...I see you have made a start :) There is much to do though, yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I tend not to use snippet views for refs as you don't see enough context; so the above is more a plea for anyone who does have access to these books to check them and add if appropriate. As you saw, I've added a few refs but they fall short of what's needed. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment Their inclusion in http://www.dublincontemporary.com/exhibition/artist/catalyst_multiple, is notable although the wiki on the event itself could use more work Euartcurator (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Parc Place Systems

Parc Place Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Parc Place Systems" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Subject of the article appears to be a non-notable defunct software company. Although it was a spinoff of a notable company, notability is not inherent. This particular organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for companies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete There is just a timeline. Nothing else. Entire article lacks inline citations. Requires a lot of cleanup or just throw it out entirely. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Fact sheet on India

Fact sheet on India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fact sheet on India" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No other country has corresponding page as information should be included within main country article if relevant. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand the policy grounds for this deletion request. The page seems to be validly encyclopedic, or at least almanac, information; it doesn't obviously belong on some other project, and the facts are verifiable. It may be that this page is simply the first instance of a type of page that could be profitably added to each country as soon as someone gets bothered to do it. As Lord Featherstonehaugh-Fanshawe wrote in The Great Western Railway Co. v. Haddock, "there is no precedent for anything until it has been done for the first time." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep

Simply because no other country has corresponding page is not a sufficient reason to decide what content must be compiled and which pages are appropriate on wikipedia.

The reasons proposed for deletion are not listed as wiki's guiding reasons for deletion. Instead of deleting this, I encourage that such pages be created for all countries.

FWIW, tabular fact sheet pages of the kind similar to Fact sheet on India are all over wikipedia, many highly viewed per day. See these for example:

• List of countries by sex ratio
• Lists of countries and territories
• Table of World Heritage Sites by country
• Table of voting systems by country
• Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008

etc.

Finally, I submit for matter of record that Reichsfurst originally marked the article for deletion with the following claim: "Information contained in article on India - merge would be unnecessary. This seems to basically be information copied from another site."

The proposal and reasons for deletion above, submitted on 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC) by Reichsfurst, have not answered my humble question to Reichsfurst. I asked the wiki contributor - "please identify where this information is available, and which site is it copied from?" I have yet to get an answer from Reichsfurst. If an answer is provided, and it is persuasive, I will happily reconsider my position. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion please note that ApostleVonColorado is the page's creator, which he has not made clear in his above comment. Reichsfurst (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete despite the above user's filibuster, I'm not convinced. This article presents nothing that isn't already in India or any of the related articles. "Fact sheets" are just plain not how we do things around here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd agree, this title does the article no favors; something like India (statistical summary) might be more becoming. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I like 'change the title' suggestion. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just re-read the article on India. Most category metrics of Fact sheet on India are not mentioned. A few that are, do not have the relative basis - that is how many countries is the ranking based on. Being 39th of 40 countries is contextually different than being 39th of 212 countries. Adding relative basis info into India, or merging all the current or future category metrics into wiki article on India may not be appropriate. I am not convinced that economic metrics such as 'Total reserves (includes gold, current US$)' belongs inside a general article such as India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment One thing that's a bit troubling about this article leans almost exclusively on the World Bank's data, a fair bit of which seems estimated or subjective. The article almost seems like it should be titled 'The World Bank's development indicators for India'. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, 60% of the stats are from world bank database, 40% elsewhere. Please note alternate independent sources of data for various categories exist, e.g. IMF, UNICEF, WHO, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc databases. Please see WP:VNT - the guideline I followed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I really just want to stress that this isn't about criticising the work which you have done AVC, I'm just not sure that this is the place to display it and the information it contains or a reference to the data could be inserted elsewhere. Reichsfurst (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate all the comments, as well as reasoned arguments that go with "keep" or "delete." Note that the article was created less than 24 hours ago. My intent was to add sufficient explanatory text, and some context, to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. For example, not just rank with basis, but how the metric compares with the best in the world, the world average, etc.; plus, what each metric means in a context that the general reader can appreciate. I envision future wiki editors will add more tables and update these tables not only for India vis a vis the world, but also for each state/region/territory within the country - again, with context for the general reader. I feel tables enhance readability of statistical data lists; this when presented with context is validly encyclopedic. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I simply dont understand why this has been nominated on which wikipedia policy? If there is no similar article for other country doesnt mean this one also to be deleted. KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael A. Ryan

Michael A. Ryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Michael A. Ryan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't appear to be a military individual of highly notable accomplishments. Article is basically his resume. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment- Incomplete nomination: article has not been tagged with AfD message. Dru of Id (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Added to article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I dunno, it's certainly an impressive Resume. Brigadier General, Bronze Star, and all that. Are there any sources to be had? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Should be noted that it would be uncommon in the U.S. military for someone to reach a general officer rank without being awarded a Bronze Star at some point because of an institutional tendency to align the prestige of awards with rank held during an assignment. Note the Bronze Star may be awarded solely for "meritorious service" in peacetime. The article does not indicate any particularly notable achievements during his career other than reaching the rank of brigadier general. Doesn't appear to have had any commands during wartime and holds no apparent awards for valor in combat. This is why I question the notability of the subject of this article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Makes sense to me. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The US Army's official site turns up exactly one photo of him. Not much in the news except minor announcements and offering of condolences.[19][20] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, and per the above. Though the subject is retired, WP:USUAL still applies I think - if he does something notable or some notable operation comes to light, an article might be appropriate. At present, with the lack of available sources and the lack of obviously notable achievements (though with thanks for his service, I imagine), I'd have to recommend delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Week Keep, per WP:SOLDIER. I have found several passing mentions of him, but nothing that appears to fall under WP:INDEPTH. That being said, there are as many links to said search to a Dr. Ryan who practices general dentistry.

As for the image comment made by another editor above, I have found several images of him, especially as his roll in the chain of command in V Corps. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a guideline. And when I said I found only a photo, I meant there were no articles about or by him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, General officer, so passes WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - officers with stars on their shoulders are generally notable. The article needs cleanup badly, but that's not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Clarityfiend. --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What? Oh, I forgot to sign my delete vote. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hyde Park Junior School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hyde Park Junior School

Articles for deletion/Hyde Park Junior School (2nd nomination)

Hyde Park Junior School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hyde Park Junior School" – news · books · scholar · free images)

School's only claim to notability is that it is over 100 years. It has some history, but so would any organisation that old. That does not confer notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep WP:ORG states:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Emphasis added. To say that a hundred year old school doesn't met this is awfully arbitrary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Mutley Plain. History section has some useful info. As per ORG, definitely no referenced impact on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Fmph (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that a school has no impact on education? You've also just admitted that there is some useful information in history, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No referenced impact. Prove me wrong. Fmph (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Does a school need a reference to say that it has an impact on education? It's like saying that the phrase "the sky appears to be blue" needs a reference at Sky. You're also rewriting WP:ORG to add in that "referenced" bit. So I'm not playing into your Strawman, sorry.

