Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:24, 2 December 2012

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 December	3 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wong

15,000 Google hits. Possibly POV, apparently directly dumped from a website. Clearly a copy-vio. Does he deserve his own article? Master Thief Garrett 11:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite. Google for "Patrick Wong" minister and you get over a thousand, which isn't what I call very, very few. Perhaps you mistyped somewhere? The hits include this one from the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. [1]. Unless this is some form of extremely elaborate hoax, Mr Wong would appear to easily qualify for an article. However, a direct cut and paste from a website isn't it. Average Earthman 10:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I must have mistyped, I did like five pages at the same time. I've finally found the correct wording of the plagarism tag, and added it. Master Thief Garrett 11:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music (application)

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

Verging on an A7; I see no need for separate encyclopedia articles on these applications.

I am also nominating the following related article for deletion:

Delete I would recommend a redirect to the IOS article, but the titles for both articles are unlikely to be used or searched for that way. I say nuke'em. No need for two standalone arts that will be stubs for all eternity. §FreeRangeFrog 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:17, 17 November 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, —Theo polisme 14:47, 24 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references apparent. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references. And the 2 sentence "content" says nothing useful.....doesn't even say 1 word on what this application is or does. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also the content on Videos (application), which was added only in response to its being listed as an A3. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:36, 2 December 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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire

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

This article has no references and is mostly just a definition for the term. Since an entry exists on Wiktionary, content on this article should be added to that page if it isn't already there. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good concept for an article, just needs references IMHO Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a good topic for an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. I'm surprised there is not already such an article. - Mr X 02:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it is a useful word for a range of military articles, but so is the word "the". Not a cohesive topic. No sources, no indication of wp:notability as a topic. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move. To Crossfire (military), and leave behind a disamb page. I'm surprised this doesn't exist yet. §FreeRangeFrog 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is about when the fields of fire from any two guns or weapon systems cross each other. Such an article on no cohesive topic would be doomed to be a mess. Please consider this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with DeathLibrarian. Disagree on deleting articles not because there couldn't or shouldn't be one, but because "it would be a mess". The Steve 10:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per North8000. This is a definition, not something that requires a full article.Intothat darkness 21:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopaedic term, certainly not just a dicdef. Much more can be written about it than has yet been. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 December 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, —Theo polisme 08:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable topic, far more than a dictionary definition. Could easily be expanded. Needs sources and improvement, not deletion. Don't move; this is as clear cut a case of WP:Primary topic as I've ever run across, meeting both usage and long-term criteria. Enormously common term; every listing on the disambiguation page is based ultimately on this particular word usage. This is a case of so many incorrect search engine hits, it's difficult to come up with quick online sources, though they are certain to exist. I'm taking the liberty of requesting sources at WT:MILHIST; this should not be seen as canvassing, instead as a legitimate search for sources. (As an aside and reply to User:MrX and User:FreeRangeFrog above--not part of my keep assertion--this article has existed in one form or another since January 2002.) BusterD (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has widespread military usage, so it can be expanded beyond its current state. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a tactic, not just a definition.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FM 3-21.8 uses the term "Interlocking fires."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:32, 9 December 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repent Sinner

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

This topic about a graffiti street art campaign in Western Canada appears to fail WP:GNG. Source searching is not yielding significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I found this one dead link article: ([2]). Also, this custom search in Google News archive doesn't yield anything ([3]) and searches in Google Books are also not fruitful, including custom searches such as this one. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:43, 17 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - suffers from many of the same problems as other street art articles. Often they are fads or short-term campaigns by particular groups or a particular "style" adopted by several artists. There are plenty of blog posts and social media references to "Repent Sinner" graffiti but they certainly wouldn't be considered reliable sources here. Interestingly, some of the social media commentary refers to its importance because it has a WP article. In reality, it must be important (notable) before it gets a WP article. Stalwart111 02:55, 26 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:01, 2 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEVA Planks

