Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 24: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:17, 24 January 2012

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 January	25 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batoo

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

The result was speedy keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Baby

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

Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? Crow^Caw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. Crow^Caw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep #1 due to the above~~. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. Crow^Caw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history.Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Of note is that the nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and that if a new article is to be created, a title such as Connected Baby (2015 film) may be used. Furthermore, the WP:COI concerns herein may need to be further addressed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Connected Baby

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

Name clash with upcoming project connected baby, by film co-creator Suzanne Zeedyk Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Joni.Bendall You want to delete this article because your employer is planning on using the name for a different project? Crow^Caw 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative. You'll have to forgive me, I am new here - having read through, I didn't think my intention contravened community guidelines. My employer is co-creator and owner of the rights to the film the article describes. As you rightly mentioned, the name is being used for an upcoming project. Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Joni.Bendall That is actually not a reason to delete this article. If the new project ends up having an article here as well, it will be disambiguated so that both articles can exist. Crow^Caw 22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep #1 due to the above~~. Striking vote since it doesnt qualify. No opinion on the article itself, just the nom struck me as out of process. Crow^Caw 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is actually a bit of a concern here about this film potentially failing WP:NFILM. Of the sources on the article, only one of them is actually a WP:RS that can show notability, as the other two are pretty much WP:PRIMARY sources since one is a notification of a screening by the film festival itself and the other is from an organization that funded the film. The original deletion rationale is invalid, but it actually brings up a pretty big concern of notability overall and may still end up being deleted... which also casts a bit of a doubt of notability on the other project that is supposed to be added. I'd probably suggest leaving this open over the concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing isn't the strongest, but there is enough here to warrant a keep. If there was an article on Zeedyk herself, I'd recommend that this get merged and redirected to her, but there isn't. However I do want to stress very, very strongly that I would highly recommend that Joni.Bendall either not create it herself or that she go through AfC to make the article because of the strong COI here. I'd also really recommend that you read over our guidelines on editing in general, conflict of interest, notability, and so on. As a COI editor you will be expected to know our guidelines better than a casual editor, as every edit you make will be heavily scrutinized. This may occasionally seem like overkill, but Wikipedia has had a very long history of people trying to use it to promote themselves, either by editing themselves or by hiring people to edit for them as part of a publicity crew. You will need to be able to state/follow policy without misquoting or misinterpreting it, which is especially important because again- we have a history of people doing just that in an attempt to keep an article. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, but doing this is a surefire way to ensure that people assume that you are only here to promote. In the cases of where it's unintentional, it's had the unfortunate effect of having people write off editors completely and sometimes people can get pretty brusque in their speech. Sometimes it can even affect how much people are willing to go to help you. I wish it was otherwise, but it happens and I've seen pages get deleted that might have otherwise been salvageable. I know this all sounds a little harsh and a little WP:BITE-y, but I really want to stress how important it is that you go over our guidelines as a whole. Some of it pertains to this article, as it had some fairly promotional WP:PEACOCK type phrasing in it, but I also want to give you a little head's up on the other project that you are intending to add to Wikipedia, as I didn't see much out there that didn't pertain to the 2011 film. Just because a project exists doesn't automatically mean that it belongs on Wikipedia (WP:ITEXISTS), so you may want to be cautious about adding the new article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep invalid AFD and close per cogent analysis by Tokyogirl79 and the obvious WP:COI of nominator... who should go study WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and more importantly WP:DEL#REASON. As this 2011 film already exists, your production company will have to settle on Connected Baby (2015 film) (or whatever release year) if or when the newer project merits an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the apparent obvious mistake made listing this under AfD. I did so in good faith, after examining WP:DEL#REASON. I would still argue that this article has potential grounds for deletion under lack of notability, but it is clear that there is some doubt to that. As it stands, understanding that from the POV of more experienced users than I the article is not suitable for deletion, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article is more accurate and follows guidelines on promotional phrasing.
additionally, we'd would like to make the following 3 observations, in the final stages of this discussion:
1. My employer did not create the original Wikipedia entry. She had resisted its creation at the time of its creation. (She has since tried to ensure at least the accuracy of the information contained in the article.)
2. She agrees with your analysis, that the film does not fit the criteria of 'notable'. This is one of the reasons she would like the entry removed. The film never premiered in any international film festivals, nor was it reviewed by any formal judging panel. Rather, it should be considered a 'resource' for those interested in infant psychology.
3. It is the case that the name of the film is closely related to a forthcoming new initiative, by the same name 'connected baby'. But we do not plan to seek an entry in Wikipedia on the project. So there is no conflict there.
If the decision is made to retain the article, then we have a revised entry that we wish to post, which gives a more detailed account of the film's purpose and history.Joni Bendall, Head of Social Media, Suzanne Zeedyk Ltd. (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joni.Bendall: In anything you suggest, please avoid WP:PROMOTION, but best if you pretty much stay away from editing the article yourself. That Yunshui created the article back in 2011, means that "someone-not-your-employer" thought the topic notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That your employer may not personally think it notable runs contrary to our notability criteria for films. That she may wish this one deleted because of her plans for a new and similarly named project seems a bit self-serving at this point it time. See WP:NAU. If she indeed has no plans to replace this article, then your original deletion argument above fails. A new article on the new film may well be created by someone else and would then be titled per WP:NCF. But most importantly, as WP:COI strongly discourages anyone with too-close a conection from editing topics with which they have vested interests. IF your employer would like to have the current article modified in some manner, you or she can offer suggestions on the article's talk page and provide the reliable sources, sources independent of the film or filmmaker, that support and confirm and such suggestions. Study WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molemo Maarohanye

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

This one is definitely borderline, mainly because the subject doesn't meet WP:PERP, and although he's supposedly a former child star and current hip-hop artist, the gospel tune mentioned in the article appears to be his only real hit song ever, and the South African charts that are RS are for airplay only. Therefore, I can't verify anything in the vein of WP:BAND, WP:ACTOR, or anything like that. There is a lot of coverage, but it is all written about the court case and things that happened afterwards. The articles aren't tremendously in-depth, and tend to be repetitious. In short, I can't determine with any certainty if he was really notable prior to the crime, and the crime itself hasn't been portrayed as notable other that the fact that it involves a minor B-list celebrity (maybe?), so despite the coverage, I can see this being WP:NOTNEWS. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:46, 30 June 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachycardia (disambiguation) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cibikli Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villebernier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuyuharai Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rembrandt's J'Accuse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Hivju Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianico Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N2KL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthijs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapinanthus

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. Already deleted as a copyvio. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arakhita Das Olasuni Hill

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

Unsourced personal essay. There are sources cited, but they are either unreliable per WP:RS and WP:N, or do not appear to exist. May also be a copyvio, although if it is I haven't found the source yet. PROD removed without explanation by article creator. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin A direct copy of this article also exists at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olasuni Gumpha; if this article is deleted, that AfC should probably be deleted too. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found the copyvio I suspected (here), tagged with WP:G12 accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 30 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. The consensus is (just) to keep - but work needs to be done on the article, with more reliable independent sources which directly address the declaration itself. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