In any case WP:NRVE: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." After hundred-plus years of operation - history and education, per my above quoted section from WP:ORG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

and what exactly makes you think that I didn't consider that? Wouldn't you be better off finding these phantom references snd proving me wrong? Fmph (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, redirect or delete: "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is a historic school whose notably is already proven through multiple reliable sources. It makes no sense to merge it with the locality article. Dahliarose (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - not only a historic school but the sources meet WP:ORG in any case. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gospo-Fella Entertainment

Gospo-Fella Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Gospo-Fella Entertainment" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This company does not appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. Only claim of notability is that its compilation CD was nominated for awards from an organization that itself doesn't appear notable. Lacks reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rhythm of Gospel Awards are notable within the gospel genre. Tyler3lizabeth

• Delete per nomination, notability per guidelines not demonstrated ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

GEMS Education

GEMS Education (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "GEMS Education" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources, and utilizes peacock words incessantly. Also see this AfD. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

GEMS Wellington Primary School

GEMS Wellington Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "GEMS Wellington Primary School" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Primary school. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up notable, substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete since no refs have been provided to show it satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to the locality or otherwise as we normally do. No argument against a redirect has been given, for the very good reason that there really is no rational argument that could be given. Epeefleche, I respect and agree with your efforts to remove from the encyclopedia standalone articles like this one, but why do not you simply redirect? The consensus would support you. Just be BOLD about it. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the key is that these should not be standalone articles. But there are a few editors who tend to vociferously disagree with me, in instances I thought were quite clear. Any reader of these AfDs has seen that. Also, despite your views, there is not a clear consensus that when articles such as this lose their stand-alone status, they should be redirected (rather than deleted). Some prefer deletion, and in fact consensus is for deletion not uncommonly. Also -- some editors, even when the article is completely uncited and challenged -- ignore the need for inline citations and !vote for merges. I think they are wrong, but they think otherwise perhaps. Given all the uncertainty, I don't choose to be Bold. I think it better in this case to allow editor input here, and have a consensus result, rather than foist my view on others.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep A review of the sources indicates that they are adequate for our purposes and that the school is excellent, being in the top 10 schools in that country. Warden (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. If there's a good redirect target, that would also be a swell outcome from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

GEMS Jumeirah Primary School

GEMS Jumeirah Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "GEMS Jumeirah Primary School" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Primary school through year 6. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Edison (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect of course, as usual. No reason for deletion without a redirect is given, or could be given. This should have been done without coming here. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep An outstanding school which is covered as such in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Redirect if a target can be found. Per the esteemed Colonel above, I am pleased to learn that there are international equivalents of the bogus 'Blue Ribbon School" designation that is wheeled out in defense of selected ordinary American schools from time to time. I don't think such bureaucratic ratings should come into play here either, but at least such a line of argument isn't US-centric, I'm happy to learn... I think we need an RFC to either confirm or deny the "Rule of Thumb" of presumed notability of high schools and presumed non-notability of elementary schools. Some people say there's no such thing — but you can't see air, yet it exists, too. I'm comfortable that this well-established consensus will be confirmed by the community. Things are starting to slide into "Lets Do Notability Testing for Everything" country at AfD though, views expressed both by Inclusionists and Deletionists... This defeats the purpose of having a rule of thumb, which is a time saving device that splits the difference between those wanting an expansive and those wanting a focused encyclopedia. But hey, if people really would rather have drama and time-draining fights over everything to the last ditch, who am I to argue... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I support the notion that either an RfC or a revision to the notability guideline would be helpful to streamline discussion. Some editors including some sysops take strong positions as to what the consensus is, but I've not noticed sysops closing these AfDs as SNOWs on that basis. Either an RfC or -- better yet -- a guideline revision would seem to be in order. Ping me please if someone starts either.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect as per usual. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Erika Jordan

Erika Jordan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Erika Jordan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

While she has played a number of bit part to small role characters in various things, I can't find any secondary sources that discuss her. The article has been through many revisions by a few different SPAs without any substantive improvement. As it stands now, the article is largely a rehash of her bio on her official site. The notability is marginal and I fall on the delete side of the fence. Dismas|^(talk) 08:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, doesn't cite any sources, and per User:Epeefleche, the article is just a rewording of her official bio. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What does that user have to do with this? Dismas|^(talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

2011 Bandra fire

2011 Bandra fire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "2011 Bandra fire" – news · books · scholar · free images)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER article, no one died, no lasting significance. Mattg82 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Delete it. Being the author of the article, I myself support for deletion. This article was created during my early days of Wikipedia, and so please go ahead. Thank you! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bunmi Akinyemiju

Bunmi Akinyemiju (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bunmi Akinyemiju" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I could fix the unencyclopedic and unverifiable stuff about how awesome his businesses are and what type of nightclubs he likes (by removing most of it and leaving a stub), but I doubt he meets the notability requirements.

The cited sources suggest he may be a respected businessman and citizen in his local community, but do not seem to be the sort that confer a great deal of notability. A quick Google search found some self-published profiles and press releases, but no significant independent coverage. Kilopi (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

WZRD (band)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/WZRD (band)

WZRD (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "WZRD (band)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

• Merge - Information would better be served as a sub-section under Kid Cudi or WZRD (album). Dfnj123 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - this band hasn't even done anything yet. I've never seen an article so riddled with Twitter links. Fails WP:NMUSIC and the sources miserably fail WP:RS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - They just released their first two singles and the tracklist for their album is out. At the very least, this should be merged with Kid Cudi's arcticle. --Cartman005 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The Twitter links are used properly as sources here because all of the information comes from the band members' Twitter accounts. Their album has been confirmed to be released on February 28, 2012 and is now up for pre-order. They deserve their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.90.12 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If all the information comes from the band themselves then it's not independent or necessarily reliable. Stone Cold Steve Austin has joked several times on his Twitter account about wrestling sharks but that doesn't mean he actually has. Still no evidence provided that the band meets WP:BAND criteria. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • And on top of that this collaboration album is somewhat simular to the situation leading up to the release of Watch the Throne. When Kanye West and Jay-Z announced that they were going refer to themselves as The Throne in context of their album, a page was created for The Throne. That page was soon after nominated for deletion and now redirects to the album page. I do still think the information on the WZRD (band) is relevant. Clearly better sources are needed, but the information would fit perfectly under Kid Cudi or WZRD (album). Maybe it's even time for Dot da Genius to have a wikipedia page of his own (with reliable sources), but there is now reason why WZRD (band) needs to exist.Dfnj123 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

MC Flipside

MC Flipside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "MC Flipside" – news · books · scholar · free images)

An autobiography containing no evidence via reliable sources that the subject meets general notability guidelines or WP:NMUSIC. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete, lacks reliable sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thinking Cap Studio

Thinking Cap Studio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Thinking Cap Studio" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested PROD: Software program (product) which does not appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. All sources in the article are self published, press releases, or trivial coverage in link collection sites. No reliable sources support notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Disagree with policy/guideline cited, these are viable links proving that this product is discussed. The links provided were found with research, they are not self-published nor press releases. TabithaFournier (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete sourcing looks very poor. The vast majority of the refs are not reliable, most of them appear to be trivial coverage at best. (Sorry, I was talking about the linkdump at the bottom of the page. The inline refs are quite poor, one being user reviews -unusable as a ref- and the other a press release) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage to establish notability that I can find. The references and links in the article do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment - Are all these relists really needed? The only editor advocating keep is article creator, and has a user name that is the same as Thinking Cap's marketing manager. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable software. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:10, 8 February 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 Southside Six

The Southside Six (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Southside Six" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Local sports event which lacks substantial third party coverage to justify notability requirements. SFB 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Brusselization

Brusselization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Brusselization" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Term appears to be made up, having no sources attesting to its existence. Article should be deleted before the existence of this article results in seemingly legitimate use arises from it. Louiedog (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but move to Bruxellisation. This appears to be a case of well meaning but misleading anglicization. As the fr.wikipedia article demonstrates, the term is bruxellisation (or for some reason BruXellisation) is used in exactly that meaning. I see several references to it in English-language books. Here from 2006. However, the English term appears to be used only for bureaucratizing central control with reference to the European Union: Brusselisation from 2010, Brusselization from 1999, both referring to a 1998 article by David Allen of Loughborough University, "Who Speaks for Europe? The Search for an effective and coherent External Policy". There appear to be ample references for Bruxellisation to meet the notability criterion; I didn't even have to go past English-language uses. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Business service provider

Business service provider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Business service provider" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested proposed deletion. Patent nonsense definition of a non-notable neologism, filled with puffery and other indications of intent to advertise: Business service providers (BSPs) are companies that offer state-of-the-art business applications over the Web. More gibberish:

• A service-based application is composed of a number of possibly independent services in a service-oriented architecture (SOA), which perform the desired functionalities of the architecture.
• BPS are delivered as Web services , designed with modern security, management, and identity standards to facilitate the plug-and-play integration of these services with other BSP services or with internal corporate Web services. The integration platform for BSP services within a company is the enterprise service bus, a standardized communication platform built on top of service-to-service messaging.