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

No explanation of significance. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me. Short, but useful. An alternative would be to incorporate the content into the Kapla Blocks article, but that seems more cumbersome. I vote Keep. NCdave (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:39, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's no assertion of notability of Kapla either, except for suggestions that they have been used in a couple of notable exhibitions, something that could also be said of the subject. That's not an attempt at WP:OTHERSTUFF; I mention it because I wouldn't be strongly against a merge to Kapla with an explanation that the subject is a US-version of the same. My only reservation is that it's not clear from either article whether they exist in two distinct markets or if they compete. Having competing products listed under one product name could create problems. Stalwart111 03:03, 26 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:15, 2 December 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 Tigger Movie#Soundtrack . MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Heart Will Lead You Home

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

Delete - no indication in independent reliable sources that the song is notable. PROD removed without explanation. Buck Winston (talk) 00:37, 2 December 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 December 2. Snotbot t • c » 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some press coverage does exist for this song, mostly because it was written by the Sherman Brothers together with Kenny Loggins. The other fact mentioned here is that the song is the "main theme" for the Tokyo Disneyland attraction Jubilation!; I didn't find an independent reliable source for this, although it is mentioned in a number of sources of uncertain reliability. I am not sure there's enough here for the song to require its own article, and I currently lean toward a merge and redirect of this article into The Tigger Movie#Soundtrack, where I've already added a reference to a Los Angeles Times article about the Shermans-Loggins collaboration. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either the movie article or one for its soundtrack if created.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Tigger Movie#Soundtrack as per Arxiloxos. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this song to warrant an individual article. The information contained in this stub would comfortably fit within the soundtrack section of the film article. Gongshow ^Talk 07:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:21, 4 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Heart Will Lead You On

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 Tigger Movie. Courcelles 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round My Family Tree

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

Delete - there are no independent reliable sources that indicate that this song is notable. PROD removed without explanation. Buck Winston (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the movie article or one for its soundtrack if created.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to the article about the film, which is notable; it has no reliable sources that prove it in itself is. dci | TALK 07:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:14, 4 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, why was this relisted? Killer Chihuahua 11:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notability is inherited. 1292simon (talk) 01:28, 15 December 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 Fushigiboshi no Futagohime. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Kingdom

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

This article about a fictional kingdom in the Fushigiboshi no Futagohime television show that fails WP:N. Google News archives and Books searches are not yielding any coverage in reliable sources (RS). Customized searches likewise did not yield any results in RS. Also, the article is written from an in-universe standpoint; it lacks sourced analysis and real-world context. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somehow to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime - I'm not fluent with Japanese but any relevant sources are probably small mentions and insufficient to start a separate article. I'm happy to recall my vote if other users prove this is notable, SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime. No need to have its own article if it is not the subject of enough reliable coverage. Any relevant content should be in the main article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge here, the characters are already talked about uin detail on the List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters article, which by the way has other deletion Kingdom candidates (Water Drop Kingdom, Seed Kingdom, and Windmill Kingdom). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged all of the external links in the kingdom articles to the List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters article, someone just needs to put them into inline references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Would also support a merge as a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 22 November 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, Vacation^nine 00:06, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the time this Afd has taken I have merged all the external links to the characters page and Prodded (Water Drop Kingdom, Seed Kingdom, and Windmill Kingdom) which were the same format as this article, those were deleted and nothing was merged but the external links so I ask again what from this article is there to merge that will better help the Fushigiboshi no Futagohime article?

Delete - no reliable secondary sources cover this topic. Claritas § 22:32, 3 December 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 Product lifecycle management. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed-loop lifecycle management

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

I see no differences between this and Product lifecycle management.

Though not cited in the article, it apparently is based on the book Michelson, Bruce (2007). Closed Loop Lifecycle Planning®: A Complete Guide to Managing Your PC Fleet. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 9780321477149 , a book held in only 100 libraries. according to worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Product lifecycle management, which seems to be the wider area that this is a subset of. I found enough that this is plausible as a search term. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 9 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Rendezvous