99 Percent Declaration

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

Much of the article has been removed that gave it accurate referenced context. It continues to be nothing more than a personal promotional page for this non-notable document. Talk page shows direction is being given from document supporters and those with a financial as well as personal stake in this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:28, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I saw the long list of news sources in the article, I thought this might be a politically motivated AfD. However, on closer examination, *none* of the cited news sources even mention the 99% Declaration, in fact they all describe how the Occupy Wall Street have struggled to formulate demands. On that basis, that the article is entirely self-sourced, I would suggest the Declaration (online petition etc.) is instead mentioned in the main articles, Occupy Wall Street and We are the 99%. Sionk (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the references that did mention the subject by name were negative and removed for that reason. The article has had all referenced material that contained direct context to the petition deleted and replaced by a good amount of un-referenced material. Even with the referenced information it is little more than a stub that is unlikely to expand. There may actually need to be an IP check on users to determine if a sock puppet is being used by one or more blocked editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To which sources are you referring? The first several I looked at mention it in detail. Also the "Further reading" ELs do, too. Selery (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the notice, but I've got a WP:COI and have refrained from editing the article ever since it developed. David in DC (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject matter itself is sufficiently notable and attested to by reliable sources to warrant a keep at this time. I think that there is a lot of frustration, however, with having to continuously deal with editors with a conflict of interest who continually add self promotional, unreferenced assertions. That's common, however, with article on political subjects. The best way to address it is through consistent application of Wikipedia standards.--Nowa (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much Wikilove for that well worded contribution to this discussion!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Occupy Wall Street. Even the existence of sources doesn't make this a notable topic. It's hardly the US constitution or the Magna Carta--it's more like the Unabomber manifesto: a useful redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a merge....but which article?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with abundant sources. What happened to all the content? I'm not thrilled with how newbies are being treated. Much sourced content has been removed because it was added by an IP. Selery (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you read the talk page (not an easy task since the "newbies" frequently placed their edits at the top of the discussion rather than in order) you would find that the established editors have been very patient with them. Note as well that "they" sometimes called themselves one person and other times another, to the point that I suggested that they were lying. Then they said they were posting from the same computer and that I was an asshole, as were the rest of us. There is more...at any rate, they were asked again and again to read-up on policy rather than blame us for deleting information that they wanted to include in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. I understand your frustration, but try to remember when you were new. I've often found that the best solution for situations which require a lot of patience is more patience. Selery (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New? You've been here for two years.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, that is almost word for word what Dualus once wrote.Hmmmm. At any rate "Selery" It is not upon the older editors to guide you. those that do are a special kind of editor one should respond to with civility. If you can do that it matters not if you have been here a day or 7 years. Stop falling back on how new you are. If you are THAT new and know so little, perhaps you should be researching the policy and guidelines FIRST before you start editing. Just a suggestion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator claims on article talk page that group has no affiliation to Occupy Wall Street but Official Occupy Wall Street Working Group external link which was just removed establishes the affiliation. Nominator also claims that COI editors are directing work from talk page, but that is consistent with our WP:COI rules. Selery (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Actually...read that talk page again and try to be more accurate with accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also that is not consistant with Wikipedia:COI. It states clearly: "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it anymore. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed. In addition, if your article is found to not be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, do not create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about."

- I removed that link again: the above group is linked from the "official website" link. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would not object, but since this AFD is predicated on no official association between the two groups, could I ask that you please replace the EL for the duration of the AFD? Selery (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending more reliable sources. Or can someone point me to a specific source which meets WP:N? I didn't see any. B^e——C_ritical 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than the two independent sources which are reliable enough to meet the WP:GNG criteria. Topic is encyclopedic and article is large enough not to merge to another article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which independent reliable sources give in-depth coverage of "99 Percent Declaration"? Do you mean the two college newspapers in the further reading? Where are the others? Surely that's not sufficient justification for such a blatantly self-promotional article. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In-depth is not required. What I see is at least a screen full of information on the topic from these sites, and this satisfies the criterion. Self promotion is an internal article content problem and not relevant to the issue as to whether the topic should have an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy promotional articles are one of the criteria for nomination for deletion.......which is why this is here. The references are horrible and several are opinion being cited as fact. (Huffington post references actualy are tertiary sources relying on the Gaurdian UK article by Haack who is central in this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion: Seen articles with stronger arguments for notability in terms of meeting WP:GNG get deleted. Not sure on the sources here. I think a case could almost be made it could be deleted under the one event clause... but there are sources that I could argue elsewhere would represent meeting WP:GNG. Just yeah. Don't have enough evidence either way to have a coherent opinion given the articles current state. (Previously, I argued delete.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Lean delete: Additional reading and reviewing of past arguments, lack of sources mean a change in vote for me. --LauraHale (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous references online which meet reliable sources criteria. Also, this article is a bit rough (in need of work). Page views 250+ per day suggest it is an important topic; I realize this is not a formal criteria for inclusion/deletion but it indicates interest in a subject, and suggests notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC) What I don't quite understand is -- is the 99% Declaration an outgrowth from the OWS movement (even a tangential splinter?) or a totally unaffiliated group jumping on the OWS bandwagon? If a splinter offshoot, the general sense is that there is disagreement between the main OWS opinion (if there is such) and the 99% Declaration, mainly that the OWS mainstream view (again if there is one) wants to distance itself from the 99% Declaration -- is this right (?) -- I just think whoever decides about this article should take this stuff under consideration, and I think it seems reasonable that if the 99%ers are totally unaffiliated with the OWS (and we're sure about this) then it weakens the case for this article, but if it's a splinter offshoot, even if there is disagreement between 99%ers and OWSers, then it suggests we keep it (again, partly since the page view counts are relatively high at 250) since it may impact on what happens to OWS, it may cause some kind of convention in Philadelphia, possibly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just looked examined all of the references in the article, and none of them give evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. If one reads the exact section at WP:GNG for notability it actually fails all of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand about the lack of reliable sources or significant coverage arguments here. Huffington Post, The Atlantic, Philly.com, Washington Times, The News Tribune, Salon Magazine, KYW Newsradio, USA Today, The Guardian, The New York Times, Times Live, Canada.com, Business Mirror -- these are unreliable sources? Even three of these, by themselves, would be sufficient to source an article. While the 99% Declaration may not have been the entire subject of every article, in most instances it was not just a mention, but was discussed prominently -- as if its important -- something readers need to know about -- along with sometimes critical commentary for and against it. It is getting even more attention in the Huffington Post recently (more sources are available which were not included in the article). So I am confused about the reasoning here, and wondering if somebody might kindly explain?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those newspapers are reliable sources for information. The question is whether there is significant coverage of 99 Percent Declaration in the cited sources, as opposed to general talk about the demands, or lack of demands, of the Occupy movement. Sionk (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic says the 99% Declaration is calling for a National General Assembly. USA Today discussed the bullet points that the group made, and quibbled with some of the points made. Times Live discussed the 99% Declarations notions of bailouts. CBS Philly described efforts by Philadelphia municipal officials to accommodate a convention if it happens. The Declaration has been discussed in foreign publications such as Canada.com. Kindly explain why you feel this is not significant coverage--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion page that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage however is significant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saying something and demonstrating it are two wildly different things. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people believe that the 99% Declaration is an official document put out by OWS. I'd like to keep this article which states that it is not. Gandydancer (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Sounds more than significant enough sources - and seems to still be operating. However, don't see any recent WP:RS action. If it goes defunct before having its event, it becomes a footnote merged into the Occupy Movement article. One doesn't have to agree with what's in it to support keeping it for now and putting back some of the content, assuming reliably sourced. CarolMooreDC 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge with Occupy Wall Street: I believe there is consensus to keep but serious doubts still remain as a full article to expand at this time. Maybe in the future as things progress, so we don't won't to lose the subject and we do want to note it with due weight that many feel it deserves. Perhaps we simply can merge the article back to the main OWS article under a section documenting the off shoot branches and movement that came directly from the original protests including any other documents and associated movements.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why people generally feel that the 99% Declaration and Occupy Wall Street are not officially related; so why merge them?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable in its own right, as shown by the sources. If content demonstrating that was removed before the AfD, restore it. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 1 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman

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

Contested prod. No articulation of why this minor academic meets WP:PROF. Little mention in third party sources, mostly simply the occasional quote in news reports on and passing mentions in discussing more prominent academics (e.g. Kingsley Davis). Best source to date is this San Diego Union Tribune piece -- but it appears to only concentrate on a single claim of hers, rather than provide any breadth of biographical coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noted economist. Writer of well known works on the economics of marriage and the household. (Published under a variety of names including "Amyra Grossbard" "Amyra Grossbard Shechtman", "Shoshana Grossbard" and "Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman"). Founder and editor in chief of Review of Economics of the Household. In my view a clear pass of WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also seems to pass WP:Auth #3 The person has created...a significant ..work ..that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. One of her books has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer reviewed journals. Three reviews have been added to the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:AUTHOR requires "a significant or well-known work". It is questionable whether On the Economics of Marriage - A Theory of Marriage, Labor and Divorce is well-known or has any wider significance. In any case, this guideline is aimed at "Creative professionals" writing for a wider audience, not WP:ACADEMICs, which have a separate set of criteria.
Merely citing the reviews for the bare fact that the book WP:ITEXISTS does little to establish notability. What do these reviews say about her writing?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof says "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as ...WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines". I take this to mean that we should look at guidelines like WP:auth for academics as well as WP:prof when deciding whether to throw away articles. The book in question has, according to google scholar been cited more than 200 times which would seem probably indicative of notability, and the three reviews listed in our article are articles in peer reviewed journals which are deemed reliable sources. WP:prof also seems to be passed by her work's notability and chief editorship of the journal. The Canadian court case stuff also seems more notable than the stuff you mention in your first post. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Editor-in-chief of a major journal, hence meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With recent improvements in the references, this is demonstrated to b a notable economist and author, and the article should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy WP:PROF #8. Unscintillating (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, this person meets WP:PROF. Founded and manages a notable journal, and has their book cited by others in their field. Dream Focus 08:36, 30 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayy Von Alexander

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG from what I have failed to find. SarahStierch (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No reliable coverage about him. - Cavarrone (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldnt find much eitheir.Questionable pulse (talk) 16:50, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- No reliable third party sources, no claim of notability. It could probably be technically just speedy deleted under A7 rather than going through the whole deletion discussion process.Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 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. Could have been speedied but consensus is obivous here anyway. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Students Computer Association

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

From what I can find (or can't!) it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly finding anything aside from this page and a Facebook page. tedder (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly. Clearly non-notable. We can do without the OR observation that "It used to have FTP servers: named grind, whip, chop and liquefy".--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOLZ! SarahStierch (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Non-notable, maybe even a hoax Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:09, 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 redirect . Article was merged and redirected shortly after this AfD was started, and it's unclear whether it is desired that the redirect target (The Investment Building) also be nominated for deletion. So, this discussion is closed, but there is no prejudice against creating a new nomination for the redirect target, if so desired. (non-admin closure) —SW— ^verbalize 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Building

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

After a bit of Googling, I do think this fails WP:GNG. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, there doesn't seem to be any signifigant coverage, it's the organizations that are in the building that seem more notable. But, I'm not familiar with notability guidelines for buildings and I wasn't able to find any. I suppose all buildings could be notable in some regard for just...being there. ;) SarahStierch (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article (created on 27 October 2006) has now been redirected to The Investment Building (created on 14 July 2008), with some of its content merged in. The last version of this article with the AfD notice is here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. So should we just consider the article merged and create a redirect? SarahStierch (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been made into a redirect already, which is why I put the info here - the AfD notice went with the article, into the history. The issue of notability remains. Up to you whether you consider the references in the newly combined article sufficient to establish notability - in that case you can declare so and the AfD can be closed. But I believe the notability is based more on the architecture than the tenants. I haven't examined it so I didn't !vote yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 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. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cooper (voice-over artist)

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

I'm thinking WP:ENT applies to voice over artists. in any case he fails WP:BIO. he's not even listed on IMDB and could not find any coverage of him [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 24 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fully meets the WP:ENT. Issues with sourcing are unfortunate but not enough to delete the article, on contrary it is an invitation to improve it. Deleting is easy, improving is not, so try doing that instead.--Avala (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[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 talk}_{about my edits?} 14:35, 8 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, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible assertion of notability ("known for his work" appears to be untrue) and no reliable sources to indicate notability. The person exists, but existing and having a job are not the criteria by which we include people on Wikipedia. Fails basic inclusion criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only reference sources that can be found are blog-based, then there is not sufficient reliable third-party coverage to satisfy the notability criteria for a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 08:24, 19 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 keep. Like it or not, the consensus is keep. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish lawyers