That's almost the entire article. "Referenced" to definitions hosted at some kind of Wiki or similar bloglike site. You will notice that the definition is oddly parochial and ahistorical; apparently nobody was a "business service provider" before the World Wide Web. Truly, computers are what makes the world go round! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

• Keep- the article no longer sounds as promotional, will try to clean it up. A412 (Talk * C) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your version certainly makes more sense than the original; but is this now redundant to outsourcing? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Donal Boylan

Donal Boylan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Donal Boylan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Fergal Bradshaw

Fergal Bradshaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fergal Bradshaw" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, Bradshaw played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Joe Cunnane

Joe Cunnane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Joe Cunnane" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, Cunnane played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

John Lack O'Sullivan

John Lack O'Sullivan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "John Lack O'Sullivan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, O'Sullivan played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Liam O'Connor (Irish footballer)

Liam O'Connor (Irish footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Liam O'Connor (Irish footballer)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, O'Connor played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Roch Hanmore

Roch Hanmore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Roch Hanmore" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment International Aussie rules is hardly a major international amateur competition. It doesn't even get a mention on Australian rules football Gnevin (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Diarmuid Griffin

Diarmuid Griffin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Diarmuid Griffin" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Derek Mulligan

Derek Mulligan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Derek Mulligan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Brian Shortall

Brian Shortall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Brian Shortall" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Brian Currane

Brian Currane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Brian Currane" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Radio Amateurs of Canada

Radio Amateurs of Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Radio Amateurs of Canada" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No assertion of notability, no discussion of this organization in secondary reliable sources, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The private club has undetectable effect on the world outside its members. Existence of the organization could be noted in Amateur radio or some similar article. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - the RAC is the Canadian member of the International Amateur Radio Union, the administrators of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service in Canada, and they serve in a substantial advisory capacity to the Canadian government with respect to the regulation of radio communications. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Right now there are no references for that in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Cooper (voice-over artist)

Mike Cooper (voice-over artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mike Cooper (voice-over artist)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I'm thinking WP:ENT applies to voice over artists. in any case he fails WP:BIO. he's not even listed on IMDB and could not find any coverage of him [21]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel uncomfortable deleting this article because if Cooper has narrated programmes, news bulletins etc. for the BBC World Service and numerous TV channels, he would certainly meet WP:ENT. However, on the flipside, I feel uncomfortable keeping an article cited only to a blog. I'm struggling to find reliable independent verification of Cooper's work. If someone can find sources, I'd vote 'keep'. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - fully meets the WP:ENT. Issues with sourcing are unfortunate but not enough to delete the article, on contrary it is an invitation to improve it. Deleting is easy, improving is not, so try doing that instead.--Avala (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Bruno Benetton Free Band

Bruno Benetton Free Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bruno Benetton Free Band" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable band; minimal local press coverage only, supported by a couple blog references and YouTube links. Hairhorn (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It's hard for me to judge how well the sources conform to WP:RS, but it seems reasonable. this looks like a solid RS, and provides significant coverage. this is slightly shorter, but also an independent reliable source. It looks like both of these are national outlets, so we can't really call that local press. I can't really find if Slovakia has an albums chart, so I have no means to check if the album charted. Google translate hasn't been really helpful in translating this, which claims they either receive, or don't receive radio airtime. Some slovak translation would be nice here, though even without the airtime, I think we're scraping by the good side of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

CWF Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship Title history

CWF Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship Title history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "CWF Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship Title history" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non notable high school wrestling title Guerillero | My Talk 04:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think its high school, since CWF Mid-Atlantic appears to be a wrestling organization syndicated to UPN, according to the wiki article there. However, this title history is unreferenced, so it either needs to be or needs to go. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not convinced that the title history for an independent wrestling promotion is notable. Similar treatment may need to be given to CWF Mid-Atlantic Tv Title History. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - The nomination is inaccurate. As pointed out by Syrthiss, this title belongs to CWF Mid-Atlantic, a multi-state professional wrestling promotion. Given that the parent article is fully referenced and that this article is only 2 days old, I believe this nomination was premature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Merge to CWF Mid-Atlantic This article doesn't seem to merit being a separate article, but I see no reason the information should be deleted when it can be kept in a place where people are most likely to look for it. Astudent0 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the article does have sources which prove what it says is accurate and the info would really make the CWF Mid-Atlantic article too lengthy if merged - it seems like a reasonable offshoot per WP:SPLIT (the two articles combined would be around 60k in size). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable web content, arguably also g3 hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Magical Amazon Mondrek 27 Nathreikka von Karthana

The Magical Amazon Mondrek 27 Nathreikka von Karthana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Magical Amazon Mondrek 27 Nathreikka von Karthana" – news · books · scholar · free images)

All the references seem to be connected to the series itself. A google search excluding WP, blogs, facebook etc returns just 11 results, none reliable sources. Notability not established (too soon to tell) for "upcoming TV series". Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 8 February 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.

2011 Philadelphia Union Reserves season

2011 Philadelphia Union Reserves season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "2011 Philadelphia Union Reserves season" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The article fails WP:GNG. Philadelphia Union Reserves do not play in a fully-professional leage, and reserve team seasons are generally not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Philadelphia Union Reserves season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Find sources: "2012 Philadelphia Union Reserves season" – news · books · scholar · free images

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge Although the reserves don't play in a professional league the information for this team's season is worthy of keeping. Consider merging this with main club's 2011 Philadelphia Union season Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into Philadelphia Union Reserves; create a 'History' section, detailing what happened season-to-season. GiantSnowman 16:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete and add into history of the main page I agree with Giant Snowman. Even major leagues in the world with Reserve Teams dont have individual seasonal pages for there Reserve Teams. They are just not notable enough for reasons Sir Sputnik put. Just make a new section in Philadelphia Union Reserves called history and make another section called season by season stats. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Chelcee Grimes

Chelcee Grimes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Chelcee Grimes" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Singer/songwriter signed to a label but with no releases. Only coverage I could find was the current reference from local paper. Doesn't appear to meet any of the music bio notability criteria. the wub "?!" 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Coomey

Alan Coomey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Alan Coomey" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
  This article is also a borderline case for WP:GNG, because it has one ref to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.[22]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Pictish Mithraism