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

This fails WP:ORG. The references in the article don't look reliable, and the only mentions of Virtual Rendezvous I can find online are in "teach yourself Java" books written by Charles L. Perkins, the organization's founder. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:28, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find independent info online. Looks like an organization that hasn't found a business or validated purpose, and has not made a notable product or other difference.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, this has been around quite a while and obviously created by the author (judging by the initials), yet there is precious little information out there. I'd say this definitely fails WP:ORG, and notability is not inherited. I have my doubts about the notability of the author as well. §FreeRangeFrog 21:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original author of the 2007 article, and I gave a public talk on the until then private project in NYC 3/2009 at DCIA.info that talk is archived as referenced in the footnotes. The article was not notable in 2007 since Virtual Rendezvous had only private influence until 2009, when it went more public, but I have been off the Net caring for my mother 24/7 the past two years and thus could not participate in the deletion discussion. I can give about 100 notable people who have worked on the project 1993-2009. Let me know how is best to proceed, I am unfamiliar with new wikipedia procedures. VirtualRendezvous at Gmail reaches me --clp §FreeRangeFrog 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.41.249 (talk) [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. DGG makes a fair point about the number of potential citations for his work, but the fatal flaw remains that – despite having been around for years – the article remains without a single independent, significant source on the subject. (And, indeed, nor can I find a single one myself that is not the University's or a simple directory listing). — Coren ^(talk) 23:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Erevelles

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

Fails notability, due to no reasons for being notable which are supported by sources. At least, it should be incubated IMHO. But since the article has existed for over 5 years without sources, my suggestion is it is deleted. 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, and for failing to say anything that distinguishes its subject from any other academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively short of WP:PROF, no distinguishing accomplishment.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone clear this up for me: I see in Google Scholar that his papers are cited, but I have no idea what the threshold for citations is. In the previous AfD DGG (talk · contribs) makes good points and I respect his views on article deletion a lot, so a 'weak keep' for him is tantamount to a "burn this thing to the ground" (I kid), however that was two years ago. Is the consensus here that what I'm seeing in Scholar is not enough to get this person past WP:PROF? §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair question indeed. Per WP:PROF: '"high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure."' As a business scholar who is has long been eligible for promotion to full professor (PhD from 1992, see http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Erevelles%20Sunil.pdf?osu1272294352), one would expect a citation track record of multiple publications papers with, say, over 12 Google Scholar citations per year (one per month) since publication. How many publications is not obvious, but this person has none.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is inadequate, but the citation record in Google Scholar makes the notability clear. His paper "A comparison of current models of consumer satisfaction" (Journal of Consumer Satisfaction 5) has been cited by 199 articles. His paper "The Role of Affect in Marketing" (Journal of Business Research Volume 42, Issue 3, July 1998, Pages 199–215) has the remarkable number of 158 citations. Use of th h factor shows its limitations: he has only 10 papers with more that 22 citations, but the one he does have are very important. Publishing lots of mediocre work does not make an expert; publishing highly significant work does. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T &C 's argument that counts per month are relevant makes no sense to me. notability here is permanent. By use of his method of analysis, a person who after 5 years of work is notable, but who publishes nothing further, and whose work was important to the research front at the time, but has since become incorporated into standard knowledge, would 10 years later not be notable. All that is required for notability of anyone is that one be notable once. One just has to be a major contributor to the knowledge of the subject at any time. The most cited papers are from '92 & '86. The college has probably decided not to promote him because he has stopped publishing, and that makes sense for them, because they want someone who will continue to be actively notable till the end of his career, and for their purposes, notability is not permanent. Using this sort of standard is like saying that only albums that continue to be on the charts count for notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG's argument makes no sense to me. First, 199 citations is hardly notable for a marketing article from 1992. That would put this article in the bottom half of citations to publications in tenure-caliber journals for that year, and nowhere near tenure-making criteria at major research institutions. Likewise, 156 citations is hardly remarkable for a paper from the Journal of Business Research in 1996; alas there is no foundation for calling this number "remarkable" in DGG's note. Furthermore, DGG's argument would make a mockery of notability, since massive numbers of academics who publish at some point would qualify by the lowly standard implied, even though many would not make tenure at a major research institution let alone satisfy other academic notability criteria. Relative to my reply to his query on my talk page, DGG's argument here ignores the fact that notability at any point in time cannot be established positively from cumulative data except perhaps if a paper has exceptional total citations (though it can be established negatively). In my reading, the sub-argument about "notability at any point in time" is spurious and dilutive: The number of "rich people" would surely spike if based on account balance at any point in time, but that would only make the concept meaningless (you had a lot of money in your account for a short while if you ever took a mortgage, but so what - ask the millions who lost "their" home in recent years?). I also showed in reply to DGG's query (at my talk page) that the publications of the subject are of such vintage that the argument I gave plainly applies, since tenure-caliber articles are benchmarked to a cited half-cite exceeding 10 years. Practically, an exceptional marketing paper from this subject's era would have many hundreds of Google Scholar citations, and a notable track record through tenure at a major research institution for someone who graduated twenty years ago would add up to over 1000 GS citations. This subject's cumulative citation record actually proves that they were never notable, even if one follows DGG's road to dilution. Remember, academic notability is a matter of awards, editorships and the like, all of which the subject fails completely; or of a rather exceptional citation record, which this subject also fails as a last resort.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have great faith in DGG's estimation of scholarly worth. His analyses are always on point and often conservative. If he says that this person has written enough influential articles in several well-known peer-reviewed journals, I believe him. Also, neither tenure nor tenure qualification are required to be notable. The Steve 10:19, 4 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask.fm