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

I became aware of this list after writing an article about one of the persons listed here. It's a huge unsourced alphabetical dump of mostly redlinked names with no further information or context. It might be useful in user or project space as a to-do list if anybody is interested, but as a mainspace article I don't see the point of it in this form (not to mention the possible WP:BLP issues). Sandstein 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unencyclopedic, uncompletable, and unsourced directory. Carrite (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles never have to be completable. Nor do you need sources for blue links to other articles that have the information proving they are legitimate entries to this list. Dream Focus 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article could use some improvements, but it does have a discriminate focus as being comprised of notable lawyers. I've added several references to the article, so at this time it is no longer unsourced. The article could use more sourcing and inline citations and an expansion of its lede. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. This is about as useless as dozens - hundreds - of others lists of people that are redundant to existing categories. If it is deleted, so should all the others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my comment below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no content beyond the list. This is why we have categories. Unmaintainable list. Not clear what the inclusion criteria are either. RadioFan (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my comment below. Also, the inclusion criterion seems very clear, per the lede sentence in the article: "The following is a list of notable Polish lawyers", with notable being the key criteria. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia has categories. Completely redundant article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See the WP:NOTDUP editing guideline: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps but there is no evidence here that this list will may be enhanced with features not available to categories. The bigger concern here isn't the format but that there is no clear rational for this list and it is unmaintainable as a result.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 34 blue links. That's enough for a list. If there is nothing saying the other names are notable, then remove them. Dream Focus 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list doesn't add any extra information beyond what is already provided by the category. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Directory-style page; a category could express all useful content better and avoids maintenance issues. Neutrality^talk 06:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and drastically reduce - No lawyers should be on the list unless they have an article. The list in itself is perfectly acceptable to complement the accompanying category - see WP:NOTDUP ("It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Carrite. The criterion for inclusion is too broad. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We have even broader categories, that are well accepted across the project -- such as notable people from country x. You can find them at: Category:Lists of people by nationality. This fits squarely within both established policy and established practice.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, I would urge that -- per WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all entries that do not have a wp article, and that do not have independent RS refs supporting their notability and their fitting the criteria of this list, be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without diminishing the clean up issues, this is a completely standard index of people by occupation and nationality, as a complement to the category, not redundant to it. See WP:CLN. It's standard with this kind of list (any group of X for which not every X is notable: films, books, companies, etc.) to limit it to only those entries that merit articles (of which there are apparently 96 judging from the category, not all of which are presently in this list). That's not hard to do, that's not a controversial inclusion criterion. Prune the non-notable entries and that problem is solved; it would no longer be a "directory". Yet reading through this deletion discussion, it seems as if most of the commenters here are completely unfamiliar with CLN and with ordinary list practices because they can't seem to imagine how this list could be improved. Like any other list of people, it could and should be expanded beyond a bare alphabetical list: turn it into a sortable table with columns for birth date and death date, locale of practice, area of practice, or other annotations that a category cannot provide. postdlf (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a "non-notable" entry? In case you've forgotten, this article is titled "List of Polish lawyers", not "List of notable Polish lawyers". It should either document all Polish lawyers, otherwise it should be deleted. With over 38 million people living in Poland, I suppose a fair number of those are lawyers. Are you going to pour over all the directories and search for each individual Polish lawyer? I can live with and happily support List of Polish lawyers from Gdańsk University, List of Polish lawyers from the University of Warsaw, or List of Attorneys of the Treasury (Poland), but to endorse the existence of a broad list as such this list is tantamount to endorsing the creation of List of Indian lawyers, List of British lawyers, List of Canadian lawyers, List of American footballers, List of American lawyers, List of Indian cricketers, and every other impossibly broad lists. @Postdlf, when you say "Prune the non-notable entries and that problem is solved," don't you think your request/suggestion is totally not consistent with the article's topic, which is supposed to document every Polish lawyer? I strongly urge the closing admin to ignore all rules in this case -- he/she doesn't have to follow WP:CLN. Furthermore, how can anyone know that some of these entries aren't non-existent people? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your comment from start to finish is a bunch of nonsense. A notable entry is a notable article subject, i.e., one that merits their own article, the same general standard we use across the board for articles about people. It's not a standard I've invented here specific to this topic or list; had you never seen the term "non-notable" before? It's just a matter of convention that it's titled "List of Polish lawyers", not "List of Polish lawyers that merit articles". Again, this is nothing new. Note the titles at Lists of people by occupation; List of lists of films; Lists of books; Category:Lists of companies by industry... In all of those cases, the lists are restricted to only notable entries yet we do not bother to put "notable" in the title (nor is it Category:Notable Polish lawyers, for that matter, yet no one takes the category name as an invitation to create articles for every Polish lawyer). "It should either document all Polish lawyers, otherwise it should be deleted." Um, no. You really need to get more familiar with list practice and standards before making such ridiculous demands. "How can anyone know that some of these entries aren't non-existent people?" The same way that we can know that an individual article's subject isn't a non-existent person. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the non-notable entries have been purged, but I still strongly support a different, more specific list. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom's initially stated concern is the redlinks. He is correct -- to the extent that they do not have appropriate refs -- that they should be deleted. But AfD is not for cleanup. That issue aside, the list is appropriate -- as already pointed out above -- per WP:NOTDUP and WP:CLN. Additionally, as reflected in Category:Lists of people by occupation and nationality, we have many such lists, which reflects that convention.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm always concerned with redlink purges wiping out potentially viable article topic lists; that's one of the reasons why we started making lists in the first place so long ago, as to-do lists. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. But the rules in lists of people are different than the rules elsewhere. They are pretty clear in WP:LISTPEOPLE. I can understand the rationale, as I've worked at cleaning up many such lists. They are highly attractive targets for vandals and the like. It is a cost-benefit analysis, and the cost is higher here than in many other places. Plus, the benefit is much lesser, and verifiability is a core policy of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs cleanup and accompanying text. It won't ever be a complete list, but topic is likely to be notable and have room for expansion. --124.176.43.195 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been revamped by myself. See talkpage for summary of changes I have made and the reasoning. I am satisfied that concerns raised in this AFD have been taken into account and that the article, per WP:NOTDUP, now adequately complements the category. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:59, 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) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the extent that concern has been voiced as to the length of the list, a) it was never really that long by wp standards [7,099 bytes]; b) it isn't long now [5,762 bytes]; and c) if editors are interested in long lists, they might take a look at List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ‎[393,529 bytes], which is our longest page at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How much more information does this offer than the Category:Polish lawyers. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it offers: a) birth years; b) death years; and c) refs. Plus, editors can add names to it that are redlinks and will not appear in the cat, as long as they add proper refs to the names. And oh -- should they wish to, as is convention in many list articles, they could adorn the list with images of the entries in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 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, Wifione ^Message 06:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable list of people on a notable topic. BLP issues can be addressed by the biography article itself. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Lugnuts says, it's a perfectly acceptable list that may have initially required a clean up, but not deletion. This seems to be yet another time consuming AfD made by someone who doesn't like, or understand the purpose of List articles! Sionk (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize: This seems like it work much better as a category than an article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purple. With all due respect, they are not mutually exclusive. See WP:NOTDUP.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just prefer list articles that add something that can't be done in a cat. Right now this list adds birth and death dates. It'd be even better if it could add something else, like areas of legal expertise, for example Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't it add that, and other information? It seems like you're judging the list purely based on its current state rather than on its potential, which is inappropriate for AFD: "delete because no one has yet developed it into what it can be." postdlf (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original reason given , that there were mostly red-links, was a reason for editing, not deletion, and the article has now been edited to contain only those people about whom we an article. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. The list can, and should have some additional context added. But if we don't keep articles while they are being developed, there will be nothing left to develop. there is no deadline for improvements. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 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 all. Michig (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PFC: Best of Both Worlds

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts event for a lower-tier promotion according to WP:MMANOT. Article primarily lists match results, which is routine sports reporting. No independent references. Does not pass WP:GNG. Also listing (for the same reasons):

Support. Though it might be appropriate to merge this article with Palace Fighting Championship, I feel it is not notable enough under WP:EVENT to warrant being a stand-alone article. Yelyzaveta (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete all Events fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all fail multiple relevant inclusion criteria. Mt king ^(edits) 02:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Events appear to fail WP:GNG and the articles are simply WP:ROUTINE WP:SPORTSEVENT coverage. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. A reasonable search for sources reveals mirrors to this and similar pages, plus a large amount of purely promotional and routine stuff. No indepth coverage or duration of coverage of these events. If Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, then it's certainly not the sports page. This sort of stuff would serve better at the Edge MMA wiki. No objection to transwiki to that location, though it still needs sources. BusterD (talk) 13:41, 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) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overclass

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

Not widely used enough to warrant an article. Basically, this is just a neologism for "upper class" or "elite" (which we already have articles for). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and until we can write more than a brief definition here, we should remove the article by redirecting it to Upper class. Mesoderm (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a journal article dedicated to this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both what should be a dictionary definition and not commonly used. In response to the comment, it should be noted that Russian (and Soviet) journals frequently do not have the same definition of political systems as standard English, so the article would not be a WP:RS even if the journal would normally be considered one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 28 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, BusterD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom.. Not sure if synonymous with Upper class or Bourgeoisie. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is more than a dicdef, but a sociological, economic and political topic which has gotten substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources, besides the writing of Lind, satisfying WP:N. Google Book Search shows [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] , and [26]. It also has mass market news coverage, as in a cover story in Newsweek (which itself received coverage). and Business Week. It also receives significant coverage in the bestselling "A history of the American People" by Paul Johnson. Edison (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison. There is clearly enough material out there to expand the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:48, 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 keep. Most comments below agree that there are Korean-language sources supporting the notability of this game; to avoid a 3rd AfD, please go and cite those in the article soon. Der yck C. 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Force (online game)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are sources in the article, but they don't suit our purposes. We've got (1) a press release about the publisher, (2) a tournament put on by the publisher, (3) a press release about a tournament merely mentioning the game, (4) an article about the sequel, which appears to be in beta testing, (5) an amateur review on a directory site, and (6) another amateur review on a directory site. Note that OnRPG appears to be affiliated with MMO Hut, which is specifically considered unreliable on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As I mentioned in the previous AfD under the name Special Force Online, this article has a history of being deleted and recreated under different names to bypass deletion review, so I'd recommend salting this name as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:03, 24 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) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:05, 24 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's assessment of the sources. Doesn't seem to have gained much if any notability since the last AFD deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable game in Korea means reliable sources are in Korean. Search for the Korean name on Google News, and you'll get loads of hits.[27] Most of the recent ones are about the sequel, but you can search through the archives and find plenty of stuff like this from The Chosun Ilbo which suggests that it is domestically popular.[28][29] - hahnchen 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through those links, I'm still not finding anything. There are numerous press releases and a lot of financial information about the developer/publisher—including all three of your references—but no substantial information about the game itself published in reliable sources. The most we could do with this information is have an article with the text "Special Force appears to be a game popular in South Korea". Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then do that. When a game is so important that its distribution rights are discussed in the financial press, it has to be fairly notable. When the source states that Special Force has generated 3.5billion ₩ (~US$3M) in 2008(?), it's notable. Maybe that's another sentence you can add on to your proposed stub, it's better than your suggestion of deleting and then salting this. - hahnch e n 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game seems to be virtually unknown outside of South Korea, but there it is popular enough to warrant an article, IMHO. There's people playing this game for a living, that ought to count for something, right? :) Someone who speaks Korean would be of great help finding sources here. I'm absolutely positive that there are more than enough. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm from Korea and I know the game personally and it should be notable. Although I can't go looking for the sources, I know there should be reliable sources out there to back this page with. Kagemasta (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a lot of people in this discussion talking about how there must be reliable Korean sources on this game, yet none have been found. Being from Korea, you're probably better equipped than most of us to find sources that will help keep this article. When you have the time is it possible for you to find something that will help support the claims of many in here? -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just searched "스페셜포스" on Google and saw a TON of articles on that game. Apparently this game is played in pro-leagues and as we know Korea is known to be one of the countries that takes gaming seriously. This article should be kept but maybe more in detail on bottom of current results of professional gaming scene. Jwjkim (talk) 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment it would be very helpful if someone who speaks Korean does the above google search, evaluates the sources, and creates proper references from it. Right now we have the situation where we are asking for, say, two specific examples of independent reliable sources, and responses are 'when I google it I can find tons of them!'. Though I appreciate the preliminary work, it would be nice if someone could help the non-koreans out. I for one am not equipped to properly asses the google results into what is an independent reliable source, and what's not, so I can't do it myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:03, 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.

