Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Vanadus (talk | contribs)
2,388 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Judge Bernard}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Coy (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Coy (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Addeo}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Addeo}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 10:06, 22 January 2012

< 21 January 23 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. with no very clear consensus as soft deletion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Judge Bernard

Kent Judge Bernard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not had significant roles in at least two films. Fails WP:NACTOR. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete while apparent numbers favour keep, this is one case where arguments put forth for deletion are significantly more substantive. Gnangarra 04:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after 5 deleton two via AFD I salted the article it'll require a review of new sources at WP:DRV before recreation Gnangarra 04:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Coy

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

Sourcing is problematic, notability is questionable. This seems to be more of a marketing tool than a biographical account of somebody with encyclopedic relevance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources:
  • Peterman, Mindy. "Music Review: Chase Coy - Picturesque". Seattle pi. Retrieved 15 February 2011.
  • Maurer, Mark (May 28, 2010). "Chase Coy appearing at Maxwell's Tuesday". Nj.com. Retrieved January 07, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 11:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Fails #1 with only a single non-trivial reference (Seattle review) NJ.com ref is a trivial newspaper entertainment calendar entry. While this artist is signed to a major label, still does not meet #5 as only 1 album has been released on that major label, others were independently released. Possible G3 candidate as it was previously deleted through AFD, and admin would need to compare the versions to see if there has been significant improvement since then. RadioFan (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Sources provided establish only limited local notability. Google searches did not turn up anything more substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The sources I provided above are from major news outlets, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and NJ.com. This coverage is from opposite sides of the continent. How do these sources provide "only limited local notability?" The person has been recognized in major mass media publications in the United States. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle review starts out:
"At nineteen, Chase Coy shows a good deal of potential to one day become a top-notch singer-songwriter."
Which means that he is not yet notable enough to warrant his own article. Maybe some day, but not now, per WP:TOOSOON. Also, one sparrow does not a spring make. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP does not require that a singer should be a "top-notch singer"... otherwise we had less than a hundred of articles in that category. Cavarrone (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??? Only one source has been added since September, and that's a local newspaper supplement ("Hudson County Entertainment News"). I don't see anything in there that establishes notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above sources provided by Northamerica1000 and Goodvac. Clearly passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I'm not quite sure it is understood what qualifies as a reliable source. The article contains three references:
  • The Seattle Pi reference [1] originally comes from a blogger at Blogcritics, who will let basically anyone write for them [2]. In all likelihood, not a reliable source.
  • The "interview" with something called Indie Rock Reviews [3] is a prefabricated questionnaire. Also not a reliable source.
  • The NJ.com reference [4] is a trivial mention in a local entertainment news website in order to plug an upcoming show.
This is yet another article about one of roughly five quintillion rising up-and-coming music sensations. It has garbage posing as references. Make it go away, please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:BLP as WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources provided by users Northamerica1000 or Goodvac rise to the level which meets WP:IRS, though some shirt-tail onto RS as pointed out by Bongwarrior immediately above. Based on a reasonable search for sources, subject meets no section of WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:GNG. All coverage is either local or blog-derived. Page creator has some connection to the subject, according to his Google+ circle, so this is likely WP:PROMOTION. Closer should take into account keep !voter new User:Thundersport has been blocked for ignoring deletion consensus on a promotional page. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Addeo

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

not notable Genb2004 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand why an "independent" artist on a label that she owns is notable. Hummer190 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the local coverage found is insufficient to establish notability.Michig (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Turnbull

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

This subject is nowhere near notable enough.

  1. By chess strength, he is not even close to GM, the standard for having an article written about him. In fact, he never attained the IM title, and has no FIDE titles at all. His rating is in the 2300s, but that's merely National Master, not even Senior Master or FIDE Master (both well below IM) strength.
  2. Now, the second argument is that he's a cool human interest story. I don't see him as achieving much fame in this arena, either. I know a great deal of New England chess masters through friends, and most importantly, their award-winning publication "Chess Horizons". Even when they SPECIFICALLY covered street blitz players on Harvard Square, Murray Turnbull was rarely mentioned. When is the last time he had a game published or a feature in the national publication Chess Life? Did he ever get one? The only mention of him in "Chess Life", based on his Profile, is a "Yearbook" summary of past champions, where his name appears in 8 point font in a back page alongside a few hundred other names. (Virtually none of whom have their own pages on here, either)
  3. There are a great deal of street blitz players of master strength in San Francisco, New York, and Harvard Square. I can list a bunch of them if anyone cares. Do any of them have pages except Murray Turnbull? No.