Pictish Mithraism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pictish Mithraism" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This was created by User:Pictish-mithraism and is basically original research based upon the work of Norman Penny - see http://pictish-mithraism.com/. I can find no reliable sources using the phrase or discussing Pictish mithraism and believe it fails WP:NOTE. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -- the entire article is original research on a fringe theory (or as Doug suggests above, it may not even be notable enough to achieve fringe status), incorporating extensive copyvio from a draft book by Norman Penny (it seems probable that Norman Penny is actually the article's creator, Pictish-mithraism). BabelStone (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The theory is certainly WP:FRINGE, but whether it is notable fringe in the terms of the policy, I can't tell. The thin referencing suggests not. At the very least (copyvio apart) it should be rewritten to make this crystal-clear. It is unfortunate that the article contains, among the fringe stuff, more good information on & illustration of the Pictish symbols than we currently have anywhere else. If Penny manages to get his book published that might alter things a little, though I can't see it being an RS, but the article might work as one on the book, quoting reviews etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The illustrations in the article appear to be taken from Penny's draft book as well, so User:Pictish-mithraism needs to identify himself as Penny and send the appropriate permission to OTRS otherwise they're going to get deleted as well. BabelStone (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No doubt you're right, but as he has uploaded them to Commons (where I have categorized them all btw) & the book is unpublished, that is not a problem. If they are on the website & copyright is claimed that might be. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wherever it is, it says "The information contained in this publication is Copyright © Norman J Penny unless stated otherwise and is protected by international copyright laws.". Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But on a quick look, none of the illustrations are on the website, nor could I see them on a couple of the more likely-looking PDFs. Once they uploaded on an open licence subsequent claims of copyright are invalid. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hadn't thought of that. But doesn't he have to identify as Norman Penny and shouldn't they be tagged until he does? Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Johnbod here, the theory must be fringe, but the illustrations are of obvious interest. Either the Pictish materials could be merged with Pictish Stones or Picts (but that's already long), or converted (rewritten) into a new article on Pictish symbols. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to dump that into the mainspace. I was on IRC, there were no other helpers about, and I was dealing with other helpees. I couldn't check most of the refs because they were books, and google indicated possible fringe/book promo etc. (see his talk). He made all these bizarre images I couldn't understand. I asked for eyes, but nobody was there. So, I figured, best course, why wait for more non-expert eyes. Approve it and post at relevant projects to push it one way or the other. Hope it was an okay call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to Babelstones "... illustrations in the article appear to be taken..." above, I took care to ask explicitly before approval if he created and owned the images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Author commentPictish-mithraism, as explained elsewhere, is the term used by Norman Penny to describe this topic. The web site referred to is the work of Norman Penny (myself) and focuses on the unique decoding of the Pictish symbols as having a meaning in context of Mithraism. The topics on which this interpretation is based are not original - Symbols on Pictish Stones and the Mysteries of Mithras - if I have caused confusion regarding NOR on this all I can do is apologise. What I am attempting to do with this article is to take a well argued interpretation to place in Wikipedia space and in so doiong to attract edits as appropriate. The matrerial is published per se and has been on a web site for almost two years (currently in its second version). Draft books are prepared - one with publishers for consideration, the other printed and available from me. I had considered the web site to equate to publication - maybe not. I am more than willing to modify the sense of the article if that would help others to not conclude on deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictish-mithraism (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Comment I think what you've made clear is that you were hoping to use your article to publicise your idea. That's not an unusual misconception, but Wikipedia is definitely not a place for original ideas. If you get a book published in accordance with WP:RS and if it is then taken up and gets some significant notice (see WP:NOTE and associated guidelines), then maybe we can have an article about your book. But until there is discussion in mainstream sources about Pictish Mithraism, as an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources (as per WP:RS have to say about a subject, this article fails to meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If the idea of Pictish-mithraism has been explored in other works, preferably academic ones, you should make this very clear in the text & references, probably with quotations. Stuff on the website itself is covered by your copyright notice - stuff on PDFs just linked to from the website I'm not sure about, if they don't have their own notices. For the images, you should contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (aka OTRS) by email & confirm your identity to them & that you as creator agree to the Commons licence. There should be no problem with them after that. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - clear (admitted) violation of WP:NOR, WP:NFT, and dubious in terms of WP:COI. No evidence of historical or even fringe notability. If the images are worth having somewhere, someone should write the appropriate article for them. Agricolae (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't matter how well argued an interpretation of a topic is - if it hasn't been covered in independent reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Crimesterdam

Crimesterdam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Crimesterdam" – news · books · scholar · free images)

All of the people are redlinks, and does not assert notability with third-party sources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Article is about an Armenian rock band. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes, article is about an Armenia-based band. Would it be better if people get unlinked, at least from main content? Or I can deliver band members' pages as soon as possible. Although, it might be another problem as most of the sources (not all) would be in Armenian. Goyushek (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Keep. I'd vote for removing the unnecessary bunch of links instead, and providing a couple of third-party sources for the band biography, releases information, etc. Dharmist (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Redlinks removed, more sources added. Goyushek (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center

Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable college performing arts center. No third party sources to establish notability. No particular importance to development of performing arts to make it otherwise notable. Entire article is unreferenced and original research. GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Craig Seymour

Craig Seymour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Craig Seymour" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Subject of article does not seem to meet guidelines for notability. CarbonX (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable as author (2 books != major author), and the material in his own books != source of notability. Hit best sellers rank 493,000 and 887,000 at Amazon. Thus not notable as books either. This BLP is a promotional ad for Seymour, with all that entails, but promoting oneself online != notability either. Article was created by a indeffed sockpuppeteer User:Ratel [23]. Collect (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple reliable sources cover the author and both of his books. Additional examples: [24][25][26][27][28][29] Passes the test, clearly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep Ample sources in article and in Arxiloxos' comment above to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SolidCAM

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SolidCAM

Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd nomination)

SolidCAM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "SolidCAM" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Clear violation of WP:ADVERT. It has been nominated for deletion previously ant at that time the page was entirely the work of a single editor sharing the surname of the company's founder and CEO. That editor is no longer active and the majority of the updates since have been anonymous. No improvements have been made to rener the article encyclopedic, not to provide citations from reliable sources. Various suggested sources were mentioned (by the author) during the previous deletion debate, but they have not been incorporated; and in any case, they appeared to be mostly announcments in trade journals instigated by company press releases. DaveApter (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: The 21 links in the previous AfD are random crap that don't show notability. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete No sources either in article (well, there are no sources in the article, period) or the slew of linked press releases in the previous AfD debate which are sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If it was a more recent article I'd be tempted to slap it with a G11 tag; it's blatant promotion. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Caucasus International

Caucasus International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Caucasus International" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Only one short independent source. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was dePRODded with edit summary "I did everything whch you described as deletion reason", but only some external links were added to the homepages of some other publications that have unconfirmed "partnerships and advertising agreements" with this journal. The only independent (?) source is to News.Az (a doubtful reliable source, given that most of its articles are clear propaganda pieces of the Azeri government). The journal is apparently included in some EBSCO databases, but that is not sufficient to meet WP:NJournals. The PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep An academic journal that offers a place for the debates among the scholars from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey is resolutely notable. Of course the claim needs to be sourced. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that it "offers a place for the debates among the scholars from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey", that's what their homepage says and I have no reason to doubt that. The question here, however, is whether anyone has noted this (i.e., whether there are independent sources that say this is important). This is not the case, so it seems to be resolutely non-notable. Just the fact that it exists is not sufficient for inclusion, I'd say. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Weak delete. WP:TOOSOON for the usual notability standards for journals. The Hurriyet piece goes some way towards WP:GNG, bypassing WP:NJournals, but the news.az source just looks like a press release scraper to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not yet notable as a journal or magazine; I couldnt find any independent in-depth sources about the magazine. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Decibel Audio Player

Decibel Audio Player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Decibel Audio Player" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I found nothing to show notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No notability asserted or found. No reliable references provided or found. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep: it's freaking hard to find Linux multimedia player called decibel, given that this name is used by KDE's multimedia framework and that search engines include results for "dB". As of now I found Softsonic's (download site) editor's review,a list of 16 Linux players with Decibel in the middle and Gentoo's review of the software. This is clearly not enough. Still massive blog coverage suggest that there might be some more reliable sources; I would vote keep (without weak) if at list one more reliable source could be found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Don't know if I'm supposed to talk here, but googling for "decibel audio player" returns about 1,210,000 results. What do you consider reliable or not exactly in those results? This software is also officially packaged by the major Linux distributions (e.g., Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora). Other than that, I don't understand why this page should be deleted and not the thousands of other pages on similar software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.67.37 (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Anyone is welcome to comment. However, the number of Google Hits on its own isn't usually considered as a reason to keep. What matters is the quality of the results returned. For example, forum posts and blogs would in most circumstances be discounted. As far as software is concerned, a bare minimum, I would expect to see a good number of reviews in good quality sources. In reality, I would prefer to also see coverage in at least some of professional news sources, books (printed) and/or peer reviewed academic publications. If only because it is extremely hard to write anything about a subject if the best sources presented are 3 sentences on a download site, a paragraph in a group review and a "review" that actually looks more like an installation guide.

