From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion today)

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: WP:DELT

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

1 Speedy deletion candidates
2 Articles
3 Files
- 3.1 Possibly unfree files
  - 3.1.1 February 9
- 3.2 Files for deletion
  - 3.2.1 February 9
4 Categories
- 4.1 February 9
5 Redirects
- 5.1 February 9
  - 5.1.1 AMAA
6 Templates
- 6.1 February 9
  - 6.1.1 Template:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log
  - 6.1.2 Template:Inadequate lead
7 Stub types
8 Miscellany (WikiProjects, user pages, etc.)
9 Deletion review
- 9.1 9 February 2012
  - 9.1.1 Martin Musatov

[edit] Speedy deletion candidates

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

[edit] Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday February 7 (Tue) February 6 (Mon) February 5 (Sun) More...

< 8 February	10 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

[edit] Catherine Balavage

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

The subject does not meet the criteria for notability of living persons. It was also deleted at a previous AFD.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note, primary author Kittenkat12 (talk · contribs) may have a COI considering the subject.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie Nathan

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

This was prodded twice by two different individuals. I am inclined to agree with their prods that the subject does not meet our standards of notability. —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Shutts & Bowen

(Find sources: "Shutts & Bowen" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This particular article is about a single lawfirm that in my opinion does not meet the minimum standards for notability on this project. It mentions people that are apparently connected to the firm, but there's no other substance to the page that really shows it is notable. —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Bloom

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

This person's only possible claim to notability is being president of a university, but New Jersey Institute of Technology is not what you would describe as a "major academic institution", which is one of the criteria (number 6) outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He seems to have done nothing of not outside of being appointed to this post. Source - bio at NJIT. Biker Biker (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: I was the first to arrive at this article and I had noticed a copy/paste biography written for the article (which required a blanking of most of the content in this article). I read his credentials and he has accomplished quite a bit prior to the appointment to the post. Honestly, I would hold off on deleting the article until the copyright issue is resolved.--Ctoshw (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gersh Kuntzman

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

Reason Gizmojtb7 (talk) 01:21, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Procedural keep No reason given for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I've left a message on the nominator's talk page asking for a deletion rationale. I've got no objections to anyone closing this as a speedy keep though, as the nominator hasn't made any other edits apart from this AfD. I'll close it early myself if I don't a response from them. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Outi Alanne

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage -- both under her real and assumed names. Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep Even without looking up any sources I can vividly remember her book Neiti N:n tarina causing a widely-reported sensation back when it was published. Probably quite unique material in the fennophone world, which makes her quite notable. --hydrox (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We need, however, to meet wp:v and our notability guidelines to keep it; not base !votes on OR. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it voting if I refer to reliable sources? --hydrox (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We !vote at AfDs, such as !voting keep or delete. But we can't base our !votes on what we "know" to be true, but is not reflected in verifiable RS sources. Here, we are lacking the multiple verifiable and substantial RS sources that we need.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, such sources do probably exist but given that almost a decade has passed since the publication of her autobiography those sources seem to have largely vanished from the indexed Internet. --hydrox (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that a !vote based on "sources probably exit" comports with our core policy of wp:v, or is consistent with what is required to keep an article under our notability policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 9 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?} 11:12, 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, B music ian 08:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral I'd expect the Finnish National Archive to have something if this was considered notable in Finland - but they don't. No news sources, archived or otherwise, that I can find. However, the book Neiti N:n tarina was published by WSOY, a fairly major publishing house; I'd be surprised if there aren't at least some sources available in Finnish or Saami. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's something that looks vaguely reliablehere, but I can't read it (and Google translate isn't much help; I guess Finnish doesn't machine-translate very well). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Pragyaa 2012

(Find sources: "Pragyaa 2012" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Delete: This article is about a college festival. Fine it is claimed to be hosted on "national level" but is not notable enough to have its own article. Please delete. Thanks AKS 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 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, B music ian 08:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Code Lyoko characters

(Find sources: "List of Code Lyoko characters" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article has no factual content whatsoever. Written entirely in-universe and has a citation to YouTube. The article is about a TV Show Code Lyoko, which has recently declined from its popular status. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as it's entirely in-universe and unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Can be fixed through regular editing. Notable TV shows are normally entitled to a character list article like this. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. So the question is is this a notable TV Show? ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A currently running cartoon with 5 seasons and a long run on Cartoon Network? Definitely notable. I still think the character list needs to be killed with fire, as cartoons are generally less likely to muster up enough out-of-universe information to warrant a character sheet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I also want to say that "regular editing" is something this article lacks. Also, If you look at it, the only factual information is information about the voice actor. Nothing else. Regular editing cannot fix this article because there is little to no known factual information. The only way would be to completely rewrite it with more information on hand, which is far from "regular editing." Character lists like this from notable tv shows are definitely considerable. But not all are notable. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 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, B music ian 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Element 9 (music)

(Find sources: "Element 9 (music)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. joe•roe^t•c 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep How is Element 9 a non-notable company? The company has been nominated for a Grammy award & released 2 albums through Fontana Distribution/Universal Music Group. What more does a record label have to do in order to be considered "notable?" If you apply the criteria used to determine if a musician is notable, Element 9 certainly meets the qualifications listed by:
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

--Element9hiphop (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 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, B music ian 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment If we applied the criteria used to determine if a musician is notable, Element 9 might meet the qualifications. However, Element 9 is not a musician. It is a corporation whose products include notable musicians. This should definitely be taken into consideration when assessing notability, but does not by itself qualify the company as notable. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] University of Dreams