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for retention I created this stub entry, as the ask.fm website was receiving much media attention in Ireland, and had no Wikipedia Entry. Since the entry has been nominated for deletion, I have substituted an article in the Baltic Times Newspaper for the e-zine piece that was previously the main source used. This may address some of the verifiability issues identified. The entry remains a stub. I would like to see the entry expanded and improved, by the user community, rather than being entirely deleted. The entry has received 4400 page views in less than 30 days, so there is some interest in the subject matter. The said Baltic Times article, contains background information on the company, that may facilitate expanding the entry. Best regards --Padraigobrian (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.....apologies, if the above, should be in the talk section of this page--Padraigobrian (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put your comment in the right place. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 06:38, 30 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is fairly widely used from my own observations, the article just needs a lot of expansion and more references. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lukeno94, I'm a little suprised to see this up for AfD. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much a stub, but a widespread application with links to Facebook and Twitter, and notable even aside from the Irish bullying case. http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/11/26/social-qa-network-from-riga-with-9-million-daily-uniques-ask-fm mentions "over 21 million users and 9 million uniques".Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 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. Despite having been listed for a month, the best sources found are, at best, insufficient to reach GNG (a review and an incidental mention in an article on a festival where they performed). — Coren ^(talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albannach

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

Fails WP:BAND. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Probably falls short of being sufficiently significant for an encyclopedia article. I did find a few news items: The News Press, Seminole Chronicle, Virginian-Pilot. --Michig (talk) 17:19, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: They have clearly performed in both the UK and the US, which would satisfy WP:BAND#4 Faustus37 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. on 22 November by Dthomsen8 Faustus37 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:32, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the refs above aren't really that helpful since the mere mention shown is photo captioning in at least one of them. Notability requires significant coverage and I've yet to see any. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject about a Scottish band fails WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources. After all, it is already tagged with the WP:N notice, which this article also fails. I did, however, run into a few items, as did Michig (talk · contribs) but none of which will ensure that the article passes WP:GNG and WP:N: IFA Online, Seminole Chronicle, and The News Press. That's all generally, though. TBr and ley 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note you have made an absolutely unique argument I have never heard before: Delete because it is already tagged with a Notability tag. In other words, some one person has doubted notability, which is proof we should delete it. Of course if an article fails notability it will be deleted, but that's what we are here to determine. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They seem to be regulars on the Highland Games circuit in Scotland and North America and this generates regular coverage in the press. I have added a citation of that sort plus an album review. The coverage I've seen is not especially deep but seems wide enough to establish notability. Warden (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the two inline citations added by Warden (talk), this band is documented well enough to establish notability, and the article should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that Warden's additions [4] prove its notable. I wonder specifically what awards their bagpipe guy won. Dream Focus 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems okay.--Auric 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 00:34, 6 December 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) —Theo polisme 08:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indore Management Association