Equally, the fact that there is other crap on Wikipedia isny considered as a reason to keep either. If other subjects arent notable, they should be nominated as well. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, there's none cited in the article, and nobody else has come up with any.--Michig (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Duncan Denholm

Duncan Denholm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Duncan Denholm" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Zero RS gnews hits, zero RS gbooks hits. Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. My own Google News archives search turned up with no coverage at all. [30] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete A pro golfer should have attracted at least some coverage in the news, even just locally. However the National Library of Australia's archives return nothing for any of the varied searches I've tried. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear to pass any of the criteria at WP:NGOLF. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Kardinya Park

Kardinya Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Kardinya Park" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This is an unremarkable local mall with no evidence of notability. An accurate search in Gnews archives proves this. [31] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Kardinya, Western Australia is the proper approach in such cases. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Kardinya, Western Australia already discusses the shopping mall, so I don't think there is really anything to merge. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and/or redirect to Kardinya, Western Australia. (I'm aware that the article has nothing currently worth merging, but commonly AfD's cause content/links to get added to the article that may be worth merging.) Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I conducted a Google search for ("kardinya park") and went through the first 200 hits. None of these suggested anything but incidental coverage: this happened at KP, that store opened at KP, the other store closed at KP. A Google News search produced three hits, all of which were "The winning ticket was bought at KP". I'm persuaded that there's no in-depth coverage by third-party sources, and that this therefore fails WP:ORG. Ammodramus (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: 155 mentions of the mall on Newsbank, including references in the following:

  Melville Times (Perth, Australia) (142)

  Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette (Perth, Australia) (7)

  Southern Gazette (Perth, Australia) (2)

  Age, The/The Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) (1)

  Canning Times (Perth, Australia) (1)

  Stirling Times (Perth, Australia) (1)

  Northern Territory News/Sunday Territorian/NT Business Review (Australia) (1)

At least one of these articles is completely about the mall: More traffic, new entrance, Melville Times (Perth, Australia) - Tuesday, March 27, 2007, Edition: 1, Page: 005. When looking more at these sources, another one is primarily about this mall: Centre bottle shop gets nod, Melville Times (Perth, Australia) - Tuesday, December 15, 2009, Edition: 1, Page: 007. Given the issue of many sources being offline, these prove to me offline verifiable sources that can be used to prove WP:GNG likely exist. --LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

See the vote immediately above yours. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per LauraHale's search results, I'm not to sure why people rely on Google for sources when Google doesn't scan offline sources (therefore it will never show on a Google search). Bidgee (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Stockland Bay Village

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stockland Bay Village

Articles for deletion/Stockland Bay Village (2nd nomination)

Stockland Bay Village (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Stockland Bay Village" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I was unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in multiple, unrelated, reliable sources. [32] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I have access to the pay site Access World News, and there appears to be significant enough coverage to warrant an article for this regional shopping center. Many of these PPV articles are promotional, but there are a few good ones specifically by the Central Coast Express Advocate dealing with major renovations and local impact on economy. Plus I think when you add in the results of the first nomination, there is enough to justify notability...just most of the sources are past the "pay line". -CrazyHos12 (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are these sources? You should add them to the article if you asserting notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I conducted a Google search for ("stockland bay village") and went through the first 200 hits. Only one contained coverage that might have been regarded as non-trivial: this article from The Australian. However, I don't think that its coverage was sufficient to be described as "in-depth". A Google News search turned up one hit: Stockland's own website. Fails WP:ORG. Ammodramus (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Southgate, Sylvania

Southgate, Sylvania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Southgate, Sylvania" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails WP:ORG. I found two sources with no significance to prove notability. [33] Till I Go Home (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:ORG. No evidence of notability outside its local area. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. Check out this cat Category:Shopping_centres_in_Sydney to see how many articles we have about various shopping centers in Sydney that are most probably not notable around the world (and which are?)--Avala (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. you have failed to provide any sources on how this meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but you have failed to provide any valid reasons for deletion that could be addressed.--Avala (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

no reliable sources, no notability, as a keep voter you must show sources, did you bother to look? LibStar (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And what policy says that because there are other Sydney shopping malls makes this article not eligible for deletion? Till I Go Home (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:N is not established. Ipsign (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Anne Carly Abad

Anne Carly Abad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Anne Carly Abad" – news · books · scholar · free images)

After research, she fails WP:CREATIVE. SarahStierch (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Pretty much a bibliography, sans sourcing. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nawaz Rice Engineering

Nawaz Rice Engineering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Nawaz Rice Engineering" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No evidence of notability. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Can't verify the first source, but the other two are a company website and an index listing. My own search doesn't reveal anything that would enable this company to pass WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE , Wikipedia police must give some respect to honorable companies from small, poor countries. Nawaz Rice Engineering is the only company from Pakistan that has put "Made in Pakistan" machinery in Europe and North America. Please see the following links so you know their footprint is global and a pride for Pakistan. Please do not delete it. It has been on Wiki for over an years. http://panjiva.com/Nawaz-Rice-Engineering/1609213

, http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/nawaz-rice-engineering.html, http://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/nawaz-rice-engineering http://www.21food.com/showroom/49881/aboutus/amanat-nawaz-rice-ab,.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Both the ImportGenius links give me 404 errors, so I can't comment on them. The Panjiva and 21food links are just company listings, much as you'd find in any directory. They are totally unsuitable for demonstrating notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hameeduddin Ahmed Al-Mashriqi

Hameeduddin Ahmed Al-Mashriqi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hameeduddin Ahmed Al-Mashriqi" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Problems meeting WP:GNG. One of a series of articles edited by a relative & IPs from his location, who is also the source of the obituaries scattered on the web in various arcane publications. Maybe there is something offline, but I can find nothing of note otherwise. Relative is Nasim Yousaf. Sitush (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Apache Ness

Apache Ness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Apache Ness" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Questionable notability Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - 106 Google News entries, in which he's defined as a "legend of reggae" or even "a living legend" (see here). Enough for me to substain a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - This seems to be a straight translation from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm of the view that Wikipedia is two things — a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium. The former needs tight inclusion guidelines and the latter benefits from comprehensiveness and less obsession with so-called "reliable sources." Deletion nominations should be looked at from the perspective of the Rule of Reason — 1. Is the information accurate? 2. Is the encyclopedia better off with the piece or without it? In this case: yes and keep. In the anticipation that such thinking will offend the rules-loving types who proliferate at WP, I point out that IAR is a policy and Notability Guidelines are just that. (And no, don't waste your time pointing me to an opinion essay describing how the number 4 is actually > 5, a policy is higher level WP doctrine than a guideline.) In short this argument in favor of using a rule of reason is policy-based... That said, this article is a mess and somebody needs to format it correctly... Carrite (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's A Viking In My Bed

There's A Viking In My Bed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "There's A Viking In My Bed" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I'm not sure how this article based on a TV series passes the notability guideline. I tried looking at old news sources, but I'm not sure if any of them are reliable enough to make the article notable. Minima© (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It might be worth changing this to an article about the book with a mention about the TV series. Since it was a tv show on BBC, that might cause it to pass WP:NBOOK. I'll see what I can do.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Crazy Monkey Defense

Crazy Monkey Defense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Crazy Monkey Defense" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article for a fighting style lacking notability. Sourced mostly by it's own site. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. Prod refund with no improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG, and it fails all the support criteria at WP:MANOTE. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Yunshui. Nobody's paid any attention to it. Quick! Roll out the Crazy Editor Defense ... on wheels. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Harold G. Fox Moot

Harold G. Fox Moot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Harold G. Fox Moot" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Advert for a moot lacking notability. Sourced mostly by it's own site or by an article written by a founder. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Chasing Life

Chasing Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Chasing Life" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable album by seemingly also not notable artist Neil Taculod (see also wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Taculod). Unreferenced. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. As with the artist, I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this album; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable album by non-notable article. Speedy Delete once AfD on article closes as delete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily per Gogo Dodo (above).  -- WikHead (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Jose Ortiz El Buen Samaritano

Jose Ortiz El Buen Samaritano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jose Ortiz El Buen Samaritano" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article looks like a self-promotion page of an unremarkable self-proclaimed psychic with links to his website that offers services and a store. The original author of the page hasn't worked on other pages. In addition, the only references are the psychic's own website or small appearances in local media, while other links are dead or misleading (like #7). Other problems include a long list of other names and biographical information, both without any references. I'm from Puerto Rico and never heard of him until recently. Ljvillanueva (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 8. Snotbot  t • c »  06:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead Funny

Dead Funny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Dead Funny" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The independent film from 1995 has only been released in VHS, and does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for movies. Edison (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I found some reviews from Variety, NYT, and such. This makes it pass the bare rock bottom minimum for WP:NFILM, I think.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple reviews, from major publications, meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Leopard (newspaper)

The Leopard (newspaper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Leopard (newspaper)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Campus newspaper does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines on the basis of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DThomsen8