(Find sources: "University of Dreams" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Filing AFD on behalf of new editor who didn't do it properly. Rationale was "Organization not significant, article is written as advertisement for organization Notice the "we", aka "outside contributions"." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep There is certainly enough reliable secondary sourcing here for notability. If editors think it reads as advertisement, they should do some editing work to correct that fault. --MLKLewis (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Being mentioned isn't really notable, they are mentioned indeed but so were other companies that are not on Wikipedia as well. There aren't any significant articles that specifically talk about University of Dreams they mention it and that's it. Boobymonster (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, the article was created by a user Sbergner2001, Scott Bergner is the media contact at University of Dreams, the article was created as an ad to the company:

http://www.summerinternships.com/about-us/media.php Boobymonster (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep AfD is not cleanup. The secondary sources show notability. A412 (Talk * C) 00:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Done fixing it up for WP:NPOV. Looks notable, if just barely, because of the media coverage. A412 (Talk * C) 05:50, 9 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, B music ian 08:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Invisible World

(Find sources: "Map of the Invisible World" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The page lacks any references and very little information about the book is given. The notability of the book is in question. Ctoshw (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. In this case there were plenty of sources out there, they just needed to be added. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's always a good idea to do a brief search to see if there's anything you can add to the article before nominating it for AfD. Most of the time brief stubs will probably not have anything out there and should be nominated, but occasionally you'll have things like this book that will surprise you with the amount of sources you'll find. No harm done, though and the nom did give the entry some much needed love, so it's all for the good in the long run.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Keep Substantial review coverage, per the sources now in the article (nice work, Tokyogirl79!). Easily passes WP:NBOOK as a result. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Special K Software

(Find sources: "Special K Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I don't see any notability. Prod was contested in 2010 without explanation [1], and the concern is still unaddressed. None of the "citations" (scare quotes because 3 of the 4 failed verification) mention Special K anywhere on the page. Kilopi (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Pyne

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

I'm not really seeing how being the mayor of Cairns is sufficient for notability. Long-unreferenced BLP as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School

(Find sources: "User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor 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 that reflects notability, though it contains run-of-the-mill 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) 06:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this should more properly be an MfD -- if an admin could move it, that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's meant to be over at MfD, would you like to point to the parts of WP:USERPAGES with which this page has issues? If this was your first error, amongst your ~160 school article nominations in the last couple of months (out of the ~200 total for all editors), then maybe it'd be OK, but it isn't (do you remember Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School, which you thought wasn't a school region, despite it saying so in the lead?). Just withdraw this nomination. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this is the appropriate part of the userspace guideline. ElKevbo (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF? It's in someone's userspace. This campaign is insane. Are we now seriously suggesting that notability has to be established in drafts? And that the response if they don't is to merge/redirect them? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems difficult to argue that this is a draft of an article-to-be when it hasn't been touched in over three years. ElKevbo (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a time limit, who knows when the editor might get back to it (and who cares, it's the editor's perogative to get back to it when s/he wants to)? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In theory your argument has some validity. But in practice it stretches belief when applied to an article that's gone untouched since November of 2008 and was only worked on by a single purpose editor whose last edits were the November 2008 edits to this article. ElKevbo (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My point remains that no one should care. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment But, you have to admit, a Google search for "User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School" doesn't turn up very much. Still, targeting a draft in user space seems like a violation of WP:GOODSPORTSMANSHIP, don't you think?--Hjal (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close Wrong venue for this, should be at MfD if anywhere. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep and speedy close As the bright red warning message says, "This template is being used in the wrong namespace." (To prevent further outbreaks, I've commented out the mainspace category and stub template from this user page.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Miller Kandle

(Find sources: "Matt Miller Kandle" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not a notable individual. This is no Abraham Zapruder here. This fits under WP:BLP1E. [2] – Muboshgu (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Babe Ruth's called shot. The cited source might make a good source or EL for that article, as would this New York Times article (not currently cited in either article) that discusses Kandle and another fan who was at the game. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Solar energy use in rural Africa

(Find sources: "Solar energy use in rural Africa" – news · books · scholar · free images)

WP:NOTESSAY NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - This article has problems, but it's pretty clearly encyclopedic. There was a huge article in National Geographic in the last year on solar purification of drinking water in Africa, for example. Rather than hand grenading this article and this editor, this is a Keep It and Fix It deal here. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - And a big fat trout to the nominator's forehead for proposing this piece for deletion SIX MINUTES after creation!!! Carrite (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - And then I put that down and flatten the nominator with a 25 pound salmon since this was a new editor being shat upon. DON'T BITE THE NOOBS!!! This strikes me as damned near close to sanctionable in its flagrancy... Carrite (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Long message left for the content creator. Hard tweaking of this piece anticipated in coming days. An ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD flag would be up if that were still an option, helping hands of experienced editors are needed here... Carrite (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There is actually a pretty good standing piece on Solar water disinfection, I note. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Hmmmm, I was figuring a 3-for-1 split of the piece would solve the essay issue, but there is also a very good standing piece on Solar cooker, so this is starting to look like a fork. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The one I'm not finding is Solar drip irrigation. Anybody? Carrite (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a decent article on Drip irrigation, you could smerge the content there. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Fun Size

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

No references, violates WP:CRYSTAL, and barely any context. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep.~~ The movie's IMDB listing notes that the film is in post-production, which is well within acceptability per WP:NFF. In addition, a simple Google search for "Fun Size" yielded numerous sources which can substantiate information in the article. Remember that a lack of content is not grounds for deletion. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing my vote to delete. The admittedly only cursory look for sources I discovered focus more on the director and Paramount's "betting" on his films than "Fun Size" itself. Given that this movie only receives a passing mention in all of the sources I found, it at present fails the "significant coverage" and/or "presumed" sections of the WP:GNG. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and the lack of sources. Films get articles if/when they become notable, not before. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete', Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Come back when the film has been released. JIP | Talk 06:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Abramson

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

No indication of satisfying WP:GNG. Most of the references provided appear to be from primary sources, blogs, etc., and the possible WP:RS all appear to be local coverage that doesn't show how WP:CREATIVE is met. Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Hall Limited