I can go on and on if anyone seriously believes he meets any notability criteria. I don't believe he does, for the reasons cited above, as well as others. Delete ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • ReplySunCreator, can you elaborate on your links? Okay, Turnbull appeared in a brief Harvard Gazette snippet in 2001, a longer feature in the Harvard Crimson in 2004, as well as the personal webpage of a Harvard undergrad back in 2000. Unless you can provide reasons otherwise, I believe the third link can be safely ignored as irrelevant. As for the first two, are a couple of articles in small newspapers with limited, regional distribution really that big of a deal? (Even if they are associated with a very famous university) Look, I've seen big features in much larger, local newspapers about chessplayers who weren't even close to national master strength, sometimes even 1,000 Elo points below the level of Grandmaster, which is the general notability standard. For instance, here is a news story involving chess players "Eugene Varshavsky" and "Steven Rosenberg" that appeared in major national newspaper like the New York Times, San Jose Mercury News, and ABC News. Pretty sure this major national coverage exceeds a couple of articles in local Harvard University papers by many orders of magnitude. And yet, we don't have pages on either chessplayer, as the story isn't quite notable enough by itself. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by whether reliable sources gives significant coverage of the subject. The sources supplied above are reliable, significant and independent of the subject. Strength of chess is only an indication to be used in absence of general notability. After all, many activities such as photography, have no criteria like a chess rating that could indicate notability without looking to sources. So a photographer with such sources would be notable but a chess player would not? No, a correct understanding of WP:GNG shows this is a minimium standard that enables notability regardless of the subject matter. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As stated in the WP:GNG (which, it's important to note, are only general requirements)you linked to, one is expected to have multiple sources going into "significant coverage" of the subject in question. So far, only one source you cited above satisfies that requirement, a piece in the regional Harvard Crimson publication back in 2004. Furthermore, you kind of ignored my concern. By what you wrote, I come to the conclusion that "Eugene Varshavsky" deserves a Wikipedia page too, since multiple, highly visible national news sources went into "significant coverage" of his performance at the 2006 World Open. Yet, if we did that, we would probably have pages for tens of thousands of minor masters and even USCF-rated experts. It would completely overwhelm the articles (many of them stubs or Start-Class!) we have of actual top 100 GMs.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a GM (or IM with sideline) is not and should not be a minimium requirement for chess players. That is a misreading of WP:GNG. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18seconds Magazine

18seconds Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. No notability has even been vaguely attempted. Appears almost entirely an advertisement for the publication. Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2-year-old digital surfer magazine, published occasionally. No evidence for notability is offered; understandably, as substantial WP:RS coverage is scarce--mostly social media and some blog posts, that I found. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just unfortunately couldn't find anything to show notability. The stuff I did find were the types of things that can't be considered independent and/or reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian Libyan glyphs

Ancient Egyptian Libyan glyphs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent fringe theory, presenting aerial photographs of structures in the Egyptian-Libyan desert, which to me at least look very much like remnants of WWII earthworks, as if they were "petroglyphs" from an unknown prehistoric civilization. No sourcing except to the editor's own blog, from which the article is copy-pasted in its entirety. Looks thoroughly crackpot (or hoax) to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow, the most perfect example of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks I've ever seen. I just love how he chooses to name British-defended Tobruk (yeah, the Desert Rats and all that) "Tubruq" to make it sound more exotic, and then highlights a ring of defensive gun emplacements as petrogloodles. I thought "petro" meant "rock" but I guess sand dug by the Eighth Army counts as a rock to a geologist. Seriously, this is absurd, without a shred of argument or evidence (forget RS) in its favour, and the most glaring evidence against it. One for the hall of fame of most ridiculous fringe theories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Poor rationale for deletion which has not been expanded upon, and which nobody else in the discussion agrees with. Consensus is to keep. Michig (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 applications

Xbox 360 applications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a list Bihco (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What does "Wikipedia is not a list" mean? Please elaborate on your nomination reason and perhaps cite the specific policies/etc it violates. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of articles in Wikipedia also look like a list, why don't you give those articles a deletion warning? If you want to delete this article, please delete all articles in Wikipedia that look like a list first. Also, this article can tell people that what apps will release in the future. Humphreyyue 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for both the instructions on lists cleanup and the reasons why being a list is not a sufficient reason for deletion see WP:SAL. Being a list doesn't make page invalid. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. this also extends to the correct title Country Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia: the consensus is the club does not meet the GNG and should be deleted, regardless of the spelling of the title Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

County Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia

County Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable local swimming organization. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG, borderline A7, but considering the user has over 500 edits when he created it, taking it to AFD instead. Secret account 07:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine if it was deleted, because it has the incorrect title (I made a typo), and with permission, re-create the page with the correct title (CountRy Club Swimming Association of Greater Philadelphia, not County Club........). Let me know your thoughts. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (Page creator).[reply]