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 There is a clear consensus to delete due to lack of reliable sources to meet notability. For the record, my own checks for other purposes concur, as many of the citations don't even mention Ellis, making me wonder about a semi-elaborate hoax. The article has also been subject to recent BLP-violating edits, another reason for getting on with closing this and deleting it now, given the evident consensus --Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch Ellis

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

No evidence of him ever meeting WP:MUSIC, couldn't find much in google that are reliable sources. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON plus a conflict of interest to boot. Delete Secret ^account 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough evidence that meet WP:MUSIC. In this article there is more than enough [[WP:RS|reliable sources] cited ]. Tommylane1 23:08, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Flicker, twitter, a talent agency website (which is probably the most unreliable sources) and these blog like very small independent websites are not reliable sources. Please read the guideline further. Secret ^account 05:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let all of us that try to keep this page up to date know what sources that "you" feel are more reliable? Tommylane1 21:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

It's not what Secret "feels" is reliable, it's what the policy says is reliable. Affiliated and user-generated content are not considered reliable sources for notability per the general notability guideline. For what it's worth, a few reliable sources would be: reviews in national newspapers or magazines, a few paragraphs of coverage in a book from a major or well-regarded specialist publisher, or in-depth television or radio coverage (i.e. a section or programme on Sketch Ellis and his work, not simply airplay). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability shown here. Lots of name dropping but notability is not inherited. member of multiple notable bands does not confer notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources which would meet WP:GNG criteria. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article would need reliable sources, which don't exist for the topic, and, while associated with notable bands, he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC himself. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous Combustion (bluerock band)

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

After reading through the article as well as the references, I don't see how it fits with WP:N. The first reference appears to point to the Walnut Valley Festival "Biography" of the band which reads like an WP:ADVERT for them. The second points to the bands own website. The third and fifth are articles with the Wichita Eagle (Paywall). Fourth is an article with the Manhattan Mercury (Paywall). The sixth is with Sing Out Magazine (Paywall). -Fumitol|talk|cont 03:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as all the "paywall" articles undoubtedly are reliable significant secondary sources. And WP does not require that the sources are online and free. See WP:PAYWALL. Cavarrone (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - Per the paywalled news sources and paywalled magazine source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As user:Cunard noted in the history[30], the news sources show that the band passes WP:BAND. Per WP:N, the requirement is for the topic to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the four news sources, although behind paywalls, show this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:43, 30 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 withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawful Cheater

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

Unreferenced. Unknown notability. One line article Cssiitcic (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm finding some sources for this, so I'm going to attempt a rescue. I'll make my decision after I'm finished.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I spoke too soon. Other than one sole source, there's nothing here that shows that this lost film is ultimately notable enough for its own entry. It might potentially be worth a redirect to Clara Bow since she's the #1 thing that came up in searches about this film, but I'm not really sure that people would be specifically searching for this film and if they are, that they're searching in relation to Miss Bow. I don't exactly think it'd be right to redirect just to her when there are several people involved, such as Frank O’Connor.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!vote changed to Keep, see below.Redirect to List of lost films. Between Google News archives and Google Books the existence of the film can be verified. I don't think any of the sources will enable the film to satisfy WP:N or WP:NF so that it can stand on its own but I would be very happy to change my !vote to keep should someone be able to do so. Otherwise, I think it's best that the film be added as an entry to List of lost films where a short description of it can be attached and where it is less likely to be removed over time. A concern I have with redirecting to Clara Bow is that the biographical article can easily be rewritten to remove any mention of this film. A reader who searches The Lawful Cheater and is directed to Clara Bow's article may not be served well if there is no information about the very film for which they searched. List of lost films was created specifically for films like these, whether or not they have their own articles, and I think redirecting to that list and creating an entry would serve this subject and a potential reader best. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would oppose outright deletion compared to a redirect. A redirect will serve a useful purpose and provide an easier option for expansion should adequate reliable sources be found to create a stand-alone article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per improper deletion rationale that fails WP:Deletion policy. I am quite unhappy that this article was sent to AFD only 60 seconds after being created. Further, the deletion rationale is not supported by WP:DEL#REASON and appears to lack of consideration of WP:DEL#CONTENT / WP:ATD. Where there any improvement tags as suggested by WP:ATD? Did waiting a full 60 seconds allow any consideration toward the article author or WP:WIP? No. While others above decided it might be fine to redirect the title elsewhere, I believe it far better for Wikipedia and its readers to actually give them sourced content and context about the film to increase their understanding of the topic. Being "lost" does not mean we ignore that in 1925 this film received coverage before and after it was released,[31] nor that we ignore that it has made it into the enduring record... even if now considered a lost film. We do not expect nor demand that a film from the very beginnings of the modern film industry would have still have in-depth coverage 87 years later. Its enough for us that it has made it into the enduring record, and even while "lost" still receives analysis and comparison in later books. Here, we protect cinema history... not redirect it to where pertinant and sourcable information becomes lost. Will the article remian short? Likely. But that's perfectly fine, and is itself no reason to redirect something which has independent and sourcable notability. Major kudos to User:Tokyogirl79 for her begining to adress the addressable issues. Following her lead, I myself took it further.[32] More to do, certianly... but needing work is rarely a sound reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
modified above to strike my preachiness. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per recent expansion the article clearly meets GNG and NF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most definitely. This film was produced in 1925 and is a silent film. 1925 was a pivotal year in Clara Bow's career with her appearing in more motion pictures than any other year. Whether the film is lost or not, it deserves an entry on Wikipedia. Films appear all the time and who knows? someone out there might have a print in their attic or garage unknowingly. Koplimek (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody should be nominating an article for AFD 1 minute after creation. Especially as the sources prove notability. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep per above rationale and improvements. I'm impressed at the amount of info that got added! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - this is now a well-crafted, interesting article with excellent RS, I think some BARNSTARS are in order. It is absolutely disgraceful pouncing on an article 1 minute after its creation: let us have some common sense here. Well done everyone for saving this worthwhile article - AfD functioning at its best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's done is done and what's been said has been said but I would politely ask any future !voters to not make any further disparaging remarks about the nominating editor or his actions, please. The article will be kept, there's no doubt about that any longer. Feel free to improve the article further or to comment on the merits of the article per policies and guidelines but further comments about the editor are absolutely unnecessary. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn After seeing the improvements made to the article. I withdraw my nomination-Cssiitcic (talk) 04:05, 26 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. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Martin

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

Questionable notability of a sports/internet personality. News searches are paltry, Mr. Martin is certainly a lacrosse player for a non-premiere professional league but little else.