(Find sources: "Victoria Hall Limited" – news · books · scholar · free images)

looks remarlably like corporate advertising; few independent sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Advertisement for a company that provides student accommodation. References are to internal sites, non-notable trade awards, and university pages that note it as a potential provider of student housing. No showing that this business has made history in any way. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Music to Raise the Dead

(Find sources: "Music to Raise the Dead" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only "improvement" was a single encyclopedia listing. First AFD was open for 4 weeks with no consensus; second was closed as keep due to one reliable source. One reliable source is not enough; we all know you need two or more. And I found jack shit on these guys. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we going through this again? How many times do we want to keep listing the same article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How many reliable source would you like? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Final query: one WP:RS isn't enough? WP:NALBUMS states that it needs "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" and WP:GNG "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So is the issue two sources? Will that engender a fourth deletion nomination because "two reliable sources are not enough". I seriously feel that this is not about Wikipedia but about WP:AXE which is why I want everything laid-out clearly before I continue to do research. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How about you find me something with a little more meat on it? This article has been 100% static except for the addition of one minor listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How many albums released forty years ago have ongoing edits? Of course it's static. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete definitely a notable band, but as far as I can tell this is more or less a demo tape--the article goes out of its way to tell us it was recorded in a basement and isn't considered their actual debut. Demo tapes (and similar) aren't generally given articles even when they're by very notable bands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

...or when they have significant coverage by reliable independent sources, like this article has now. Bow down to my awesome Google-fu. Diego (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Resurrection Band. I weighed in on the previous AfD, and after another search here three months later, my reasons for redirecting are basically the same. (1) "Music to Raise the Dead" serves as the (sub)title of multiple recordings by the band. (2) Reliable sources also mention it as the band's slogan. Due to these factors, I believe "Music to Raise the Dead" to be a reasonable search term, and the band's main article makes sense as a target page. It's difficult to justify a 'keep' because I can find only trivial mentions of the original cassette here and here using Google Books, Google News and NewsLibrary. Now, it's certainly possible that coverage exists somewhere else offline - this is a pretty obscure recording from almost 40 years ago. Based on what I'm seeing in the available online sources, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge per WP:PRESERVE and redirect to Music to Raise the Dead 1972–1998, the boxed set reedition, which has reliable sources (the one at The fish is by Russ Breimeier, who is a critic listed in Rotten Tomatoes).
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SNOWFLAKE. Diego (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Resurrection Band(biography): "After arriving in Chicago, the band recorded two independent cassettes that were given away after their concerts, which were performed anywhere Resurrection Band was allowed to play, from schools to prisons to street corners. The first cassette, Music to Raise the Dead, featured hard rock, while All Your Life comprised only their acoustic numbers, which was a reflection of the folk-oriented sets they would play at more conservative venues such as nursing homes and churches, the latter of which were deeply skeptical of Christian rock, especially the borderline heavy metal that Resurrection Band specialized in." Per the arguments in WP:SNOWFLAKE, this is enough analysis by professional critics to merit keeping the content, either here or merged into another article. Diego (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That biography is a mirror, no? Gongshow ^Talk 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I'm the primary editor of the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay). Diego (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And here we have an interview to the artists which again gives context to the single: "And I don't know of anybody else who played rock that sounded like rock, so a lot of people wanted tapes and we got a lot of letters. People kept on pestering us and said, look, whatta we gotta do? Come out and record the concerts? That's the only way we can get tapes of the band.' We talked to a guy in the area here in Chicago who had a little 4-track Teac machine. We went into his little basement studio and we recorded an acoustic set, which we had maintained for a number of years. So that was the 'All Your Life' tape. And then 'Music To Raise The Dead' which was just the rock set. That was really the thing that we were about. We released both. We went in and probably over a period of three or four days recorded both little cassette tapes. I don't even remember how many we pressed up of each, but we sold out in just a few months. There were so many things going on in terms of the community and the schedule at the time of the band's travels and everything else, we never pressed any more. And then we never did any other professional recording that would be released as such until 'Awaiting Your Reply', which was done in 78." Diego (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This one looks okay - nice find. Gongshow ^Talk 20:34, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There's only 2 possible outcomes for this AfD. The first is that it will be kept. The second is that it'll be redirected to the band's page, which is what happens with albums that aren't sufficiently notable on their own. User:TenPoundHammer knows policy surrounding music, bands and albums, and shouldn't be wasting time with this kind of nomination when he could be adding to his undoubtedly high-quality content creation. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (3rd nomination)

(Find sources: "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

[edit] Sam and Diane

(Find sources: "Sam and Diane" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Overcoverage of a topic that is already sufficiently covered in the parent article on the show. Detailed analysis in this article consists of synthesis of the references provided. RadioFan (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - As a creator of this article, I oppose to your nomination as "overcoverage." Sam and Diane are best known as a couple more than you know. Have you seen Cheers and independent and third-party sources? Receptions say that Sam and Diane are either the best or the worst couple, and they say that Sam and Diane predominated the show. Yes, they are not soap opera couple, such as Luke and Laura, but this article is not erraneous as other articles of soap opera entities, such as Tom Cudahy (before it became deleted into a redirect) and David Wicks. Look at Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane; what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Basically, they are well-covered in sources I provided and meets notability guidelines, including WP:GNG, and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability (policy). ~~--George Ho (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)~~ I have been using WP:MOSTV and references to make this article balance fiction and fact. How can this article not meet these policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete about as obvious a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT as you'll ever see, made doubly pointless since both characters already have articles, which cover much of the same material. Kill it now before it catches on among fandom editors and we get articles for every pair of characters who ever made goo-goo eyes at each other in any work of fiction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What? WP:NOT#PLOT explains that an article should not consist of only summary. How can this article consist of only plot? There is reception and casting, unless it is to you OR originally researched and meaningless. Yes, they have their own articles, but their own articles treat them as mere characters on their own, while this article treats them as a couple. Is there something wrong with this article? How can this article not meet encyclopedia standards? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry, but I think the article concept is fundamentally flawed and patently unsuitable for a general-interest encyclopedia. I don't think any amount of editing or reworking could fix that. This is material better suited to a fan site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Fan site? My work is a "fansite"? Is my work badly-written? Does it violate WP:NPOV? I still don't understand how this topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sometimes, I don't like fansites, but I'm good at it, do I? Is "Sam and Diane" story a summary-only description of work? It meets WP:N, but does it also violate WP:NOT and anything else? --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    - (edit conflict) Do Casting and Reception violate WP:OR as a synthesis of references? --George Ho (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    - (edit conflict) I have created a Project proposal that should cover fictional couples on any medium, such as soap opera couples (i.e. "Luke and Laura", Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick, Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio, EJ and Sami, and "Lois and Clark": Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples. --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep- It's hard to argue with the "overcoverage" point. However, "we don't need it" doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason to delete a referenced, notable article. With all of the deletions George Ho has been proposing, I was extremely pleased to see him actually create something. The article certainly needs work; I've done a bit of copy-editing, and would be happy to continue helping with it. Notabitily seems marginal, but I think it squeaks by. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment- I'd also like to note that "kill it now before it catches on among fandom editors..." is not a valid reason to delete. Any "fandom" articles created can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and deleted if necessary. Deleting an article as a preventitive measure against similar articles is generally not done. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Perumbadage Shantha Saliya Ramya Udayadeera