  • I already checked for Country as well before the AFD. I only found four mentions in Google News and two are from paid obituaries, and two are passing trivial mentions. Any significant, reliable coverage of the organization that is independent of the source (like not the organization website or press releases)? Thanks Secret account 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I Google searched (not Google News), most of the results that came up are the Club pages (I.E. Phila. Cricket's website), but I guess nothing too notable. They could be cited, it's your call. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Geet (TV series)). If you think that article should be deleted please start a separate AfD for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geet..Hui Sabse Parayi

Geet..Hui Sabse Parayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on the short-lived Indian Soap Opera, "Geet..Hui Sabse Parayi" has no sources whatsover ~ and is all original research. No notability either. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 07:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I'm not trying to assert its notability. I just found that factoid peculiar. Handschuh-talk to me 08:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you shouldn't try (only if you want to), really that should go to the article's creator to do that, to avoid this article being deleted. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Faith

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

Was non-notable fanfilm in development, now a non-notable fanfilm which never was. No RS sources found. Editors have been trying to update the fact that the movie will not be produced, but sources are sketchy due to lack of notability in the first place. The official facebook page is fairly clear on the status [5] Cancellation announced on Halo noticeboards : [6] The film exists only as a trailer and poster. The Interior (Talk) 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Disagree that this was a non-notable fan film, however since the film has indeed been cancelled, the page should be blanked and re-directed to Halo (series)#Film. TurboGUY (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing to show that this meets WP:FFILM. I found some buzz in the fan community, but not to where I think that it should be a redirect. The only things that pop up are primary sources, non-notable blog reviews of the poster and trailer, and sites that wouldn't be considered reliable sources per WP:RS. There's just not enough out there to show that this film really warrants a mention anywhere other than a fan site or fan wiki.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists

New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion is made of the notability of the subject. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in any secondary sources, and as such fails WP:ORG. Handschuh-talk to me 06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus over reliability of cited sources, default to taking no administrative action, without prejudice against a possible merge proposal outside the AfD process. Deryck C. 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina (activist)

Ali Sina (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a pseudonym. Single source (Jerusalem Post) and a passing mention (Asia Times) do not establish notability for a stand alone article. The JP article only repeats the self-published claims of Sina's website. All verifiable info can be located at the website's article, Faith Freedom International. Article has a tendency to either be a WP:SOAPBOX for Sina/FFI's views, or a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the merits of the arguments are debated. Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted.

Previous AfDs:

The Interior (Talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. Both the individual and his organization, FFI, have only marginal notability at best as can be seen by the meager coverage in secondary sources. Coverage in secondary sources has not improved since the second AfD. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)— 24.217.97.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. FYI -- The same IP address that left the foregoing message 18 days ago just left an edit summary that said "My IP is dynamic and I have a greater number of edits than just this"--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters is one of the biggest news agencies in the world. They will not publish any news release. All members of SION are notable personalitie. This is an important international organization. User: OceanSplash 07:48 25 January 2012
  • I don't know their selection criteria for press releases, but they do preface it with "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." Which makes it self-published (though relayed through Reuters). The Interior (Talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ali Sina is very important person because he is essential member of a small community which explains to the naive Westerners a very important fact: Islam is not a religion of peace, but a supremacist political ideology masquerading as a religion. This means that Muslim immigrants living in the West are not really immigrants, but a fifth column whose main long-term goal is the replacement of Western democracy with sharia law. The mainstream media does not mention Ali Sina (or any other ex-Muslim speaking the truth except Ayaan Hirsi Ali) because any publisher who told the truth received at least a few dozen death threats from the Muslim immigrants.Quinacrine (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're conceding that reliable sources don't cover this person, but think Wikipedia should keep the article anyway because you personally agree with him. That's nice, but it's not how we work here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you define as “reliable sources” are not reliable at all. The mainstream media is politicized and biased. They can't and they will never dare to speak against Islam or they will pay the consequence. It is enough to read flowery articles they publish on Islam and the flood of negative reaction from their readers in the comments section. The majority of people do no longer believe in the mainstream media. They are no longer deemed as fair or reliable. User: OceanSplash 06:48 3 February 2012(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.249.136 (talk)
  • Redirect to Faith Freedom International. I take the nominator's point that Ali Sina is a pseudonym and little is known of the actual person. The organization/website is certainly notable, but Ali Sina is not, from what I can tell. PKT(alk) 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to Ali Sina being a pseudonym there is a comment by him on his site and I quote, "Ali Sina is part of my name. I don’t use my full name. But why should this matter? Many people adopt a nom de plume for their literary or artistic work. Marilyn Monroe’s real name was Norma Jeane Mortenson. Larry King’s real name is Lawrence Harvey Zeiger. Does it matter? These are excuses. In logic they are called red herring." http://alisina.org/sheila-musaji-and-fear-of-freedom/ Ali Sina is known by this name, just as Larry King is known by this name. This is not a valid argument to delete his entry. There are thousands of personalties on Wikipedia whose real name no one knows but they are notable with their pseudonym. If his organization is notable, he is the founder and therefore notable too. According to Alexa.com 3,127 sites link to faithfreedom.org That is enough evidence for notability of the site. OceanSplash 0:58 27 January 2012
      • If you're citing fallacies, then you should also know that stating that Ali Sina is notable because his organization is notable is the fallacy of division. So was your argument about Stop Islamization of Nations. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we say Christianity is notable but its founder is not? Can we say Huffinton Post is notable but Arianna Huffington is not? Can you name one notable organization whose founder is not considered notable? OceanSplash 7:00 3 February 2012
          • Jesus and Arianna Huffington are notable because they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and because reliable sources have described them as influential. This isn't the case with Sina. You're invoking WP:INHERITED, but that's listed as an argument to avoid because relation to a notable thing doesn't demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Ali Sina is a renowned ex-Muslim author and founder of FaithFreedom.org. He is a preeminent human rights activist in the worldwide fight for freedom. He is well known for his work with oppressed and subjugated people yearning to be free. It is unconscionable that his "deletion" would even be considered (the work of pro-sharia forces, no doubt.)  The idea that Sina "disappear" (even from Wikipedia) would please those seeking to destroy freedom and man's unalienable rights. Do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela geller (talk • contribs) — Pamela geller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the google Test if you don't mind me asking? The Interior (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this google test Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like that. It's explained on the page itself why a Google test is not a measure of notability - see Wikipedia:GOOGLETEST#Notability - and also WP:GOOGLEHITS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify all I said in addition to being the founder of an organisation ,that he had sufficient hits on the net.Of course hits alone do not mean notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is that he had sufficient RS hits on the net, that is a reasonable rationale. If a person has sufficient substantial RS coverage, they meet WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (based on a quick review) The three independent references given all cover/ quote him. From material given, existence of others is likely. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:GNG and WP:BIO, it isn't enough to be trivially quoted. Sources must give significant coverage to article subjects. I don't find the "maybe coverage is out there somewhere" argument convincing; this is a modern-day individual whose entire being rests on putting his name in public forums, not, say, an eighteenth-century poem in a foreign language or a sixteenth-century composer whose name is anglicized in various ways (I'm thinking of articles I've in the past !voted to keep in spite of paucity of sources). Everything there is on this guy is going to be online. If we can't find it, it's not there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or else Weak Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Sina is doing about the same thing as Mr. Tzotzis is doing: holding debates with notable people, and telling on his own website his opinion about Islam. The main difference is that Ali Sina is slightly more famous than Tzortzis, as one could see in the number of third-party references (and here, where he is placed at the same level as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasrin). This might be weakly in favour of Sina. On the other hand, as there is already an article about his website, I think it is a bit overdone to have TWO articles on Sina's work. I would say that we merge the article with the FFI article, on the condition that nothing substantial will be deleted for the reason that this article is about FFI, and not about Sina. Jeff5102 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you explain what you believe these third-party references to be? The Milli Gazette coverage of him is literally a mention of his name in a list of names. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Off course I could, but why should I? You gave your opinion on the article, and I gave mine. And as I respect and accept your opinion without question, I expect the same respect from you. After all, after everyone interested gave his/her opinion, it is up to the administrators what they do with them. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFDs aren't just votes - they're discussions. If you present references I wasn't aware of that demonstrate notability, I might change my view; if I point out that your references are trivial and thus don't satisfy our notability guidelines, you might change your view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And why should I think that someone, who was blocked for edit warring at the Stop Islamization of America-article, will easily be convinced to change her opinion? And why should I want YOU to change your mind? As the banner aboves says: " consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes". Thus, like I wrote before, the only opinions I need to care about are the ones of the administrators, and not yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And for the record, I only said that Ali Sina has slightly more notability than Hamza Tzortzis, as Sina had three third-party references, were Tzortzis had one. Nevertheless, in spite of that, I considered that merge was the best option. If that is not enough for you, you can say so (which you did above). But why are you stalking everyone here who is even a little bit thinking to vote for keep?