• When the paper launched in 2010, it consisted of 12 pages and was soon increased to 16 pages due to increased article submissions and reader interest. Well a 16 page news letter/paper, made up of user submissions, doesn't really sound notable. They have had three notable people interviewed there and one notable person guest edit it, but perhaps because of the university, maybe they went to school there. Anyway, I did a few Google news archive searches and found nothing. If nothing turns up, just redirect it to the university's article. Dream Focus 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge. Actually, I'm not even sure if a redirect is justified here, since "The Leopard" is also the name of the student union (or seems to be, anyway), and neither one seem to be very notable/useful as search terms. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge Merge with redirect for this title at Goldsmiths, University of London. Actually, the student union is called Goldsmiths Students Union, and not The Leopard. See The Leopard at Goldsmiths Students Union for verification. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoover (cyclecar)

Hoover (cyclecar) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hoover (cyclecar)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable automobile.Fails WP:N Edison (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect to cyclecar, unless anyone can find some WP:RS. I can only find one. The redirect should probably be Hoover Cyclecar I only see one. Haus^Talk 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - as an independent make and model of automotive conveyence, verifiable via a reliable source, it is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pathorghata Govt. Primary School

Pathorghata Govt. Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pathorghata Govt. Primary School" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable elementary school. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

First Baptist Church of Wheaton

First Baptist Church of Wheaton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "First Baptist Church of Wheaton" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable religious congregation. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Auburn Village School

Auburn Village School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Auburn Village School" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable elementary and middle school. Fails WP:ORG Edison (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Auburn,_New_Hampshire#Education. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect as per usual with middle schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mukkuva kerala

Mukkuva kerala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mukkuva kerala" – news · books · scholar · free images)

An incomprehensible block of text full of peacockery, POV and little explanation as to what this is even about. There are far too many Subcontinent articles like this. There was a prod tag put on this back in November, but the creator of the article removed it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• KEEP 30 DAYS PENDING In my opinion, the article about this notable geographic and historic area is pretty crude and should be deleted unless a lot of improvement is made in the next 30 days. Here are some suggestions. (A) Turn article into a geography stub that points back to Kerala article, which in turn should point back to India article; (B) Purge non-neutral superior/inferior language (see WP:POV), and where absolutely necessary, use neutral language to report that others think in terms of superior/inferior; (C) Add wikilinks for terms readers in US and Britain are unlikely to know, and it iss ok if they are red provided you later create those articles too; (D) Add verifiable sources for all factual assertions; (E) Add maps and pic or two; (F) Delete after 30 days without significant improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's not really a good way to keep for a given period of time; inevitably, we'll forget and then there'll be another AFD/MFD that reads "Holy crap we gave this guy 30 days 6 months ago. Kill it with fire." Better, I think, to userfy it and guide the author. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then it could be "Keep pending specified improvements" and asking renoms to wait for a minimum of 30 days, and if it turns out to be longer than that the ultimate time period should be treated as irrelevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The time period could be indefinite, if progress is being made. If it sits for a while, someone could shuffle it off to MFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy. None of the problems cited by the nominator are insurmountable, and could be remedied with simple editing over time. The author does not appear to be a speaker of native English, which complicates matters. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The subject appears notable (a notable ethnic/social group), though the text itself is a mess it looks like there should be an article about this subject at Wikipedia. Given that, I see no reason to delete it; since what it needs is a good cleanup by someone both knowledgable and with a good command of scholarly English. That's also why I oppose userfication, and think it would do much better in the main space. If we userfy it, it will just fester in the userspace of the person who created it, and stands no chance to get any outside attention from anyone that could actually help it. Articles that need cleanup should remain in the mainspace where people can find it and fix it. That's how Wikipedia works, when multiple people with different skills all end up contributing to make something better. Userfying this means it will never get improved by anyone else. Either fix it up now, or leave it for someone else with the proper knowledge and skills can fix it later. There's no rush for a perfect article now (and this one is FAR from perfect.) --Jayron32 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the nomination, there is an inherent problem with practically all of these ethnic articles in that they stay in this unsourced, unreadable state and nothing ever gets accomplished. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect--I'm not an expert in this field at all, but this content seems to be about the same topic as the (notably better) article at Mukkuvar. If it is, this could be redirected there perhaps. Meelar (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Animaajit (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Since I was new to Wiki, the best thing could have been to tell me what should have been done. I made a lot of effort in coming up with the data; however, if you feel this is a tasteless peacockery, please go ahead. The first time it was put up for deletion, the user was good enough to tell me that citations were required. The same had been done, and hence the tag " put up for deletion" was removed as per Wiki's standards. If you do not understand the heritage and the customs of the people here, it would be natural for you to feel that this is all useless. The prior text was placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mukkuva kerala. I've taken the liberty of moving it here to the main discussion page.Meelar (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  The nomination has absolutely zero to do with the subject, and entirely to do with the presentation. I resent the accusation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  If it's just the presentation, then AFD is not cleanup. Presentation issues aren't for AFD to deal with. --Jayron32 04:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Are you reading what I'm saying? This "article" is not ready for publication. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I am reading what you are saying. Wikipedia would not exist if we waited for some arbitrary definition of "ready for publication". Please read Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required. --Jayron32 05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Dynamo Charities Cup

2012 Dynamo Charities Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "2012 Dynamo Charities Cup" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Contested PROD. Concern was WP:Crystal, for an article which provides no attributed information. Cloudz679 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 06:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dynamo Charities Cup. GiantSnowman 09:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect. And i'd also redirect all the other years to the main article. -Koppapa (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with that as well. GiantSnowman 12:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Abbottsfield Mall

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abbottsfield Mall

Articles for deletion/Abbottsfield Mall (2nd nomination)

Abbottsfield Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Abbottsfield Mall" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable mall. Zero-ref article does nothing to support any claim of notability. It does exist. And run-of-the-mill things that happen at malls do occur at it. But it does not meet our notability standards.Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Was kept at last AFD due to sources involving everyday crimes at the mall. That kind of coverage is not enough to carry a mall article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient sources to establish notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as not reaching the notability standards for shopping malls. Aside from the minimal sourcing available (which could perhaps be remedied by an editor with better access to Edmonton media) the mall is just 186,028 square feet and anchored by a grocery store and a future Walmart. I've cleaned up the article and added both an infobox and a couple of sources (about the future Walmart). - Dravecky (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Valentia Young Islanders

Valentia Young Islanders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Valentia Young Islanders" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable, junior, Division 5, Gaelic football club from an island in one of Ireland's counties. Lacks multiple, substantial, independent RS coverage. Was PRODed, but an IP removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable per WP:FOOTY. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are you referring to association football? This club plays gaelic football! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Added two sections sourced by a national newspaper. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Charles Guthridge

Richard Charles Guthridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Richard Charles Guthridge" – news · books · scholar · free images)

A farm worker with a few descendants and of no notability Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Anida

Anida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Anida" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Album lacks substantial RS coverage (having checked gnews and gbooks). Also, the article is no help in reflecting notability -- zero refs. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed without explanation and without any reflection of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable, second-grade, intermediate, amateur county hurling competition. Lacks significant, multiple, independent RS coverage. Article was PRODed, but an editor removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Leave. Heshs Umpire (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Laois Minor Hurling Championship

Laois Minor Hurling Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Laois Minor Hurling Championship" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable, under-18-years-old, amateur county hurling competition. Lacks significant, multiple, independent RS coverage. Article was PRODed, but an editor removed the PROD. Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War I

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I

Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (3rd nomination)