(Find sources: "Perumbadage Shantha Saliya Ramya Udayadeera" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not notable, the person just served in the army and was not an athlete but an official. An athletics official who served in the military does not warrant notability. It doesn't help that the article is an orphan as well. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Very sad, but I think the subject would be better served by improving the 2008 Weliveriya bombing article. No evidence of independent notablility. Tigerboy1966 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete No independent notable fails WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional music groups

(Find sources: "List of fictional music groups" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Deprodded with "useful list". This list is in-universe, unsourced, indiscriminate and of dubious out-of-universe relevance. Far too many works have fictional music groups — is it really relevant that we need to know the name of the fictional group who sang "Squirrels in My Pants" on an episode of Phineas and Ferb? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Most are non-notable. The problem is that the ones that are notable seem to not be fictional. I think a list of notable fiction about music would be more useful than a list of fictional acts. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep As with many lists of fictional things, the issue is not the validity of the article, but the writing style and inclusion criteria. Entries should feature prominently in notable fiction, such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and the band in Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille. Ma^t_chups 03:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete an article on the treatment of bands and the music industry in fiction would probably be great. This, though, is patently trivial and unlikely to ever be referenced with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete. Normally, a list of fictional X would be of use, but this is just an indiscriminate listing of every possible mention of a music group in fiction with no added information, and no sources. JIP | Talk 06:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Nom, like several other previous ones by this particular nominator, contains several dubious statements: "In universe" is pretty much inapplicable to a one-phrase summary of each band. "Unsourced" can easily be fixed by using the references at the target article, which the nominator has not done. "Indiscriminate" is patently false: this is a list of fictional bands, where the intersection is logical. Other arguments advanced are not relevant, such as the notability of individual elements. These arguments have been rejected time and time again, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (4th nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional computers. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Aly Saleh

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

A computer software engineer. Claims he is a founder of the "Egyptian Software Engineers Syndicate" and the "Egyptian Software Engineers Association". The Syndicate is "under establishment" and can find nothing but a blog. The Association website came on-line the past few weeks (it was a blog a few weeks ago). The Association is a real entity, with the chairman, a university professor, nominated for minister of higher education and scientific research of Egypt.

The problem is I can find no reliable information about Saleh. I can find no reliable information that connects Saleh to the Association. He received his B.S. in 2004 and M.S. in 2009 and currently works for Oracle. He received his degree from the same University where the chairman of the Association taught. The article was PRODed and was contested by the Secretary of the Association. Bgwhite (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete No WP:RS in article. Nothing apparent in google. There may be references in Arabic; if these are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page and I'll reassess. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 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, v/r - T P 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Self-Destruct Button

(Find sources: "The Self-Destruct Button" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 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 » 00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and expand, especially expanding the plot section . The article (as for the other articles in the series) meets NOT PLOT: there are about three times as many words of unduplicated information about production elements as about the plot. What the plot section needs is expansion: various patients are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. That's using a TEASER, rather than fully encyclopedic writing; it's too much like a TV guide. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it more difficult to deal with the many ones that do urgently need deletion . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect or delete. Article has existed for five years and has been tagged for apparently lacking notability for one year, but it still doesn't have any sources. This seems sufficient proof that either it is non-notable, or no-one wants to work on it to pass WP:SPINOUT. The episode list can take care of the plot and relevant production data just fine; anything else seems to be WP:PLOT, WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:25, 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, v/r - T P 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Save Me (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Save Me (Grey's Anatomy)

(Find sources: "Save Me (Grey's Anatomy)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 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 » 00:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and expand. The article (as with the other articles in the series) meets NOT PLOT: By my count, there are 162 words of unduplicated information about production elements, and only 50 about the plot. What the plot section needs is expansion: various patients are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. That's using a TEASER, rather than fully encyclopedic writing, it's too much in the manner of a TV guide. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is of course the episode itself, as it ought to be. The source for the production data does need to be stated. That's two refs. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. And it's odd to talk about the mass production of episodes: naturally it;s more efficient to do a group of them at once, because the sources will facilitate it. You might as well complain that our articles on settlements or football teams are stereotyped in format. It would be much worse to cover each in an idiosyncratic manner.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it harder to deal with the ones that do need deletion . I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it harder to deal with the ones that do need deletion . Disruption is a strong word, and I stand by it, though I will assume the nominator did not realize the effect of diverting effort from the needed deletions--I could have considered and deleted half a dozen speedies found in New Page Patrol in the time it took to write this one opinion. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

These have been unsourced for over a year. If an article that needs sourcing is required, it can then be made (at that time). And I disagree that it requires hours to source. If it takes that long, it probably is not notable. If every episode was sourcable, does that make the episode notable? Although Grey's Anatomy is a great show, I see no notability come from every episode.