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You use words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean. There's hyperbolic, and then there's wrong enough to qualify as a personal attack; don't fall on the wrong side in your eagerness to complain about people who disagree with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are saying that it is ME who is complaining? I just wanted to give my opinion; as far as I can see on this page it is you who attacked no lesws than five editors whose opinions differed from yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Loads of RS coverage of this fellow. I've just added half a dozen refs (there are more out there; I got bored), including this substantial one. Coverage was not limited, as some of the delete/redirect/merge !votes suggest, to the Jerusalem Post article devoted to him, the Asia Times piece, and the others in the article. We have to look for RS sourcing outside the article as well, and base our !vote on that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your "substantial" reference is from a vanity press; check out Academica Press's reputation. One substantial reference and a bunch of trivial (Asia Times) or unreliable (vanity presses, affiliated and fringe sources, etc.) sources won't support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all agree that the Jerusalem Post article is substantial RS coverage. In my opinion the other RS coverage -- even that shown in the other refs now in the article -- is sufficient to indicate the necessary substantial multiple RS coverage. There are enough RS refs, from all over the world, to reflect notability here. Half a dozen editors have noted the same thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They appear to have read it, and to be applying it dispassionately. Ros -- we've just gone through two noms by you where you also attacked the editors for not agreeing with you, in similar fashion. And those both ended up closing as keeps, with your view not being the consensus one. Its possible to have different views, but there's no need to belittle everyone whose view differs from yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you literally have editors arguing that the fact that reliable sources haven't covered the subject is a reason why we should cover him, or that vanity presses or mentions in a list constitute reliable significant coverage, I think we can safely say that at least some of the editors have not read the notability and reliability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources have been recently added to demonstrate notability, I've looked at some of these below.
  • LaRed21 - not a reliable source - user submitted content.
  • Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out is published by World Net Daily - see RSN discussion here
  • Death of the Grown-up - This is not available in preview, how did the editor view this content? Where is the mention? What is the mention? Page numbers (and an excerpt) would be nice if I'm to verify this.
  • Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington By Paul E. Sperry - First, this is just an excerpt with no information on the subject at all. Nelson Current is World Net Daily, see above
  • Beyond jihad: critical voices from inside Islam - Academica is an on demand publisher - not RS.
In short, these are very shaky refs. But more importantly, there still is no substantial coverage. It's true, there is quite a few mentions of Ali Sina out there in Googleland, but I haven't been able to find any non-fringe coverage. (i'll take a look at the PDF's when I get back to my home unit) The Interior (Talk) 06:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources PDF sources added:
  • Arches Quarterly: single, passing mention
  • Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out - single, passing mention. You have attached this to Dissent (magazine) magazine, this is not indicated by the publishing information.
  • “Leaving Islam: A Preliminary Study of Conversion out of Islam” Is an unpublished symposium report - see this caveat on the title page: [© Draft Paper. Please do not cite without author's permission]. Not RS.
  • It is beyond cavil that the article in The Jerusalem Post is substantial RS coverage. As to the number of other articles in addition to that one, at times we have a situation where articles are only local in nature. That's not the case here -- quite the opposite; the subject has attracted international coverage. Indeed, even coverage in different languages. WP:GNG states that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Here, we have a large number of RS sources covering the subject, in addition to the significant substantive treatment by The Jerusalem Post, and their "nature" is, helpfully, an international one. Furthermore, WP:BASIC tells us that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This subject clearly meets that standard. It in fact does have substantial coverage, by The Jerusalem Post. And in addition, it has coverage by a number of RS sources -- per the guideline, those may be combined to further demonstrate the "multiple" part of the RS coverage requirement. Some of the dozen and a half sources are longer than other, but the books and articles and paper as a whole certainly meet the above standard, when couple with the full-fledged, devoted-to-the subject, article in The Jerusalem Post. It is not surprise therefore that -- even in the face of one or two editors constantly getting in the face of each keep !voter -- half a dozen editors here have !voted keep, more than have indicated support for either other option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm sure you know, AfDs are discussions, not votes. In regards to your above argument, it hinges on multiple mentions in reliable sources. I still feel that hasn't been demonstrated. You haven't replied to any of the specific challenges to the refs you have added, which do not meet the RS threshold. The Interior (Talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we can take the words of a hostile critic of Ali Sina to determine whether he is notable or not. The site Loonwatch.com writes: “For those of you who don’t know, Sina is one of the oldest and most nefarious Islamophobes to troll the internet–if Spencer is the King, Ali Sina is the Last Emperor of Islamophobia. It makes sense then that Sina, Spencer, and Geller would find themselves in bed together. They are truly a hateful trio.” As a Muslim the author expresses his hatred of the critics of Islam and disparages them as “Islamophobe.” What is of interest to us is however, the fact that he recognizes his notability and importance. User: OceanSplash 07:20 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, the author of that piece on Loonwatch.com (Danios) is not a Muslim. Wiqi(55) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you consider LoonWatch an acceptable source for claims about Sina in the article? Ie. would you support including in the article the claim that Sina is a nefarious, hateful Islamophobic troll? If it's not a reliable source for the article, it's not a reliable source for notability. Unreliable sources are unreliable whatever their political affiliations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The positive remarks of person A about person B cannot be nulled by his negative remarks of him and vice versa. Likewise, a criminal may extol himself to the roof. That doesn’t count. What counts are his little confessions. We don’t have to believe the vitriol of Loomwatch.com. All that matter to this discussion is that a person who is not too friendly with our personage, acknowledges that he is “the last emperor of Islamophobia.” Islamophobia itself is a fallacy, but that is not the point to disucuss here. The point is that Sina is accepted as notable even by his worst enemies. User: OceanSplash 04:36 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that's as much of an "even" as you seem to think it is. Very often one finds discussion of a subject in a blog when it isn't discussed in reliable sources, but this can't be used to support notability because the blog is not a reliable source. This is true when the blog is reviewing a niche film or album, and it's also true when the blog is commenting on a niche individual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also Sakshitimes, an apologetic network in India, describes Ali Sina as "one of the foremost and outspoken critics of Islam." The same site says, "He is now one of the most popular atheist critics of Islam." User: OceanSplash 05:42 4 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Unreliable sources are unreliable. I know it sounds like a tautology, but I'm not sure how else to get it across to you when you keep producing unreliable sources as though they're supposed to affect the notability of this individual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are many articles in Wikipedia about people that are notable but the media will not mention them becuse it is politically incorrect to do so - a good example are the porn stars. Talking about Ali Sina is politically incorrect. The Jerusalem Post received several complaints from Muslims for writing about him. JP is does not care about Muslims' opinion, but others do. When a person's name appears in hundreds of thousands of sites, he is notable. We heard your passionate views too. It is clear that they are set on stone. I think we have enough votes to close this talk and move on. User: OceanSplash 08:00 4 February 2012 (UTC)
              • I think it is clear we have sufficient RS support. And from what I can see on this page, at least half the !voters agree. No need to badger Ocean (and others).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Faith Freedom International. The article as it stands provides very little information about Ali Sina himself, namely that he is an "Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada" and that's it. The rest is about debates/opinions/claims found on the Faith Freedom website (which already has it's own article). Given the lack of information about the person of Ali Sina, I see no point in having two separate articles. Wiqi(55) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there are new references added. Some are better than others, but on the whole it has improved a lot. Thus, I will change my proposal from merging to keeping. Jeff5102 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the new sources added, have you found one that gives substantial coverage and meets our RS benchmark? I'm concerned that all that citing did was give an appearance of a well sourced article. Please take another look at those sources. The Interior (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Our RS policy isn't suspended during AFDs, as much as users sometimes like to stack articles with bad references to make them look more notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but I do see now that whatever I write here, you people will never stop arguing me. I have better things to do.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pantula Surya Venkata Kameshwara Rao