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

Do not meet WP:ORG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or Delete - I checked the internet for information about this group and found next to nothing. I examined the website and have a hunch this may be a significant organization. If anyone has good references, including written material not on the internet, they need to include these in the article. Otherwise, it should be deleted, as the only significant source is the organization's website and we must have significant independent sources on Indore to keep its article. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bona fide organization, having organized 20 two-day conclaves per News link above. High-level national speakers. Featured repeatedly in the Times of India. Even associated with some academic research per the Scholar link above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Keep - I examined the scholar link above and, yes, a number of significant hits were made. Now, the author needs to document these as references in the Reference section of the article, so the importance of Indore can be seen by all who read the article. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitmore Gray

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

Non-notable law academic. No independent references at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he is notable it would probably be for his translations in the 1960s and maybe 1970s of Soviet and Japanese legislation, for example here. But I haven't been able to find anything describing the impact of those works, nor does anything appear in the article. JohnInDC (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professors at major universities, including their law schools, are almost always notable. In this case, his publications record [5] shows him as an expert in his subject , especially of Soviet and Japanese commercial law. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that CV is from his employer, so it's not independent and thus can't be used to support notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And except that there is no evidence of notable scholarly impact at Scholar. Publications far impact, not in major journals or presses, and with few citations. Would very much be near the bottom of even a minor law faculty in academic visibility.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't really pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics); no evidence of signficant impact of his work. dci | TALK 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Mediran ^{talk to me!} 00:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At tail end of career and yet falls far short of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), with just a few Scholar articles, spaced far apart and with trivial impact; no evidence of major editorship or leadership function. As befits law schools, even at a top university, being faculty is hardly evidence of notability or impact.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that his employer published his books lessens the impact, but still shows notability and does not apply to the book chapters or journals listed. The Steve 10:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be anything going for this biography other than "the subject worked at a top 20 school." That's not sufficient for notability by our guidelines, nor is it an indicator that there will ever be enough interest to flesh out a proper article. Ray^Talk 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnInDc. Lord Roem (talk) 04:44, 9 December 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) 10:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shevington Sharks

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

Contested prod. Amateur rugby team with a fairly short history. Nothing beyond routine coverage. One source simply states that one of their junior coaches died. I really don't see these local amateur clubs being suitable for encyclopedia articles. Michig (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article doesn't establish notability. Mattlore (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article probably doesn't meet GNG (though there many other sporting clubs of similar notability on Wikipedia). The club is within the scope of Rugby League Wiki so I'll preserve a copy there in case the outcome here is deletion. LunarLander (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't regard thirty-three years as a short history. The death of Molyneux wasn't simply an everyday incident of death by illness or accident or similar; it was extremely widely reported. I was able to find the three reliable sources currently in the article after only a perfunctory search; I'm sure there's more out there to be found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Molyneux does not make this club notable, read WP:INHERIT. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 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, —Theo polisme 04:12, 25 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to suggest this team are notable; one reference in the article is about the U11 side (which is not Wiki relevant), another fails WP:INHERIT, and so does the third - about a player so notable he doesn't have an article of his own. Age of a club does not make a club notable either. Article, at present, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2017

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, this article should be deleted, as it is simply too soon for an article at this stage. TBr and ley 08:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The championships have been awarded to Lahti in May 2012 by the FIS as the governing body. The article does not include anything prophetic or speculative things but mere facts, so that's certainly not an issue of WP:CRYSTAL... --Miebner (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:55, 27 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is from a reliable sporting body. The organizer is credible for this sport and at this level, regularly organizing World Cups and possessing all the facilities. A five-year planning horizon is normal for such an event, and this article will only become richer and more relevant as the event nears.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are over a dozen programmes listed that have their own articles, plus many, many more that have been split off into separate sublists (see bottom of this list for links to those lists) that could be merged into one list. It is standard to index notable TV series by the originating broadcaster, so it seems to me that this list is at most a cleanup problem. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... maybe the remaining parts of the article can be moved to respective new articles, for example, currently list of programmes contain up to year 1999, and we can form new articles that cater to the respective dramas broadcast at the era. As for the upcoming dramas article, maybe we can help discuss with the people who deleted the previous article. If a consensus is NOT reached, then maybe we should keep the article. 2679D (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:00, 27 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news and current affairs article has been deleted, so I see no reason for deleting. 2679D (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Precisely because the news and current affairs article has been deleted should we delete this one. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be a prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This just seems excessive and largely unsourced. I could understand the relevance of a list of (notable) programmes made by a notable company, but simply listing every programme ever to be made and broadcast on a channel, many of which will never have articles, seems unencyclopedic. There may be case for applying some criteria for likely notability and trimming the list (some of these will surely have received enough coverage that an article could be written), which is why I'm a little hesitant to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 9 December 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. There is just enough marginal notability about that company's software that it seems like a plausible destination for redirects. — Coren ^(talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soot (software)