Has been speedy deleted three times previously. tedder (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT as well as WP:GNG -Fumitol|talk|cont 04:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article not meeting the WP:GNG and not having any saving graces. Cloudz 679 20:17, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triunfo Pass

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

Not sure of notability. Very short with little context Cssiitcic (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NGEO: "Named geographic features are usually considered notable." I agree that the current article gives little context. There may be a good article to be written on the subject, though: Triunfo Pass is probably notable as the location of a controversial domestic satellite station that received significant news coverage [33][34][35][36] and maybe notable as a significant named location for hikers and naturalists, with lots of book references [37] including a 1959 UCLA publication called Geology of the Triunfo Pass Area, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California[38] (no preview available, unfortunately). --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; per WP:NGEO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withrdraw- I withdraw my nomination.-Cssiitcic (talk) 18:07, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan

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

Article written on Noun (Name). Please check validity. Thanks AKS (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – AFD is not clean-up. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator seems unsure about the topic's notability, rather than advancing notions why the topic isn't notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic is non-notable because there's no indication of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per the general notability guideline. All we have are entries in lists of baby names, more akin to directory entries than to significant coverage. I have doubts about their reliability, too - especially since they claim the same word means "flood", "ruler" and "grace" (Google translates it as "flood", by the way). The article's claim about the name's widespread use is not supported by the given source. Huon (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, this article is not against any general notability guideline new citations are updated including a reference of book which consider as eligible source nominator should know AfD is not clean up.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Hello all, this article is that it is about "First name" and nothing else. If this is true then we can end up having millions of articles e.g. Ayush, Komal, Kirti, Aude, Jason...........list does not end. I cannot ascertain any reason as to why is this article necessary to be included in Wikipedia. Just because citations are available, it does not mean that a page can be created. AKS (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is about the notability of this particular topic, and not about hypothetical arguments about what types of articles Wikipedia may or may not possess or end up having. This !vote doesn't address notability of the topic itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratched out !vote - you may not !vote twice, nominators may not !vote. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 24 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) 02:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a story behind every single name in the world. There are books that collect these stories. That should not open up the floodgates here, in my estimation. (An aside: can you imagine what a boon it would be to Junior High school vandals to have first name pages to vandalize?) This is a dictionary definition attached to a "list" of two with no logical connection other than sharing a name. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm... would this be better if it was altered to be a disambiguation page to include the name meaning as well as a listing of notable persons with this as a first or last name as well as general things that include this name? I see about three articles that have this in their page title, so it could be usable as a name definition and disambiguation page. (Pages are Faizan R. Cheema, Faizanullah Faizan, Free Faizan Campaign, although the second needs some definite work on the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. I also want to emphasize that already have pages similar to this under the names Christian (given name), Lou, Mariko (given name), and Farid, all of which seem to serve a very good purpose as a disambiguation page. First name pages already exist on Wikipedia and there is at least around 700 or so pages (and that's just in the names I looked up above). They're already here and while I know that other stuff existing doesn't mean that this should exist, it shouldn't be an automatic delete just because of the potential of abuse.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. It serves its purpose as both a definition and a disambiguation page for the name Faizan, plus there are several sources given.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ - This name is very much common in Asian countries and it also satisfied the all Wikipedia policies this article required more research on it and need bit citation which will be improved time to time or day by day therefore I would recommend to Keep this article on Wikipedia as its very useful for people who want to keep this name for their new born babies and I believe people love to prefer Wikipedia instead of any other search engine or encyclopedia book, or XYZ other resource.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One !vote per person only, please. The article says the name is common - but that claim is not supported by the given source. As an aside, Wikipedia is not a search engine. Not everything that produces hits in a Google search must have its own article. Huon (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-there is no valid rationale for deletion here. WP:Wikipedia is not paper and WP:OTHERSTUFF A412 (Talk * C) 02:03, 24 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) 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Presently, I don't think there is consensus to delete the article, so I'll give this AfD another week of discussion. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keept it why delete when there is no rationale behind it.--maxman 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep I don't think we should decide keep/delete on whether procedure is exactly followed --the policy for that is NOT BURO. Though there was no deletion rationale specified in the nomination, it's OK to bring things here of they seem to need discussion: the assumed reason is "notability seems dubious" I've been doing that from time to time since my first year here, when something comes up where I can't tell and want other opinions. We can still judge by whatever might be given in the discussion. Normally, I think we do have articles on personal names, which we assume are notable if there are any sources, and I think there are for this one. Though ref. 6 is a primary source, I think it is usable for the purpose. Arunsingh16's argument that there might be many such names is irrelevant--the policy that deals with this is NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment - I might agree if there were any similarity between ref. 6 and the sentence it's used to support. And if it were a reliable source. As is, I don't think adding a random website to "source" a sentence suffices to make the subject meet the notability guidelines. Huon (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (of names or other words). To the extent the references are not broken links, they are only other dictionary entries (of unclear reliability); this is not the sort of coverage required for notability. Sandstein 19:06, 1 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. The "no crystalballing" argument is strongly rooted in policy. The "keep" opinions assert that there will be a pro-union campaign, but they are generally not addressing the "crystal ball" problem that it is not clear that it will be this campaign. May be restored should this campaign actually appear and be reported on in the media. Sandstein 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scotland in Britain

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

Completing nomination for User:TBall84. The original rationale is reproduced below, to which I can only add that WP:CRYSTAL may be a valid rationale as well, given the speculative nature of the article ("Intend to work together...", "expected to", etc). There are sources indicated, but the article also references an expected announcement in December 2011. Other sources exist, for example this article from today, though it refers to one of the campaign's leaders rather than the campaign itself (and doesn't refer to this group by name, not a good sign). Note the related article Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Scottish politics aren't really my bag, though, so I can make no recommendation on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original rationale, from this diff, reads thus: "This is a purely speculative page about a group which does not exist and may never exist". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rationale is highly illogical: "which does not exist and may never exist". In what way "may never exist"?? There is fervent activity going on at the moment to build up the 'No' campaign grouping, as reported in hundreds of broadsheet articles. There HAS to be some sort of 'No' campaign: it is pure common sense. Otherwise, who on earth is going to campaign for a 'No' vote? There were proper 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns for the 98 referendum, and of course there will be for this one too. The papers are absolutely full of it. Tip: Google News UK is your friend!--Mais oui! (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Users may like to note the rather (ahem) sparse, and... erm... "odd" contributions of User:TBall84 before commenting on the seriousness of his/her half-cocked AFD nomination. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there will be a campaign - but whether it's this campaign was not clear from the article or the sources provided. When I cited WP:CRYSTAL, it was in more of the "article may be premature" sense as opposed to the "article's subject isn't gonna happen" sense. Indeed, what does not exist and may never exist seemed to fit well with that bit of the policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the nominator, there was no apparent conduct issue preventing them from nominating the article for deletion, nor did it appear that the nom was part of a pattern of vandalism or shenanigans. An editor's level of activity on the site doesn't diminish (or improve) the quality of the points raised - that's what the debate is for. I saw no obvious reason to reject the nomination out of hand, and so completed it on their behalf. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scottish independence referendum, 2014 at the moment. This is a sufficiently noteworthy event to merit a mention, and the No campaign will undoubtedly be sufficiently notable to warrant a seperate article in due course, but we don't yet know whether this will be the offical no campaign. Should this become the official campaign, or it manages to attract sustained coverage anyway, the article can be split off again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:37, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Crystal ball says not to write articles about something that has not yet happened yet (with some exceptions of course like Olympic Games). This is a rather blatant example. BigJim707 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems a bit too soon and, if as someone has suggested, there are 'hundreds of broadsheet articles' about the organisation, it is certainly not obvious from a search of the internet. Scottish independence is a hot topic in the UK at the moment and I've no doubt myself that there is a lot of backroom planning taking place by politicians. If evidence can be shown that 'Keep Scotland in Britain' is widely reported and will be formed on a certain date, I'll happily change my 'vote' here. Sionk (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All very "in theory" at the moment.If something is actually up and running going by this name then the article would be reasonable. RafikiSykes (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Mais oui, I can't see it being unreasonable to assume that it will happen, with a number of sources pointing towards it. Keep, and maybe rename if any changes come up. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This referendum and the two campaigns - for and against - are well reported in the media. --Rvd4life (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - premature. No doubt such a campaign will take place nearer the time, but the referendum won't be held until 2014 and this group doesn't even seem to exist yet. The article can always be recreated when it does and there's actually something to say here. Robofish (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - if this refers to an official organisation, I would suggest changing the title to Unity Scotland, that has an official website (http://www.unityscotland.org.uk/home/) and a twitter account (http://twitter.com/UnityScotland). Blackmojito 14:33, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