Pantula Surya Venkata Kameshwara Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No reliable references provided. Poet of questionable notability. Google search on "Pantula Surya Venkata Kameshwara Rao" shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unpublished poet, no evidence beyond the word of article's author, so pure WP:OR unfortunately. FWIW I believe the claims, and had anything been published in any language I would have followed it up, but the claims do not establish any kind of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Larry Sabato. Michig (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy Half-Century

The Kennedy Half-Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unpublished book. My Gsearch for "the kennedy half-century" -facebook -wikipedia gave 42 hits, most of them junk. The book, of course, might wind up being notable eventually; according to this press release it is being written by well-known academic Larry Sabato. Is it is ironic that the author is known for his online newsletter Sabato's Crystal Ball, while this article flunks WP:CRYSTALBALL?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinforosa Amador

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

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this woman "carried to Xalapa the cultural heritage of European Jesuit missionaries" because the article doesn't say, and none of the three references mention her. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picnicface

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

They is another article named Picnicface (TV series) which should have the same info TBrandley (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Letcher

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

seems to fail WP:Notability for musicians Mayumashu (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot (Waterman)

The Pilot (Waterman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources that meet WP:N Hobit (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article shouldn't be deleted. Its a Episode of Waterman (series), and Wikipedia should respect it enough to allow this page to stay up.  Buddha Putra - Rahul (Talk) 06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite. Why is the Waterman (series) notable? It is cited by two dead links. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being dead or not really doesn't matter. Nor does the current state of the article. But those links don't seem to be independent and I can't find any acceptable sources for this episode. I'll admit I couldn't find anything for the series either, but putting up an episode seemed safer in case I was missing some obvious sources (Waterman isn't the easiest word to search for). Hobit (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well I was trying to understand why User:Rahulmothiya thinks we should respect this page when the animated series itself doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Possibly User:Rahulmothiya can supply a reliable independent source because I haven't been able to find any. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty of Heroes

Penalty of Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-yet-released game with no assertion of notability. (Was supposed to be release but no recent updates for release date) Seems like may not be created. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the sources I could find, and the external links for the article, focused on the game's college, and gave the game itself a passive "it exists" type mentioning. With that sort of information, it seems like the college could support an article, but the game itself, cannot. Fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secure error messages in software systems