List of surviving veterans of World War I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of surviving veterans of World War I" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The last one died today. The only "entry" is someone who wasn't a World War I veteran. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Due to Florence Green death, and the non related WWI person Józef Kowalski (Polish-Soviet War, WWII)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, now that the last surviving veteran has died. We don't need a list saying "there are no surviving veterans of World War I". We don't have an article about List of surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars either. JIP | Talk 06:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• CommentPut your hat or hand over your heart and bow your head, to mark the passing of an era, in which 65 million brave folk were alive, who participated in the "war to end all wars." Edison (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment We should have an article listing centenarian veterans instead, i.e., an article of those vetarans who lived to the age of 100. The old URL should redirect to this new article. 80.213.84.187 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment won't be possible since there were a ton of veterans (likely over 10,000) who lived passed the age of 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep For now. There is already discussion on the articles talk page as to the future of the article. Possibilities inlcude changing the nature of the article (which would include renaming), or redirecting. No need, or point, in deleting. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: One would have thought that the nom might have noticed that the discussion as to the fate of the article on its talk page is less than 24 hours old right now, working through whether to merge to another article, redirect or some other fate. AfD is, at this stage, redundant. Ravenswing 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep There is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page about what to do with the articel.Mithrandir1967 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep pending decision by the interested parties on the article talk page. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and close, based on discussion on article's talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is deserving of a Redirect to Last veterans. When the times come, pages like these ought to redirect to a page that lists the veterans who have lived the longest after wars / battles / events / etc. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename to "List of last surviving veterans of World War I," to list perhaps the last 10 veterans, the last veterans from each nation (such as merging that particular article), etc. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep until Jozef Kowalski dies than delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Beyond any other consideration, a redirect (such as is the trend on the talk page discussion) preserves the edit history of this valuable resource. Deletion does not. Ravenswing 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe we should re-name this page but I think that redirecting it before Kowalski dies is not the right thing to do (after all he has been on this page for around 5 Years or so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: until Mr. Kowalski passes on; it's a slap in the face to delete it before this. If he was good enough to be listed on the page for the past five years, he's good enough to keep the page alive until his passing. Barring that, it should be kept at least until the talk page process has run its course, and a determination has been made as to its future.Tom Barrister 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: not only that but when World War I-era Veterans Die their entry becomes listed on the deaths page, what will happen with Kowalski's entry if we delete this page (since he should become a part of the deaths page when he does die, especially since he is the last World War I-era Veteran). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Cite Kowalski's enlistment date or I'm removing it. Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as I suggested on the talk page. The first paragraph of the page has already been merged into that article, if the page is deleted then it would be difficult to properly attribute that content in accordance with our licence. Though I don't mind Kowalski being on the list alongside veterans it does seem pointless to have a list of veterans of WWI with no WWI veterans on it and he is already on List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. Hut 8.5 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that if we have a Re-Direct then we should keep Kowalski's entry on the Main Page if only for the fact that it is preserved there in it's regular block format alowing for an easy move over to the List of World War I Veterans who died in 2009-12 page when he does die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Since we have had World War I era veterans on this list, what about redirecting this to a list containing the oldest living veterans? — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Might be hard to put together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As someone who has followed this page for maybe 5 or 6 years or more and has occasionally contributed bits of information ... I support keeping it in place until Jozef Kowalski passes. There has always been a format: verified, era and unverified. As far as I remember Jozef Kowalski has been on the list from a long time back when there were 50 or more people listed. I may be wrong however. Being consistent with the entire history of this page which has be a compilation of efforts of many people over the years ... I tend to think that leaving it as is until it concludes naturally makes the most sense.
• Comment Follow-up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=109555236 shows Jozef Kowalski as listed from at least 5 years ago. I see someone has adjusted the page to a new format that lists Jozef Kowalski as the only remaining participant in a conflict relevant to WW 1. This seems ok to me.125.139.20.45 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Mic (South Korea)
• Redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country per above. Yeah Kowalski's been on the list a long time, but he still doesn't entirely seem to fit and he is in the article on the Polish–Soviet War and on Last European veterans by war. So if it's just him it seems like the purpose of this list, as a list, is over. Although I should add it was a fascinating list while it lasted and fond farewell to it as well as its people.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Then why was he on here in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I say we delete it when Kowalski dies, but not until then. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Farhan Zameer

Farhan Zameer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Farhan Zameer" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No evidence of notability or any reliable sources. Movie he works at seems self-published. Fails WP:MUSIC. prod removed Delete Secret ^account 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - This is an article about someone who has 'worked on' music for a film that hasn't been released... and nothing else. The article makes no claims of any previously completed product. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.  -- WikHead (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator has recommended keeping the article, not deleting it. If someone who supports deletion of the article wishes to renominate it, they may do so at any time. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cultural probe

Cultural probe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Cultural probe" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This page was nominated to be deleted for being "just a dictionary definition". I think that "the topic is notable, and that a current dicdef status is okay is the full potential of the topic is beyond that." I want to seek the wider community's opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs)

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.

Floyd Elmore

Floyd Elmore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Floyd Elmore" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This bio article is for non-notable person, likely written for promotional purposes or self aggrandizement. It has no references (other than one about a flood in his hometown). Has links to his own site and related art galleries. Most or all material content added by a single-purpose account. Although in third person, probably by the subject himself or perhaps his (mentioned) brother as it has details that would be known only to people very close to subject (or are boring fabrications). The only reference I found on the web (beyond his own site and the gallery sites) was to this news story wherein a Floyd Elmore with matching age, location (South Lake Tahoe), and other particulars is being held on four felonies involving a standoff, a gun, a fire, and cocaine. R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RIPAS Hospital Link Shuttle Bus

RIPAS Hospital Link Shuttle Bus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "RIPAS Hospital Link Shuttle Bus" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Unnotable very local shuttle service, connecting the car park of a hospital with its main entrance. 1 km long. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete no sign that it is notable proabably not worth a mention at Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Hospital either. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Masonic Lodges of North Carolina" – news · books · scholar · free images)

WP:IINFO, barely sourced. No other state has a list like this. None of the individual lodges is notable, and there are so many of them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep That 'otherstuffexists" (or "does not exist") is a weak rationale. "The list is too long" is also not part of any policy. The material is actually sourced, and is a rational length compared with where it had been, and I rather think that is sufficient. The topic, moreover, has a number of implications including the "Negro question" described in [34] specifically concerning the relationship of NC lodges with others. [35] also shows in what way this article certainly could be expanded, and absolutely is "notable" for sure. Collect (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that "other stuff exists" or "does not exist" is a weak rationale. I will look at the books linked by Collect above and investigate expanding the list. In the mean time I will work on fixing the broken cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also the statement User:TenPoundHammer at "No other state has a list of every masonic lodge." on my talk page does not hold water as maybe the reason no other grand lodge has a list of every lodge in its jurisdiction is because no one has taken the time to create those lists. If there were to be a list for every grand lodge, then one of those lists would have to be the first one created. Here it is. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This article is in SERIOUS need of some more citation and should be based on more than 1 source. But I'm going to !vote keep if just to prevent articles from spinning up for each of these lodges. RadioFan (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I'm looking, and I'm not finding reliable sources that discuss Masonic lodges of North Carolina in particular in significant detail. The sources Collect mentions above are very short and really don't establish notability. Another point: this isn't about whether freemasonry is notable; it's whether a list of lodges in North Carolina is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Beaver Road Primary School

Beaver Road Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Beaver Road Primary School" – news · books · scholar · free images)

A primary school that has no substantial claim to notability. Saying it is above average and high in the league tables doesn't give it notability, nor do the uncited claims (since June 2010) that the school has appeared in a number of TV shows. As with many similar primary schools it should be deleted/redirected to Didsbury Bob Re-born (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: As per WP:NHS. — Pewfly (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect per longstanding consensus for non-notable primary schools. Please note that WP:NHS relates to secondary schools and this is a school for ages 4-11. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is obviously notable per the WP:GNG being the subject of detailed, independent and reliable sources such as this. Warden (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Didsbury. This is obviously non-notable per WP:GNG. The references are not significant, are primary sources, and do not support the assertions made in the stubby article. Fmph (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Keep, per Warden. One of the most exemplary Ofsted reports I've seen; clearly a notable school that's doing something very interesting. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Rogers

Ellen Rogers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ellen Rogers" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Relatively unknown photographer. I see two interviews with her by two independent magazines/websites (thus passing WP:A7). But the article fails WP:BIO. Also possible COI. — Pewfly (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete; see its talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Petko Kirilov Petkov

Petko Kirilov Petkov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Petko Kirilov Petkov" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow (band)