WP:DELETION states that articles are kept on the basis of notability, as such, these nominations were done on that basis. See WP:NOTABILITY.

The criterion is not sourcability: as by precedent many articles with many references have been deleted.

You are free to contribute whatever you wish. If you somehow think I have wasted your time, you do not need to give any more time and effort than ~~they~~you wish.Curb Chain (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First, just for clarity, I started with this trio of AfDs , and then started working on the others from the top of the list. But if you decide to respond to me further, you will find that , unlike you, I wrote something different foreach article, after checking its actual contents.

You have wasted my time indeed in one sense, but it will not but have really been wasted if I can have an effect on this manner of listing deletions. Basically I am not giving the attention to you, but to the articles you nominated for deletion. To the extent I am giving any attention to you, it's because of the way you have abused the process. As some of the many discussions above show, you've apparently written the nominations without reading the articles, under the impression they would be identical. I care about getting the right articles deleted, which implies that I care about getting the right ones kept also. (I may have originally intended to work here to save articles, but I find I'm deleting several times more than I even try to rescue--but the right ones, the ones that need to be deleted. Detailed coverage of fiction does not need to be deleted, no matter the intrinsic worth of the fiction.) Whether what you specifically have been doing here needs to be discussed further, I leave to others.

the criterion is sourceable, and there are hundreds of thousands of AfDs to prove it. The relevant policy is WP:V--we must be able to find sources for our material, but we do not delete an article for not having them at the moment. In fact, I could add two sources immediately to every article: the relevant DVD for the plot, as for fictional works the primary source is considered the best source for a plain statement about the plot, and the DVD jacket, an acceptable source for production information. The distinction is being able to be sourced, not currently sourced at the moment. As I have mentioned a few times above, it takes about 100 times more effort to actually do this, than to list for deletion; when you list several dozen similar articles for deletion at once, you make proper sourcing during the AfD nearly impossible. I'm not saying that was necessarily your intention, but it is the effect of what you have done.

That articles with many references are deleted shows that there are other things necessary for keeping an article as well as pure number of sources: for one thing, the sources must offer significant coverage about the material. There are other reasons for deletion as well, such as duplication, unrewritable promotionalism, BLP considerations, and the various special notability guidelines, and a good deal else.

And, as for your first point, there is NO DEADLINE for improving articles. As you will find if you try to press it, that's the consensus, & it's been the cause for rejecting many nominations. We're not the encyclopedia of only those things that can be done quickly. I now leave this issue to other editors, at least for the time being. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you completely ignoring WP:N? I otherwise I have not seen any argument for retention.Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 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, v/r - T P 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy)

(Find sources: "If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 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 » 00:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow: That other episode AfD you referenced got only one vote in two weeks! Do we have articles on all GA episodes, on just some, or almost none?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it looks like a slew of episodes have been nominated for deletion, please reference that especially if the nominations are identical.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And the article creator should be notified of these AfDs, correct?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not necessary. It is actually best practice to separate nominations because each article just might have a different threshold of notability.Curb Chain (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"might have"? If you don't know, this is very problematic--why would you destroy content with such reckless abandon? Better to have a global discussion first. Second, its good practice to notify the article creator, whether its required or not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am confused: the articles have been nominated separately because each article may have different reasons to be deleted. That is the purpose of not lumping a debate discussion together.Curb Chain (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and expand. The article (as with the other articles in the series) meets NOT PLOT: there are about three times as many words of unduplicated information about production elements as about the plot. What the plot section needs is expansion: various patients are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. That's using a TEASER, rather than fully encyclopedic writing; it's too much in the manner of a TV guide. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is of course the episode itself, as it ought to be. The source for the production data does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it harder to deal with the ones that do need deletion . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect or delete. Article has existed for five years and has been tagged for apparently lacking notability for one year, but it still doesn't have any sources. This seems sufficient proof that either it is non-notable, or no-one wants to work on it to pass WP:SPINOUT. The episode list can take care of the plot and relevant production data just fine; anything else seems to be WP:PLOT, WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 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, v/r - T P 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] SC Bor

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

Seems to be a small sports arena in a small town for a local team. Don't see how this can pass WP:GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: What does SC stand for? I wouldn't automatically assume its not notable, we just want to make sure we search on the right terms before concluding its not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment It's worth noting that an arena of the same size in an English-speaking country would probably be considered notable; for example, consider the arenas at Template:USHL Arenas, which are about the same size. Granted, this article has no references and I can't find any, but since any references are probably in Serbian they may be hard to find. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Comment Are there sources to meet WP:GNG? If not much else is found on this subject, it would be more suitable to merge and redirect to Bor, Serbia.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. SC stands for "Sportski centar" (Sport center), so the article should be moved to Sport Center Bor. Judging on Google, they (used to) have a detailed web page, http://www.sportskicentarbor.com, however This domain name expired on 01/21/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion. There are plenty of references (or better, mentions), all in Serbian. [3], [4], [5], [6], though most of them are local. Based on size and local importance, I suppose it is just barely notable to pass GNG. No such user (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep per No such user. While I'm just about on the fence with this, I'm going to AGF it based on the mentions in those sources. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Delete per my comment below. The original creator made a slew of questionably-notable basketball arenas with little to no sources, and this one in particular doesn't exactly scream notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - For what it's worth, the user who created this AfD in question also created Sports Hall Smederevo, SRC Kraljevica, SRC Dubočica and Sc slana bara (before it was redirected). Now I'm starting to hear kittens meowing. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Bor, Serbia Source #1 (mentioned above by No such user) is not WP:INDEPENDENT, produced by the arena. Source #2 is a press release from the arena. Source #3 has an excerpt with a trivial mention of the arena, with a dead link to the supposed full article. Source #4 is more about the airport than the arena, and is not significant coverage. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The meowing is loud on my side as well. Merge and redirect to the article on the city in the interest of WP:PRESERVE. Otherwise, delete.—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Source #1 is by local Radio television Zaječar, about financial troubles of the center, and it was only uploaded to Vimeo by the arena. Still, taken together, the level of coverage is as could be expected for an arena of a mid-size town; probably much more exist in archives of paper editions of local media. I don't, however, have an issue with merging this poor kitten somewhere, as it's rather unlikely that a good soul will expand it one day to a reasonable level of detail. Even the Bor, Serbia article is in rather poor condition. No such user (talk) 13:38, 3 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, v/r - T P 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mind The Art Entertainment