Secure error messages in software systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay-like how-to content which does not seem fixable by editing. Prod in 2006. Pnm (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. It reads like a section which has somehow got detached from its article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article consists of a jumble of suggestions (the label "design principles" is far too grandiose) that offer advice for the design of error messages. These suggestions do not have a clear common topic beyond their pertaining to error messages. While displaying common sense, they are rather trivial. If this is to be merged somewhere, something I don't recommend, it should become a new section in the article Error message with a title like "Design of error messages"; it does not really belong in Computer security. In any case, there is little point in leaving a redirect; the current title is not a plausible search term.  --Lambiam 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting it considering History's view. Good faith relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. – Pnm (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, per nomination. I wish we could have better content in this area but that is probably as an additional section in existing articles. As it stands this article a little too essayish (or even OR), and I don't see that being fixed by regular editing any time soon, alas. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ManOpen

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

This dosen't seem like a notable piece of software, and I don't see it meeting the criteria at WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: although there are some references[1][2] and several mentions in the Google Books results (some with screenshots!), I was impressed that this software is listed on GNUstep's application wish list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Dmitrij. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The second one isn't a source for ManOpen. The first is, but I'm still not seeing notability here. Everything in a computer is covered by at least one or two blogs. I also fail to see what GNUstep has to do with it. That would be like saying that a free to play online game was notable because it used Flash or Java. Notability is not inherited, especially not like that. Please tell me how this meets WP:NSOFT, because I'm still not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's wrong with a first ref? It seems a pretty reliable source with 21 years of service history. Second ref: I must have copied data from wrong article; I'll have a second attempt later. P.S.: What is the problem with WP:NSOFT compliance? This is probably the only graphical man viewer for OSX... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, here we go: some ISV-hosted anonymous review with editors notes (notability is implied with rating 6/5),[3] some book (balancing on the edge of trivial mention),[4] another book (AFAIK features a screenshot; behind the WP:PAYWALL).[5] I think it may be worth asking WP:WikiProject Apple Inc. and someone with usage experience with NeXTSTEP, as it originated there and WP:LINKROT may have killed most of ever existed references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • About GNUstep relevance: the thing that matters here is that GNUstep is a long-term struggle to re-implement NeXTSTEP for Linux. Though notability of GNUstep in no way indicates the notability of ManOpen, the fact that this piece of software is included in the rather short list of software that has to be re-implemented (alongside web browser, word processing software, etc.) shows that NeXTSTEP people take this software pretty seriously (specifically given the fact that the amount of man page viewers for Linux is pretty significant). I think this should be regarded as an indication of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  1. ^ Engst, Adam C. (2004-10-04). "ManOpen Opens Man Pages". TidBITS. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
  2. ^ Santilli, Nick (2007-02-02). "Unix Tip: It's a Man, Man". GigaOM. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
  3. ^ "ManOpen 2.5". Rixstep. Retrieved 2012-01-07.
  4. ^ McElhearn, Kirk (2005). The MAC OS X command line: Unix under the hood. John Wiley & Sons. p. 49. ISBN 9780782143546.
  5. ^ Bell, Mark R.; Suggs, Debrah D. (2002). Mac OS X Version 10.1 Black Book. Coriolis. p. 521. ISBN 9781576106068.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the Source

Return to the Source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dance club documented by their own compilation releases. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Return to the Source. Michig's argument carries weight: a merge is the correct result. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient Meditations

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

Compilation series released by a trance club; does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commipedia

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

I'm having difficulty finding any reliable sources for this; I can't seem to find anything that indicates (1) that the information here is true, or (2) that it ever went further than just a proposal. Fails WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted I cannot find anything related to Commipedia except a wiki for Marxism Jeff503 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Defence

The Greek Defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NOT#NEWS; there's no evidence that this has any lasting coverage, or, indeed, even notability at the time. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that one of the "sources" provided was a blog written by the author of this article. Sigh. Ironholds (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a term to have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia, there needs to be widespread evidence of common use. As I found zero hits on GNews for articles containing both "Greek Defence" and "Liberal Democrats" I don't believe this is the case. Suspect the real motive of teh article ws to get this term in common use because Wikpedia says it is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE The article has a link to this discussion, however, many people are not going to realize that as it appears as a redlink. I have never seen anything like that __meco (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted above, coverage in reliable sources came to abrupt end after the Miliband stuff left the news cycle, making it one event stuff. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Gasification Company

Dakota Gasification Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Looks like blatant publicity grab and advert. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article needs additional references and cleanup, but according to different search results it is notable. E.g., it is the first company in the U.S: to utilize the carbon capture and storage technology. One potential alternative for deletion may be merging into Basin Electric Power Cooperative, which is a parent of this company. Beagel (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has run long enough and I do not see clear consensus to delete and not much evidence to keep. That this is a reasonable search term is not proven either, so a redirect--maybe, maybe not. I see no option besides 'no consensus'. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Corlett