Sleepy Hollow (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sleepy Hollow (band)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article subject fails WP:BAND. It was already previously deleted but has snuck back into Wikipedia. Like the previously deleted version no content is cited from a source meeting WP:RS requirements. No members, albums or their label have any notability to support keeping this article on Wikipedia. Suggest the name be blocked from recreation to prevent any future versions from sliding past the censors. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. They've apparently signed a deal with a record company called "Pure Steel Records". Whether or not this is a major label is up for debate. I'm not overly familiar with metal band labels.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Kind of leaning towards no, though. I've been doing a search and there really isn't much out there that would be considered reliable. There appears to be a sizable fandom, but this group falls under the same problems that most indie bands have: a fanbase but not enough coverage in what would be considered reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• • Keep. I started the article several months ago, and others have added to it (including references from various websites around the world). The history page shows someone was trying to edit the page with information for a different band of the same name - this seems to indicate that there needs to be a new page set up for the other band, and this page edited to be called Sleepy Hollow (NJ band), as both groups seem to have public interest. Kimsuccess (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 6:21, 8 February 2012
• Delete. I looked pretty hard but I just can't find enough reliable sources to show that this band meets any of the requirements of WP:BAND. They have a fandom but just don't have any reliable sources out there. There's more than a few blog and forum posts about them as well as various primary sources, but nothing that'd be usable. It's a delete vote from me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of schools in Mexico

List of schools in Mexico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of schools in Mexico" – news · books · scholar · free images)

See WP:NOT#STATS Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 02:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Keep - You're a bit trigger happy aren't you? It's only just been created. The list is obviously under development and, judging by the template at its foot, is part of a wider project to list schools in the North Americas. Mind you, my finger will be itching to delete any redlinks :) Sionk (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've changed my 'vote' to keep. Information is being added to the list. Discussion about its scope can be continued on its Talk page. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This article should not attempt to list all the schools in Mexico, nor even all the secondary-level schools in Mexico. That would make it too large to deal with easily. The list should be broken up at least by state. This page should be, at most, a list of lists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm saying that most schools would not be notable and this should be a category, not an article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bimoment

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bimoment

Articles for deletion/Bimoment (2nd nomination)

Bimoment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bimoment" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I find nothing significant about this topic, nor do I see how it could ever be more than a dicdef. Last AFD appears to have been non-admin closed improperly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition but without a clear definition of the term involved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: this stub does nothing beyond giving the context of the word. Neither of the references gives enough information to expand the stub. No prejudice against recreation of the article by someone who understands what it means and can give useful sourced content, but the present article is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is obviously notable, and i disagree with Ten Pound Hammer and think that it can easily be expanded far beyond a dicdef. What's wrong with a one sentence stub which gives all the most essential information to the reader, until it is grown upon? I can honestly not see what the problem is.....--Coin945 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Parallels between optics and quantum mechanics

Parallels between optics and quantum mechanics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Parallels between optics and quantum mechanics" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Original research and synthesis, competely impenetrable, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - The article had (and has) four references prior to being nominated for deletion, contrary to the statement in the nomination that it had "no sources". Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. OR and reads like an essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC).
• Delete WP:OR essay. -- 202.124.72.12 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Acero

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Acero

Articles for deletion/Acero (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Aceromath

Acero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Acero" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable local restaurant that was tagged and then removed from speedy deletion three years ago; there have been routine local reviews about the restaurant, but from WP: N, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The source for the removal of the speedy deletion in 2009 was a user who has subsequently been banned for sockpuppetry, and I couldn't find any recent Google News evidence of notability outside a Sauce magazine review (a local publication). poroubalous (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. poroubalous (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The other AFD listing for Aceromath is not related to this Acero; the article was nominated for speedy deletion so it doesn't have an original AFD listing. My mistake. poroubalous (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, delete, delete - written like an advert with no independent sources. The article mentions one of Acero's dishes featured on the front cover of Bon Appetite. Their cauliflower ravioli dish is published in the magazine but the accompanying text pictured here does not actually mention Acero. Having a recipe published does not constitute multiple in-depth coverage. Sionk (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Entrees at Acero include Sea Scallops with a Mushroom Ragu, Porchetta with Polenta and Hormone-Free Sirloin with spinach and fennel. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pakophilia

Pakophilia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pakophilia" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Pure WP:OR Definition sourced to a dictionary anyone can edit. OED has no mention of this, only 188 results on Google and most seem to be to the wiki dictionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - obviously a neologism, though a nice idea! Unfortunately I can't see any evidence of common usage other than WP mirror sites. Sionk (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The title might be neologism but the content is not, better to rename to an appropriate title. See my comment below. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, no serious sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Move to Pro-Pakistan sentiment which is the actual scope of the article and is already covered in there. This topic is as notable Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Article is sourced for that and many more can be found. [36] [37]. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, yet another article for you to add unsourced OR to. How many of those sources actually discuss Pro-Pakistan sentiment in detail BTW? Or are they perhaps just passing mentions? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Review them yourself. The topic has abundant references. And don't comment on me again. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are suggesting a move to another article title, it is you who needs to prove it is discussed in depth in reliable secondary sources. I would recommend you do so and not ask others to do your research. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No one asked you to do any research. But then don't object on the citations without even reviewing them. I've provided enough sources which justify the move. The article content currently covers the same. The article title might be a neologism but not the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The article Pro-Pakistan sentiment doesn't exist yet. So Pakophilia can't be moved to it. You would simply be changing the name of the Pakophilia article. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing the name is called a move. (I didn't say merge). Anyway, you get my point. That title will not imply WP:NEO and has sources for it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, the sooner the better Unsourced. None of the sources use the term; it's been around a while and crept into mirror sites and throughout the web. This is the worst kind of article, creating something that doesn't exist. Of course pro-Pakistani sentiment exists. Anyone who has ever eaten Pakistani food has this sentiment, at the very least--and the textiles, and the hospitality, and the poetry! If an article based on reliable sources (not these blogs and likes by famous people in this article) should be written on pro-Pakistani sentiment, then let it be written under an appropriate title. But don't take a made-up word, in an unsourced article, and perpetuate the indignity of it all by merging the crap into the history of a real article. This needs deleted, its entire history. The sooner the better. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Actually the nominator seems to be right, the title of this article itself seems to be a neologism that doesn't have much coverage in WP:RS (as a term, I mean). However, the concept of Pro-Pakistan sentiment certainly would have enough coverage in mainstream sources to warrant an article. I'm neutral on this. This article can be moved to Pro-Pakistan sentiment or be deleted and a fresh article can be started on Pro-Pakistan sentiment, which as Pseudofusulina suggests, could talk about food, poetry, textiles and even Pakistani music (for example people like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan who have had a profound influence on eastern music throughout the world. So I don't really mind - in both cases, a new article called "Pro-Pakistan sentiment" awaits to be created, either by this being moved to that title or a fresh start. Mar4d (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As if I don't miss too many Pakistani things already you mention Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan! I still urge removing the article to clean this made-up-in-en.wiki word out. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as this fails WP:GNG and is WP:NEO and WP:NOR. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Facilitation board (economics)

Facilitation board (economics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Facilitation board (economics)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

non-notable hypothetical institution

• Comment The subject matter appears not to meet WP:GNG - it's a hypothetical type of organisation conceived by a couple of marginally notable academics and gets a passing reference in a couple of secondary source books. Subject matter overlaps with Participatory Economics article and contains very few references.

A search for "facilitation board" returns a lot of false positives as it's a fairly generic term in economic organisation like "steering committee". If further evidence can be found to justify the article's continued existence I'd suggest moving to "Facilitation Board (participatory economics)" or the term the academics used which is "Iteration Facilitation Board"Dtellett (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Head-Roc

Head-Roc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Head-Roc" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROMOTION. PROD was removed and a huge amount of additional unsourced material was added. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - an editor has commented that they will be adding sources for the additional info. I'll come back in a few days and cast my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the newly added material was copied from http://www.beatmp3.net/artist/head-roc.html so I've removed it. This article has a history of copyvios from WP:SPAs. Pburka (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)