Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 25

< 24 August	26 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to My Scene#Movies. delete and redirect, no need to keep content as already covered Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Scene: Masquerade Madness

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

fails notability, is little more than a stub. SailorSonic

Delete: My sister had this DVD when she was younger. This is non-notable which isn't surprising since it was released in packages of My Scene dolls. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Scene#Movies where this one is already spoken in context to the other My Scene films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Scene#Movies. Grande (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2011 (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 Mika (singer). The consensus is to redirect until the album is released and/or there are moer independent reliable sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of Love (album)

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

Fails to meet notability guideline WP:NALBUMS. Freshpop (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we generally keep albums if the artist is notable, as this one is. It hasn't been released yet, but that isn't a cause to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect too soon. Album won't be released until 2012, giving it plenty of time to change names or be canceled. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. details will change, release may be brough forward, more details will become available. too early now. Mister sparky (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree, his last album's name was changed very close to it's release, so it's possible here. We should wait until release date, track listings, and a few more references of the title before giving it it's own article. Thanks, Freshpop (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2011 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy English School

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

A 72 student English school in China may be cozy, but is hardly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does sound nice, but still only a small business. BigJim707 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, check out WP:ORG. totally not notable, reporting in secondary sources would help but there's no indication that there's anything note-worthy in the first place. It exists, so what. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable "school", promotional article. Keb25 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator is confusing Wikipedia with the Yellow Pages or a trade directory. Fails WP:ORG and is WP:ARTSPAM for a typical high street cram school for languages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single reference to an outside source; very far from the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" that is required by WP:ORG. Therefore clearly fails notability. Google search for the school's Chinese name ("凯奇英语学校") yields only one result,[1] to a bilingual site similar to the school's website. A clear delete. Madalibi (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: small size, speciality school, no showing of notability and no reason to reasonable expect otherwise.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:29, 2 September 2011 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Magdalene Dunne

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

Autobiographical article created by artist/author who doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Sources are blogs or not independent, and don't meet WP:V. Article is also promotional, including plugging artist's web project that hasn't even started yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Textbook nn case. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Racconish^Tk 18:37, 30 August 2011 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellen Childs

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

This is the kind of article that would have been speedily deleted A7 if that option had been available when it was created, for example, such as the article about Chris Skebo recently created by User:Detroit Joe and just as recently deleted by User:NawlinWiki. Incarnatus (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about genuinely notable women composers. There is no need to dig up every single non-notable woman composer in a desperate effort to refute criticisms that Wikipedia is anti-feminist. James470 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Don't forget that I voted "keep" on Sylvie Bodorová, a genuinely notable woman composer. James470 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is easy. Her bio included in AllMusic and music and bio on Pandora Internet Radio are notable independent references that establish her notability as a contemporary composer. More notable references also pop up without much digging. Scot Johnston (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to confirm, I took a quick look at news items to find really strong and highly notable news items in numerous quantity about this composer. I've added just a couple more, including a commission by the Kronos Quartet and a NY Times review. Her article could be expanded greatly with all of the top-flight references she has. I find her to have infallible accomplishments and references to her credit in the realm of contemporary composition. No way to support a delete on this one! Scot Johnston (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, I don't think Mary Ellen Childs is in the same class as Clara Schumann or Sylvie Bodorová. In fact, I'd rather listen to some crap by Jennifer Higdon. James470 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fortunately, your personal taste is not what determines notability. Childs has had her music played by TOP performers in the contemporary field (Kronos, etc.), and she's been reviewed more than once in the most credible publication in the world (NY Times) for classical/new music. She's also been played at the best and most notable new music festivals (Bang on a Can), etc. All of this makes her notable and more than worthy of inclusion. Scot Johnston (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, Jim's taste is not the criterion. So he likes Bodorova's music. Just goes to show you there's no accounting for taste. I maintain that Mary Ellen Childs is not notable enough. Incarnatus (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ample sources now in the article to demonstrate notability, and plenty more such sources can be found by reading the Google News, Books and Scholar results automatically linked by the nomination process. I don't see where the idea could have come from that this article is in any way "a desperate effort to refute criticisms that Wikipedia is anti-feminist" - the only person who has made the subject's gender an issue is the author of that statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – significant composer, especially for percussion instruments; widely covered in music literature; her works are widely performed and their recordings are covered, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2011 (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. If the creator would like this userfied, contact me and I will do so PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ardhika Yoga

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

I can find no reliable sources supporting notability of this subject, other than self-published sources by the creators of this type of yoga. Singularity42 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently new to the Wiki world. I will do my best to draw up articles and references needed. If I can not find them I will take it to my new discovered user page which I can then work on it perfection until fully matured and then bring it to the main stream Gentss (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I have no problem with an administrator userfying the article. Any admin out there want to speedy close this AfD? Singularity42 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although I would appreciate a little time to get together some possible elements to make my case, although it may be a little time before they become evident. So I will go with the flow. Thank you for your support and insight. Gentss (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the classic definition of G11 CapMan07008 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this is the only article the user has worked on The Terminator t c 18:57, 1 September 2011 (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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Shamah

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

Non-notable journalist with no third-party refs. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (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 incubate as a BLP with unclear sources. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nicos Pourpourakis --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicos Pourpourakis