Delete as a crystal ball exercise. It will be formed in 2012? Okay, when it is formed, it's time for an article, assuming that the formation is covered in the press. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Crystal ball exercise? What utter rubbish and above all bias, if that is so , then surely the Scottish Independence and related pages should be deleted as well because the referendum hasnt been held yet and they not even 100% its going to be in 2014... User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)}^(Complain) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media has been absolutely choc-a-bloc full of stories about the No campaign for weeks now. I am utterly mystified by this non-sensical crystal ball nonsense. If you want references, there are hundreds of them in broadsheet papers, the BBC, and other mainstream media. Many of the above Delete votes contain no substantive points, and ignore the solid references already provided, eg. The Times. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:29, 1 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. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drumball

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

Unreferenced and orphaned stub, fails WP:NOTE, no edits or discussion since creation 5 years ago. Creator was a redlinked SPA who created the article and has not edited since. Appears to be a garden variety WP:NFT that slipped under the radar. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge This article might qualify for a merge with the children's game Keep Away under subsection "Variations". Although this argument is weak, seeing how that article does not have any citations either, poor kids. Phearson (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 10 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 12:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search and google books search for drumball game give no indication that this is indeed a notable topic. I imagine that five years is ample time to find references if any do exist. I can only suppose that they do not, and thus this fails WP:A and WP:V. Decline weak merge as suggested above, as the "Keep Away" article does not make a mention of this. Cloudz 679 21:31, 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 02:22, 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 merge to The Frost Report. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, but no consensus for deletion, so merging is the most consensual outcome. Sandstein 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Privy Seal (term)

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

I have been unable to find any references/sources/cites for this supposed terminology that aren’t linked to Richard Dawkins (who isn’t even in the field). Everything seems to indicate that he either made up the term, or heard it from someone who made it up and liked it. Timwi (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is used in this sense in Webster's with an apparent reference back to a 2002 book by John Sergeant Give me ten seconds. The original sketch is very well known. --AJHingston (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub article on non-notable topic without strong sources cited. DaveApter (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Frost Report. Agree it's not a made up term as such, but it's generally better practice to put memorable sketches in the article of the sketch programme, rather than have one article per memorable sketch. (If you can find coverage comparable to the The Spanish Inquisition, however, you can ignore this.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:32, 19 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Redirect - it is indeed in Webster's (this is the correct link); it's mentioned under 'B Roll Rebus' at TV Tropes which is a bit of a flaky site but seems accurate; and the sketch programme was well known. It's obviously a bit definitional but then Wiktionary couldn't show the images. A merge and redirect will permit search while keeping the discussion in its context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires some expansion but it is a valid article with at least a couple of non-Dawkins references as detailed above, perhaps it could be incorporated into another article? Hideki (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Frost Report. The term seems to be notable within the industry, and reliable sources may well exist in industry magazines/books. But if that's the case, they're not currently cited. The term therefore appears to fail WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 1 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. Sandstein 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Saleem Baig

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

This subject is not the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. His position of deputy prison administrator does not help to establish notability under existing guidelines. Speedy deletion was contested. Redirecting was also attempted, but reverted. Since the content and subject are not encyclopedic, and the subject is not mentioned elsewhere, the article should be deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 06:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the position is high-profile, responsible for many prisons and the individual has reeived widespread, diverse, media coverage. Babakathy (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – coverage of this person speaking in his official capacity probably indicates notability for the position (Deputy Inspector General of Prisons), not the subject. This subject, outside his role, is not the subject of non-trivial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 07:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, if we try WP:POLITICIAN as nearest(?) guide, post is provincial (i.e. state level) so holder might eb notable but am less sure. Babakathy (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The post of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons is not provincial or state-level. Its a regional or divisional level appointment and there are many regions or divisions within a province in Pakstani context. The subject is not encyclopedic or notable and seems to be merely a directory entry. Wikipedia should not be used for keeping separate articles on each of millions of state functionaries throughout the world unless they independently turn notable.--FourDaysLife (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorse the version of FourDaysLife. Subject is not notable.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per FourDaysLife .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 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 Soft Delete. Treating this as an expired PROD. In case things do still come up, or someone saves the day by finding an alternative name, and sources are easier to find, undeletion is available at WP:REFUND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sathon – Khlong Toei Express Boat

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

No evidence of notability. Is not mentioned in either the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning's or the Marine Department's websites. In fact, I couldn't find any online evidence of its existence, in Thai or English (apart from Wikipedia article mirrors & forks). Paul_012 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've found lots of WP:RS for express boats going NW from Sathorn. This route, however, is NE from Sathorn, and I've found very little other than a 2010 plan to expand. I wonder if there's a naming problem that's clouding this. Haus^Talk 17:01, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:18, 24 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 10:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lavery

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

Delete. Non notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable.Babakathy (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Should I have been notified of this nomination? I don't understand this nomination - people say "non notable", but if you click on the "books" and "scholar" links supplied with the nomination, there are so many things listed that I only had time to include a few of them in the article. Lavery is a well known writer, academic, and editor of analysis of popular culture. PermanentVacay (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get 5 books and 8 journal articles from scholar but I am not sure all are academic outputs. Per WP:ACADEMIC I am not sure this is enough for criterion 1. Cannot see evidence other criteria apply? Am I wrong? Babakathy (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at his CV here [39]? There is an awards section at the bottom. It also lists that he has chaired several departments. Between these and all others, I believe he fits many points under WP:ACADEMIC. PermanentVacay (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from his CV (which is not an independent source), I see no evidence that he has chaired a department, which does not meet any of the requirements of WP:PROF anyway. The list of awards is long, but contains trivial things (being an external reviewer is nothing out of the ordinary), minor awards (a small travel grant to go to Heidelberg...), and nominations (but apparently not won). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a newsletter from Brunel that mentioned him as the chair of their department. I guess they don't keep historic chairs on their website. I just googled burnel.co.uk and david lavery, fyi - it was on the first page... PermanentVacay (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should use that as a source, not his CV, which should not be used as a reference at all. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether a scholar has published a few or a lot of papers/books has absolutely no bearing on notability. What is important is whether those writings have had any impact, which we generally measure here by numbers of citations. As I have no time to look into this in detail right now, I'm abstaining from !voting, but I would like to note that the article currently has no evidence whatsoever of notability. All references are to works of Lavery, except reference 3, which is inappropriate (has nothing to do with Lavery) and reference 4, which is actually the only reference showing somebody has actually read his works. If it is to show notability, the article needs a lot of work. I just used Reflinks to format the references, but would like to note that links to GBooks are not really ideal. Oh, and yes, PermanentVacay, it would have been good form that you as article creator be notified of this AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately this AfD is almost half over and I only just found out about it, and I don't know if I'll have time to add anything to the article by then. Hopefully someone more familiar with him than me will do so (I like to create articles for people that I'm doing research on who don't yet have them - this means I don't necessarily yet know all that much). PermanentVacay (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the CV, very helpful. Going through the criteria:

The criterion on awards (number 2) requires a national award or higher and that it should be "highly prestigious". Most of the awards are institutional rather than national or better, and some of them are publishing rather than academic awards. That leaves things like "Mr. Pointy Award for Buffy Studies Scholarship" which I doubt we could call a highly prestigious academic award.