(Find sources: "Mind The Art Entertainment" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Non-notable arts organization. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ORG, and pretty clearly self-promotional spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Euphrates

(Find sources: "Battle of the Euphrates" – news · books · scholar · free images)

The subject of this article appears to be non-notable – i.e., there is no indication that it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources – which is not surprising in light of the fact that it is about one of the thousands of IED attack on U.S. forces that took place during the Iraq War.

I conducted multiple searches for online sources but found not one mention of this 'battle'. I also could not locate the source indicated in the article (no ISBN, no page number), though there are two books titled War Heroes: Voices from Iraq (ISBN 978-0545090261) and Battle Heroes: Voices from Afghanistan (ISBN 978-0545206426). The page title itself may be a valid redirect to an article about one of several battles of the Euphrates throughout history (which may or may not notable), but a proper target article does not exist yet:

"battle of the Euphrates" is used here to refer to a 12th-century battle and here to a 15th-century battle.
"battle of the Euphrates Valley" is used here and here to refer to an engagement during the Gulf War, and this source refers to a "Battle of the Euphrates";
"Battle of the Euphrates River" is used here to refer to the years-long campaign to wrest the Euphrates River from insurgent control.

I am also nominating Battle of Al-Fallujah, March 2004, which is about another IED attack and suffers from virtually the same shortcomings. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I found news refs for the Battle of the Euphrates Valley in Operation Desert Storm, but nothing on this engagement. I would have thought a battle would have to involve more troops than this, but there is no hard and fast definition. Tigerboy1966 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] TC CONTROL

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

WP:NOTABILITY - an article about an app that gets zero relevant gnews hits. Also, it's a how-to article, which is on the list of things that Wikipedia is not for. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL - the article looks just like a manual.. The only other site I found on Google was the official support page http://yourworks.net/. Also can't find any user or site reviews of the iphone app. App is less then a month old (Release date: Jan 24th, 2012 per itunes) and is not WP:N Cimorcus talk 02:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete highly unencyclopedic sales brochure / user manual type content. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, article about an apparently non-notable topic that lacks any encyclopedic content. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as a how to manual or a sales brochure, or a little of both. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Long how-to for an incomprehensible app, and pictues aren't tagged correctly as using the copyrighted iOS. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a manual or a technical guide. JIP | Talk 06:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Poland Digital Songs

(Find sources: "Poland Digital Songs" – news · books · scholar · free images)

(all issue also relevant to subarticles: List of Poland Digital Songs number-one hits of 2011, List of Poland Digital Songs number-one hits of 2012). No assertion of notability, primary sources, seems rather spamish. I would suggest that editors more knowledgeable about music review the entire Template:Billboard. It seems that most Billboard charts have articles, all suffering from similar issues - poorly referenced, no claim of notability, stubbish and spamish. What makes them notable? If they are not, should they be deleted or merged into the Billboard charts? This discussion may need to be restarted as a multi-nomination after some discussion, targeting all the other charts. Creator of most of those articles is Freshcharts (talk · contribs), who keeps removing notability and other tags, and deprodding them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The individual Billboard charts are fine as standalone articles, since merging them would create far too large of an article. One of the criteria for WP:BAND is "has a charted single or album", so it makes sense to have articles on the major charts. Number ones on an individual chart are an appropriate topic for a list as well, since the criterion for inclusion is merely "did this song go to number one?". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per TPH. Poland has a decent-sized music industry, so we can and should cover the major charts. Nominator's stated intention to go after Billboard charts en masse sounds like, frankly, a bad idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I disagree that every chart in Billboard is notable just because Billboard is notable. That's a bit WP:INHERIT. While I can agree that it makes sense to have articles on the major charts, there is nothing in this article, nor do I believe, that this is a major chart. I can be proven wrong with some reliable third party sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Files

[edit] Possibly unfree files

[edit] February 9

[edit] File:Warmia.PNG

File:Warmia.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prussian tribes map.png. Note that this only applies to the November 2005 revision of the image. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:World-press-2008.jpg

File:World-press-2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Deleted as a derivative work on Commons and should probably also be deleted here. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:World-press-2008.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Normal 0005.jpg

File:Normal 0005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The description suggests that this is a copyvio. Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Drinkers Are Warned Again By Coach Yost.jpg

File:Drinkers Are Warned Again By Coach Yost.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

I don't think that this is ineligible for copyright. Since it is from 1933, it might be out of copyright for some other reason, though. Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Slavechains.gif

File:Slavechains.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

The photo looks recent (for example because it is in colour) so the pre-1923 statement might be wrong. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg

File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Per Commons:COM:FOP#United States. It is placed at Kensico Cemetery which opened after 1977 so this item was likely made after 1977. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Shahrdari Bushehr.gif

File:Shahrdari Bushehr.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

City's logo is not likely to be owned by the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jalale Ale Ahmad.jpg

File:Jalale Ale Ahmad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Source conflicts with license claim. Uploader has a history of grabbing image from Panoramio. Eeekster (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Azadegan.jpg

File:Azadegan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Source conflicts with license claim. Eeekster (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Elailineendunge.jpg

File:Elailineendunge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

CD cover with no evidence the uploader owns the rights. Eeekster (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:MasterLiHongzhiInterview1993.jpg