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

Another article relating to the Sable research group, recently deleted at AfD. The only coverage appears to be from people associated with the research group. Michig (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=soot+jimple. I haven't taken an in-depth look at all the sources, but they appear to be both numerous and independent. A merge to Sable Research Group doesn't seem to be a possibility anymore. —Ruud 16:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first page of those results, all the articles that provide coverage of any significance are written by people associated with the Sable research group. It's common in academia for people to publish many papers on their own work and for associated research groups to cite each others work. I think we need some real evidence of significant independent coverage here, and if anyone comes up with it I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. --Michig (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many papers you have configured to display on your "first page", but for me most results on positions 10-100 seem to comes from a widely differing set of researchers form a large group of universities. Soot seems to be a widely used framework for the static analysis of Java programs in academia. Having individual publications with over 500 citations and nearly 500 article mentioning your work is an extremely non-trivial accomplishment in computer science. —Ruud 17:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added to the article:
In 2010, two research papers on Soot (Vallée-Rai et al. 1999 and Pominville et al. 2000) were selected as IBM CASCON First Decade High Impact Papers among 12 other papers from the 425 entries.^[1]

—Ruud 17:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that on that page? I can see one paper ('Soot: a Java bytecode optimization framework') which was written by the research group about their own work. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to SableVM, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if the close is merge, I'm happy to do it if you ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose a merge between Soot and SableVM. Despite being created by the same depeartment, they are separate tools, both independently notable. —Ruud 11:25, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 2 December 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 Soot (software). — Coren ^(talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimple

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

Apparently non-notable product of the Sable Research Group, an article on which was recently deleted at AfD. The only coverage appears to be primary. Michig (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soot (software) —Ruud 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to SableVM, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if the close is merge, I'm happy to do it if you ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soot (software) Not notable enough for a standalone article Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:49, 2 December 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 Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Michig (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013

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

The article currently lists two sources, one leading to the frontpage of the official Junior Eurovision website, which does not confirm that the contest will run in 2013; and the second is to Ketnet (in Dutch) which is an application form for 2013, but no confirmation from the EBU of the 2013 contest taking place.

The article is essentially bare, no date, not host, and a bit WP:Crystal. [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the 2012 contest just ended within the last 24 hours, so this is very much TOOSOON. In similar "will probably happen but not for a while" circumstances, I've seen arguments for and against CRYSTAL, though I personally lean "for". There are absolutely no policies for keeping articles with which this "article" complies. Nevertheless, I would point out that we are an encyclopedia that is supposed to focus on third-party reliable sources with substantial coverage of events that have already occurred. There has been a trend lately to create articles on things that simply haven't occurred yet in an effort to make WP a one-stop fan reference for whatever it is without regard to any policies whatsoever, and that needs to stop. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I dont care if it is delete because the article will be re-created fast when the contest is confirmed. but on the other hand I dont see a reason to delete a article that will most likely be re-created within weeks/months. But whatever consensus say im on:)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest per Lugnuts; a screaming case of WP:CRYSTAL, as it's in no way confirmed that a 2013 edition will take place. – Kosm1 fent 12:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest. assuming current notability is WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 4 December 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 List_of_universities_in_Somalia#Somaliland. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Somaliland

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

==Merge or Delete==

I suggest that this article should be merged with one already existing given that it contains no other notable information. 26oo (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard AfD templates, and to nowiki the header. I will also be transcluding it in the daily deletion log. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as to merge or keep separate, but leave a redirect behind if merge is chosen, as a likely search term and to avoid link rot. Siuenti (talk) 14:55, 29 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~: The information is more likely to be useful in the main article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split relevant section from List of universities in Somalia#Somaliland and merge to this article: changing my !vote after Truth or consequences-2's reason below; I was not aware of the political situation of Somaliland. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For one reason: Somaliland has claimed and maintained de facto independence from Somalia since 1991, including through war, so it hardly helps to make the article part of a Somalia article. This would be like claiming that Harvard should be put on a UK list as of 1800.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_universities_in_Somalia#Somaliland. While Somaliland is not recognized as a separate state, a section in the Somalia list is adequate. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 9 December 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 Dispatches (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Day the Dream Died