Nothing in the CV for criteria 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8. (Chairing a dept is not enough for 6. 8 requires head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal: he has 3 where he is an editor of a journal rather than an issue, but 2 are very recent so not "well-established". That leaves Critical Studies in Television, where he is one of six editors (not head or chief). So I do not think so.)

Criterion 1 needs an analysis of citations.

Criterion 7 might work - how widely popular are his general audience books? His CV cites interviews - is he frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert? There are quite a few google news hits that are interviewing him.Babakathy (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, criterion 7 seems like a good easy way to show notability. I'm not sure how to incorporate that into the article though. PermanentVacay (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do some work on Google News to provide (many) references to a statement such as his work in television studies has led to him being widely recognised as an expert on genres such as XX YY ZZ. I think you'd be able to pick up quite alot. Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed my mind): I believe this academic meets sub-criterio 7. Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 20 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 talk}_{about my edits?} 02:18, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied that WP:ACADEMIC/7 is met. The nomination is too vague for me to judge if the nominator's concerns have been resolved but the article has certainly been improved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable author at least, and probably meets WP:PROF as well as an expert on several related genres of television. Worldcat shows that 15 of his books are each in over one hundred libraries; his book on X files is in 513. ^[1] Reviews need to be looked or, but the probability of finding them with such widespread library holdings is very high. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 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 no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geokrety

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

Internet service with no reliable sources to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should be "reliable sources" to establish notability for such a service then? --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources would establish notability. WP:RS outlines what a reliable source is, and WP:NOTE is our notability guideline - I suggeset you read both of them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to those pages. Here I can mention some (I belive) reliable sources, mentioning geokrety service (unfortunatelly all are in Polish, but I hope somebody can confirm it)

The geokrety.org was a subject of a radio broadcast about geocaching in polish radio [Tok.FM - [tok.fm] - unfortunatelly the mp3 from that broadcast is no longer avaliable. Here is a [broadcast announcement].
Geokrety.org was mentioned as a one of the services for tracking items in geocaching in the one of the biggest polish newspapers - Rzeczpospolita. The e-version of the article is [avaliable]
Geokrety was mentioned in the local newspaper in Trójmiasto [internet version] (please note the article title).
One of the main polish web portal published an article about geocaching, including traveling items - geokrety onet.pl
"Komputer Świat" - a computer magazine, published a short information about geokrety: [[40]] --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if all the sources are Polish, may I request that Filips-z-polsko creates an article for this service on the Polish Wikpiedia, which could then be linked to this one, regardless of the outcome here. Cloudz 679 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudz679: The polish article is in preparation --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 09:55, 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about geocaching mentioning geokrety as traveling items: [e-version of Dziennik Polski] --Filips-z-polsko (talk) 21:08, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:14, 24 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:03, 30 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 Ninja. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intonjutsu

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

Unsourced non notable martial arts related dictionary definition, which does not justify a self-standing article, as per WP:NOTDIC Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep:Fairly broad coverage on web, not sure how reliable? Babakathy (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Among valid references all I can find is this dictionary type definition "Intonjutsu (escaping and concealment)". This is a term which may be used in an article about martial arts terms but as far as I can see there is nothing to justify developing a stand alone article out of it let alone enough material.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Samuraiantiqueworld - there are plenty of hits, but I've yet to see anything that's more than a passing mention (and most of those are on some seriously dubious "modern ninja" websites that would fail WP:RS quicker than you can say, "learn the mystical arts of the Ninja!"...). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ninja. My searches in Japanese were inconclusive - I found a few mentions of the word, but no concrete connections with ninjutsu. However, the majority of Japanese books on Google Books are set to "no preview", so this by itself doesn't prove much. The term is not in the Daijirin Japanese monolingual dictionary (very large and comprehensive), although I found it in WWWJDIC (includes some vetted, user-contributed definitions). I did find a couple of English sources that mention it in passing, but none that goes into to any detail. If there is an article in here it would probably require some Japanese-language library research, and until someone puts in that effort I would consider this topic of questionable notability. There are enough results on the web that people could search for it though, so redirecting to a relevant article would probably be best. The most appropriate one that I found was Ninja. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:47, 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to just be a dictionary definition which no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 20:52, 24 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, BusterD (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Ninja) - No reliable, in depth sources to be found on the web regarding this term.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:16, 1 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 Keep. Article has been improved considerably during the discussion, and since improvement there is clear consensus to keep.Michig (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schleifer

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

It's an ornament. No, it's a German late-medieval dance form in 3/4 metre. Wait, it's both. Neither is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find. Wikipedia is not a collection of random bits of information glued together by a common name. SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. If you've never heard of a schleifer, even though I provided a source, then maybe you should ask for another source. AFD is not cleanup. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~-it's also not Wiktionary as you have been told before. He iro 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info has already been merged to an article with lots of similar ornaments. Why is a red link better than a redirect? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe you should have done the research and added the info to the other articles to begin with instead of creating a stub combining two separate and disparate subjects that all told only equaled barely 4 lines of text. He iro 02:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But since you asked WP:NOT#DICT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .He iro 02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability established and article fleshed out quit a bit, kudos to whoever did that. He iro 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: malformed WP:DICTDEF stub. An unsourced claim, a quote and then an irrelevant claim do not make the basis for an acceptable article. If sufficient sources to demonstrate that the topic is at least marginally notable it can be added as a section into Ornament (music). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant section of Ornament (music). Schleifer as ornament is certainly notable; the New Grove dictionary, a highly reputable source, actually has a (short) separate article on this topic. But I think this information would be more useful in the context of other ornaments. Ditto for schleifer as dance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus33 (talk • contribs)
Already merged to Schleifer (the part I wrote) and to Medieval dance (the part someone else wrote, and which SummerPhD and I felt didn't belong here). I would reduce the current article text to a redirect, but I'm not sure that would be called "blanking" or something like that. What's the rule on this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would involve you deciding that the consensus here is to redirect. I don't see any such consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if the article is not yet large enough, this is a significant ornament in the 18th century. I'll try to amplify with sources that I know. (But it should be a warning not to create articles until you have ample sources.) -- kosboot (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kosboot. --Klein zach 01:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach: As Kosboot hasn't added any sources yet, you are !voting on blind faith. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, some of us work long days, you know. I'd say you should wait at least a week. -- kosboot (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful lot of faith for an article that has been a dictionary definition stub since January 2008, and even though it has been prodded and discussed for 4 days now still has yet to have any new relevant sources or material added. He iro 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about it last night. If you've had any interest, you would have been able to find the sources yourself, instead of being so eager to delete the article. -- kosboot (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wasn't aware of this article until yesterday. It didn't have a banner on it until then. Since the information is apparently genuine enough, we should have enough time to look at how it should be presented. --Klein zach 09:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is no longer as ambiguous as it was when nominated. It's not a Wiktionary entry, either. It describes an historically significant musical ornament. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "It's an ornament. No, it's a German late-medieval dance form in 3/4 metre. Wait, it's both." This comment is racist against Schleifers. Which a lazy use of google shows is worth writing about.[41][42][43][44][45]. (whether it editorially should be combined elsewhere is an editorial decision we can decide later.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Michael Bednarek. Nik thestoned 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I already gave evidence above that it is notable, and I would now like to change my vote to a Keep. Recent edits have made this a substantial, indeed very nice article. Opus33 (talk)
Keep Evidence has been found and presented that this is clearly a notable ornament. The encyclopedia would be incomplete without listing it. Dream Focus 09:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG if nothing else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 30 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.

^ [46]

[1] [46]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batoo}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Baby}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Baby}}