File:MasterLiHongzhiInterview1993.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Source clearly contains a different image, may be a mistake? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:WuhanLecLiHongzhi.jpg

File:WuhanLecLiHongzhi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence that the image is licensed under GFDL. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Files for deletion

[edit] February 9

[edit] File:Wang Shizhen.jpg

There are reservations on the deletion here, so it may be appropriate to go through a standard deletion request. After the reservations were formulated, commons:User:Sgsg listed a Shanghai publication from 1925. As far as I can see, this entered the public domain in China in 1976 (i.e. after 50 years). It is unlikely that this would have been published with a copyright notice and even more unlikely that the US copyright would have been renewed, so I think that this is out of copyright in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Madonna-dont-tell-me-video-cap-0061.jpg

This image fails to comply with WP:NFCC criterion 3b on low resolutions and it is impossible to make it comply with that criterion because various IP addresses keep removing {{fair use reduce}} tags. I also think that the article using this image already has too many non-free images, so it probably also fails other WP:NFCC criteria. Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Donnelly by Gray.jpg

Orphaned to higher quality File:Donal Donnelly 2 .jpg :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal3.jpg

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No forseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal.jpg

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No foreseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal1.jpg

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No foreseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal2.png

Article this was in was put up for deletion A7. No foreseeable use. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:KenMcKenna3.jpg

Copyright violation 75.141.249.98 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:KenMcKenna4.jpg

Copyright violation

[edit] File:PPI protonation2.jpg

Contains several errors: Enzime instead of Enzyme, indexes used for labelling sub- instead of superscripted. In addition, orphaned (replaced by File:Proton pump inhibitors mechanism.svg) and {{Bad JPEG}}. Leyo 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

[edit] February 9

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:Stone churches in the United States

Rename Category:Stone churches in the United States to Category:Stone church buildings in the United States
Nominator's rationale The current name is ambiguous. With there being so many denominations of churches, someone might think this is a delineation of a denomination. It is also unclear at present what needs to be of stone, the new name emphasizes it is the building structure, as opposed to possibly some of the internal components of the church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old West Downs

Rename Category:Old West Downs to Category:People educated at West Downs School
Nominators rationale This would move the category from jargon to regular and clear English usage. This is especially useful here because based on the name, one would suppose it would be West Down School, and that is not the name. There is no clear link from the category name to the school name at present, but a rename would establish this link.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename per nominator to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year. The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but as the nominator correctly notes a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated.
The existing consensus on the obscurity of this term is demonstrated by the zero hits for "Old West Down" in a search of wikipedia; editors have rightly preferred the plain English usage in biographies, such as "educated at West Downs School, which as 24 hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old Stoics

Rename Category:Old Stoics to Category:People educated at Stowe School
Nominators rationale The current name is essentially a joke, and is hard to accept as a serious category name in an encyclopedia. Beyond this it is obscure and unclear. Stoics are followers of a specific philosphy, so capitalization would not clearly rule out that use of the term. An Old Soic could easily be a person who rejected the ideas of Stoicism at some point, at least if "old" is the common English term for someone who was formerly connected with or associated with a particulr place or thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename per nominator to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year. The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but as the nominator correctly notes a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated.
In this case the term "Old Stoic" clearly has a primary meaning completely unrelated to the school, so it is not just obscure jargon for the reader; it is highly misleading. Categories exist for the sole purpose of assisting navigation, and "Old Stoics" places an unnecessary hurdle in the path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States and place names of Yorkshire origin

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are built around shared characteristics of the name of a place, not about anything about the place itself.I could nominate all 34 sub-cats of the English origin case, but I really do not feel like doing that at the moment. It takes a long time, and I did that in the past only to have it voted down by people who really only focused on one very differently built category which has since been listified anyway, so I will start small instead of expending large amounts of energy in what might prove a futile effort to improve wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge both to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. These categories not only constitute overcategorization of unrelated subjects "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself", but they appear largely to be populated on the basis of original synthesis. It is obvious that populated places are being categorized by their names without regard to whether Hull, Georgia, for example, was named after Kingston upon Hull (in Yorkshire), someone named 'Hull' or something else.
I am suggesting a merge because, until all of these places-by-name categories are nominated, the contents should be moved into the parent category rather than removed from the category tree completely. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge both to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States, per Black Falcon, whose rationale is exemplary. (I am in favour of an eventual 'delete'.) Oculi (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge both to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States, per Black Falcon's well-reasoned rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy Award-winning albums

Propose renaming Category:Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album to Category:Grammy Award winners for Best Alternative Music Album

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following a outcome at CFD to rename Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to Category:Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year in December (see WP:CFD/2011 Dec 6), I think all the other similarly named categories should follow suit. The Grammy category for each is "Best Album" and its those winning albums that are being populated in these Wiki categories. The inclusion of "winners" specifies what goes into these categories vs. the generic Award name alone. The artists, producers, etc. that actually receive the award would still go in Category:Grammy Award winners as has been standard practice to avoid overcategorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

[edit] February 9

[edit] AMAA

AMAA → American Medical Association (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Deletion proposed, as it seems unnecessary and confusing. Unnecessary because the acronym doesn't expand to the target page's name, nor does the acronym or anything that it could plausibly stand for appear anywhere on the target page. Confusing because it gives undue prominence to this supposed meaning of the acronym over other meanings: I encountered this page when searching the web to find out what ‘AMAA’ means. The meaning I was searching for was harder to find because of Wikipedia's dominance in giving this meaning for it; that would be reasonable if this were indeed the most common meaning, but I can't find any evidence of that, and given it's so obscure as to not even appear on the target page it seems unlikely. Smylers (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

[edit] February 9

[edit] Template:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log

Single use template and fancruft. Wikipedia is not a newssite. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inadequate lead