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

Hello, I'm nominating this article for deletion as it fails to meet the notability status as required by Wikipedia guidelines. K. (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard deletion templates. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. The article gives no sources and almost no information on this one episode of a TV series. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the series, because this lacks evdience of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dispatches (TV series). Seems to lack enough for a standalone article, and what we have at the moment isn't worth keeping. --Michig (talk) 10:36, 9 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Naomi Smart

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

It seems likely that this person created an autobiography for self promotion. Regardless, I can't imagine that an actress in local theater productions should be considered notable, regardless of her level of talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jaxelrod (talk • contribs) 21:40, October 5, 2012

Note to closer I have refactored the discussion to include the standard deletion template, and to add the unsigned template. The discussion was not trancluded in a daily deletion log, so I will be adding it now. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the deletion discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Passage to Zarahemla for now - I recovered the first reference here and it mentions some of her work including a direct-to-DVD production Beauty and the Beast so I searched at Google News and found several reviews. It seems she was also in a play, Noises Off, which received reviews here and here. I also found a Deseret News article here with information about her. News articles here and here indicate she was also in a musical production of Legally Blonde. Although she played a lead role in Passage to Zarahemla, I haven't found much about this. Although she has achieved a fair amount of work, at best, I would say this is a case of too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 27 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a search and I found where she has received reviews from other states, such as the Chicago Times. I also found some reviews of her work in some of the films as well. She's no Neil Patrick Harris, but Smart appears to pass WP:NACTOR as far as I can tell.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Keep per improvements and sourcing provided by User:Tokyogirl79, changing a porly written stub into a decent start class article to serve the project.[6] Such editorial prowess reflects the best of Wikipedia. Kudos!Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 9 December 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. Discussion participants found the alleged film unverifiable, and likely a hoax j⚛e decker ^talk 07:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deceived (2012)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a film from Trinidad with claims of it being a "blockbuster" and a review without sources that I couldn't find anywhere. There's even a wikiquote template there that leads nowhere. I don't believe this meets WP:NFILMS. §FreeRangeFrog 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not a hoax, possibly a student project. Claims to have a film budget = $46 USD -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. A "blockbuster" with a budget of only $46?--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 4 December 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. No sources, no keepy. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YaHooka

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

Can't find anything that shows this to be really notable, other than forums. Cloudbound (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 27 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is referred to a lot by various websites (mainly pot alternative lifestyle related, as well as forums - gets 129,000 hits on Google. However, article could do with better references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Conditional" delete. The website does appear known, but not necessarily notable; at any rate, it doesn't currently meet Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and the current refs aren't exactly what's required. If RS's can be found, this is a definite keep. dci | TALK 01:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage only appears to relate to the controversy around the name being similar to Yahoo, which isn't enough for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 10:31, 9 December 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Sports Megaplex

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

This article is about a structure that was never built. Even its mid-1990s proposal is unclear in its significance, what with the completion of the Gillette Stadium in 2000. A recent prod attempt failed with the rationale "there is more data out there on how this would have changed the neighborhood and supposedly improved the region", which I doubt. More importantly, that sort of information would be much too speculative. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links such as this, this, and this (although there are some overlaps with the first one) show that there is sufficient coverage out there for the planned facility. Additionally, many of the links there talk about the plans for the stadium and why it failed, with some discussion even talking about the partnership between public and private enterprise. To say that this is of unclear significance is to ignore the discussions on where this went wrong, and what could be done in the future to make sure that this never happened again, as I doubt that an unnotable facility would have this level of discussion centered around it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very Notable planned project.[7][8][9], etc, ad infinitum. We have a number of articles like this one because the projects can be notable, see, e.g., List_of_proposed_stadiums#Cancelled_projects--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:27, 6 December 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.

^ http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1925805

[1] ttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1925805

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick_Wong}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music (application)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossfire}}