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

This actor has only one show he is starred in, "Dinosaur Train". Little is known about biographical information regarding him besides being the son of Ian James Corlett and sister of Claire Corlett. The references are to Netflix, TV.com, IMDb and PBSkids. Which are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G12 -- a foundational copyright violation. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Converter Studio

Audio Converter Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources in the article are download pages. The so called review is a download page. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Conan O'Brien. I'll keep the merge request open for a week, then redirect this article if the merge issue hasn't been resolved till then. Any other requests, please direct to my talk page. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conan vs. bear

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

AfD'ed before with "no consensus therefore keep" but as the years tick by it seems to continue to fail WP:WEBPAGE. See old AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan vs. bear Ifnord (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Miller Clock Company

Howard Miller Clock Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long established clock company but no independent sources in the article. Most info seems to be sourced from company website. I can only find information online provided by clock dealers and other commercial listings. Sionk (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy close- Withdrawn by nom (above). No outstanding deletion votes. Sources shown to exist. (Update) Struck (see Comment below). Dru of Id (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I was hasty in my reaction to Edward Vielmetti's comment. It was another instance of an editor finding a long list of links on Google and claiming these inferred notability. In fact the major source on the list is a book about the parent company, Herman Miller, with only a brief mention of the clock subsidiary. It fooled me for a moment because the names are similar. I am still undecided whether Howard Miller Clock Company is worthy of its own article. The book Grand Rapids: Furniture City has a photo and a short paragraph about Howard Miller and the company. There are possibly some short pamphlets, of dubious significance. Sionk (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easher caste

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

Zero refs. Tagged for that since September. Zero gbooks hits. Zero gnews hits. Lacks substantial rs coverage. Tagged for notability since September. Created by 1-article-edited-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look for sources, and I have to agree with the nominator that it's impossible to find any verifiable information this caste in English over the internet. It's not a scheduled caste (see [10]). Perhaps an editor who can speak Kashmiri might be able to find something ? There could be printed sources. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Alcock

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

Not notable and blatant advertising Soldierchoice (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The charity organisation might be notable, but the CEO isn't. Seems to have been created by a user called "Charliealcock" so we have conflict of interest issues before we get to gems like "Our motto is...". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after a move. This article should be sourced reliably, and the statements like Our motto is ‘whenever, wherever, whatever definitely need to be rephrased, but notability could be established for the charity, I'd guess. DCItalk 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until we reach a decision on this, could we remove some of the tags present at the top of the article? Right now, a reader sees only tags when s/he opens the page, and three say a variation of the same thing - the article may violate Wikipedia policies, and must be wikified. DCItalk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlon Gardner

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ATHLETE. Junior kart racers have always fallen a long way short of achieving standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Falcadore (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following related page is included in this nomination:
Ashlon Gardner Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No opinion on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems to have had a Proposal for Deletion back in 2008 which was removed. Can't see that any explanation was given. Nothing here that would pass as a reliable source. None of his wins were in notable events. I've seen better motor sport articles than this deleted. Of course I may end up looking silly when he wins the F1 championship in 2025. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notable or international achievements. Almost certainly a WP:CONFLICT too, written to promote the driver by their manager/PR/parent/sponsor. - mspete93 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the impression I got, but I didn't like to say. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Clement

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

There's not a single reliably sourced fact in this article that actually pertains to Joey Clement. I can't find anything that actually talks about Joey Clement that isn't a fan site or a Wikipedia mirror. —Kww(talk) 02:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene. Member of two notable bands, if that can be verified, so passes WP:BAND ctiterion 6 - I couldn't find a reliable source for his membership of the Midwest Kings and none of the sources in that article mention him. If we can't verify that, redirect to the other band per standard practice for musicians without individual notability. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. DaveApter (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 31. Snotbot  t • c »  03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #6. I've added a citation to a reliable source for his membership in the Midwest Kings. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, I still argue for delete. It seems sad to have a BLP where we don't have anything we can say about the person that is the subject aside from the fact of his membership in two bands. We can't even fill out the standard infobox for a person based on the information that can be gleaned from reliable sources. The article will read, pretty much in full, "Joey Clement is the bassist for Selena Gomez & The Scene and The Midwest Kings." We can'tsource the time period when that statement was true, either. The ultimate in permastubs, serving only as a magnet for BLP violations.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of keeps. The only reason I have to present to keep, is that there is no likeliest redirect page, it could be either band, and either redirect would be unreasonable. The only two reasonable things I can think off is losing this information with a delete (which I think is a fair option), or have the permastub Kww refers to, in lieu of a 'redirect disambiguation', which is also not desirable. This is indeed, as Kww argues, sad, but I think the latter, even though it is a pretty bad option, is the best option we have. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_22&oldid=472584414"