Contested merge to {{lead too short}}. The reason we have length guidelines for lead sections is wholly because that is a good heuristic to ensure that the lead adequately covers the article's key points, and to dissuade people from the common problem of trying to make the lead as short as humanly possible. The author appears not to have read the discussion at template talk:lead too short regarding wording; the only reason that {{lead too short}} does not contain all the explanatory material in this template is because it makes the template wrap to three (or more) lines on normal desktop browsers, which is annoying long for a cleanup template. Recommend redirecting, and then the author can try to persuade people to expand the wording of {{lead too short}} rather than just forking it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There are cases where the lead section does not provide an accessible overview of the article, yet is NOT too short. This is why this template was created several years ago. It is useful and distinct from {{lead too short}}. It is used in hundreds of articles where the lead is inadequate, but not too short, by authors which appear to care about the distinction, and should not be deleted without serious consideration. Marokwitz (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, see the discussion at template talk:lead too short (which you appear never to have edited, before or after forking the template and deploying it). There is far too much overlap here to warrant two separate cleanup templates. The key point of the lead is not length, but coverage. A lead section which is several paragraphs long but still does not adequately summarise the topic probably needs rewritten. There was a reasonable consensus it should be merged somewhere at the previous TfD. It has only 5% of the transclusions of the other template, and I warrant that the majority of them would be better tagged with either {{lead too short}} or {{lead rewrite}} anyway. As for "serious consideration", it's difficult to see what that could mean other than a TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  
  The Lead rewrite template is very vague, and does not explain what is wrong with the lead. We don't want vague tags; What we need is clear tags that suggest what should be done to repair the problem. the situation of a lead which is long enough, but does not address the key points in the article according to the due weight principal, is a common one, and I see no harm in keeping a cleanup template for this situation. Marokwitz (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Even if it were used in only 1%, that still doesn't negate the main point for keeping them as separate template, which is that "inadequate" and short" are two completely different things. In addition, I urge User:Thumperward to refrain in the future from being overly bold and redirecting maintenance templates without prior discussion. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- They're not "completely different things". As noted on multiple occasions now, "inadequate" is what we care about, and "too short" is simply the heuristic which gets us there. Marokwitz apparently believed, erroneously, that {{lead too short}} only covers the latter and not the former, whereas it not only covers both but primarily addresses the former. The template should not have been forked in the first place, and it's well past time that fork was ended. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Stub types

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/February/9

[edit] Miscellany (WikiProjects, user pages, etc.)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#2012-02-09

[edit] Deletion review

[edit] 9 February 2012

[edit] Martin Musatov

There is zero proof I created this page so the idea of self-promotion is not applicable. Also, the removal process was spearheaded by people who for their own personal reasons dislike my activities in the realm of computer science, something completely different> 66.173.8.54 (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)`

See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Martin.musatov --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Endorse. The self-promotion may not be proven, but per the sockpuppet investigation it is probable. The fact that this review is sought by an IP claiming to be Musatov can only reinforce that case.
Even if the self-promotion aspect was set aside, the article would clearly have been deleted on notability grounds. As noted at AFD, the only reliable source which could be considered against WP:GNG is a brief article in Variety magazine, which namechecks Musatov once. The lead author Dan Myrick gets multiple mentions, but there is no way that article counts as "significant coverage" of Musatov. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment. Discussion on deleting Template:Lead too short. 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

Wikipedia:XfD today

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion candidates

[edit] Articles

[edit] Catherine Balavage

[edit] Debbie Nathan

[edit] Shutts & Bowen

[edit] Joel Bloom

[edit] Gersh Kuntzman

[edit] Outi Alanne

[edit] Pragyaa 2012

[edit] List of Code Lyoko characters

[edit] Element 9 (music)

[edit] University of Dreams

[edit] Map of the Invisible World

[edit] Special K Software

[edit] Tom Pyne

[edit] User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School

[edit] Matt Miller Kandle

[edit] Solar energy use in rural Africa

[edit] Fun Size

[edit] Lee Abramson

[edit] Victoria Hall Limited

[edit] Music to Raise the Dead

[edit] List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

[edit] Sam and Diane

[edit] Perumbadage Shantha Saliya Ramya Udayadeera

[edit] List of fictional music groups

[edit] Aly Saleh

[edit] The Self-Destruct Button

[edit] Save Me (Grey's Anatomy)

[edit] If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy)

[edit] SC Bor

[edit] Mind The Art Entertainment

[edit] Battle of the Euphrates

[edit] TC CONTROL

[edit] Poland Digital Songs

[edit] Files

[edit] Possibly unfree files

[edit] February 9

[edit] File:Warmia.PNG

[edit] File:World-press-2008.jpg

[edit] File:Normal 0005.jpg

[edit] File:Drinkers Are Warned Again By Coach Yost.jpg

[edit] File:Slavechains.gif

[edit] File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg

[edit] File:Shahrdari Bushehr.gif

[edit] File:Jalale Ale Ahmad.jpg

[edit] File:Azadegan.jpg

[edit] File:Elailineendunge.jpg

[edit] File:MasterLiHongzhiInterview1993.jpg

[edit] File:WuhanLecLiHongzhi.jpg

[edit] Files for deletion

[edit] February 9

[edit] File:Wang Shizhen.jpg

[edit] File:Madonna-dont-tell-me-video-cap-0061.jpg

[edit] File:Donnelly by Gray.jpg

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal3.jpg

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal.jpg

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal1.jpg

[edit] File:Junaid Iqbal2.png

[edit] File:KenMcKenna3.jpg

[edit] File:KenMcKenna4.jpg

[edit] File:PPI protonation2.jpg

[edit] Categories

[edit] February 9

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:Stone churches in the United States

[edit] Category:Old West Downs

[edit] Category:Old Stoics

[edit] Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States and place names of Yorkshire origin

[edit] Grammy Award-winning albums

[edit] Redirects

[edit] February 9

[edit] AMAA

[edit] Templates

[edit] February 9

[edit] Template:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log

[edit] Template:Inadequate lead

[edit] Stub types