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The article was BLPprodded shortly after its creation but was removed with this edit when an offline source was provided. That source has since been removed and there is no telling what that source verified. I searched using both the Greek and English spelling of his name without any luck. J04n(talk page) 21:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have reverted the removal of the general references from the article. There's no telling though what they verify and how much they say in the absence of their use as inline citations. Meanwhile, this Boston Globe story is behind a paywall, but the abstract indicates it may very well be substantive treatment, (i.e. not just a mere mention). My other searches, including of the massive newspaperarchive.com, found nothing. A user fluent in Greek might help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to two references added by Aglaiadakis concerning a television interview and separate radio interviews. These references still need to be cross-referenced in to the text of the article to support the content as per WP:BLP. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —DoRD (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burials at San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1

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

Created in error. Please delete Maile66 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this cases where you are the article creator, and only contributor, you can tag the page for speedy deletion with {{db-u1}}. I have tagged it so — frankie (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpecTec

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

No indication of notability. No independent sources. Google searches do not show any significant coverage of this company. noq (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External references added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Ashton (talk • contribs) 10:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another supplier of ERP software covering maintenance, supply chain management and quality management. References added are to routine press releases announcing contracts and acquisitions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. pointless disruptive nomination (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's

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

On May 25, 2011, McDonald's decided to close all its US restaurants by the end of 2014 to match the ending of Oprah Winfrey's 25-year old talk show because the fast food chain said it will retire just like Oprah did with her talk show back on May 25. AChicInTheLife (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? This is VERY notable, and is a symbol of American life. Keep and request close per WP:SNOWBALL. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:18, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Souq al Jumaa Derby

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

This completely unreferenced article describes an occasional friendly match which has sometimes taken place between two teams, There is no reason to suppose it is regular or generally described as a "derby". The article seems to fail all notability tests. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while football rivalries can be considered notable, there is no evidence that this one is. Giant Snowman 12:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:09, 26 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brown (YouTube)

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

YouTube personality of questionable notability. Won one YouTube award, but little significant coverage found in reliable sources - most simply list the award, nothing more substantial. No significant claims of notability otherwise. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this person isn't notable, if this is notable enough the same could be said for many many youtube channels, could be merged with the youtube article under a sub section called top users or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider91 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, all refs are to YouTube. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who? Anyone can have a YouTube channel and Partnership these days - reaching a million subs would be more notable.. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 00:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dan's work on YouTube has been the subject of in-depth independent commentary:

I realize there a lot of YouTubers who have a lot of views that aren't appropriate on WP. Based on these sources, Dan Brown does not appear to be one of them. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per I Jethrobot. The links certainly show significant third-party coverage of the subject. Another one, taken from the first AfD [2] — frankie (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The weakest of Keeps - and only because some reliable third-party sources are available. Would most editors consider news.tubefilter.tv to be a reliable source? As it stands, the article also needs extensive repair and perhaps even renaming; I know there needs to be disambiguation from the other Dan Brown, but with existing naming conventions, the current title suggests to me that this Dan Brown is a YouTube. Several Times (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the above refs, only NPR is particularly good, and even there I note a lot of the comments question its newsworthiness. It might be possible to merge this somewhere, but we don't have enough for a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of rationale is unacceptable. I'm sorry that not all the sources are NPR, but that doesn't render all of these sources null and void. They are all sufficiently independent of the source. If you can point to a reason why all of them aside from the NPR piece are unreliable, you really should take the time to provide it, because I took the time to find the sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources:

Sorry, but there just isn't a good argument for deletion in my mind based on the substantial coverage here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am offended when on a subsequent AfD after a keep the nomination makes no reference to why the outcome should be different, and especially when I was one the people who spent some of my valuable time on the first AfD. Meets GNG, nom is just mistaken.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are the sources I find most compelling in enabling Dan Brown to pass the GNG (some have already been linked above by I Jethrobot (talk · contribs): "Dan Brown Wants You To Tell Him Where To Go" and "Hey, Dan. Answer These 10 Questions." from NPR, "What's Dan Brown doing? That's up to you", "East senior gains influence, insight through YouTube videos", "UNL freshman cashing in as YouTube sensation", and "Lincolnite YouTube star plays 'Millionaire' Thursday" from Lincoln Journal Star, and "Dan Brown (Not that One) Hands His Life Over to Cyberspace" from Fast Company. Goodvac (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Argentine Primera División table

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

I PRODed this article with the rationale "Non-notable per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-time English Football League 1st Division Table." The PROD was contested, but I still feel the article should be deleted. The article is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS because all it will ever be is a table of statistics a sentence or two of prose. It is also non-notable because it the subject has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lastly, I have concerns that this may be a copyvio. I have asked Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) for her opinion on the copyvio and will await her response regarding that issue. Even if it's not a copyvio, I still think it should be deleted due to the issues I've outlined above. Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because:

It does not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The cited rule does not give a general prohibition of articles containing only statistics. Just check the last sentence: "In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". The example given by the rule itself is a compilation of stats, but with sufficient explanatory text and the use of tables to enhance readibility. As long as it's not just a confusing and unreadable compilation of random stats, the article does not contravene the cited rule.
It is not a copyvio. I'm not a copyright expert, but from my limited knowledge it doesn't look to be a copyvio. As you can see from the references, part of the table was published in rsssf (up to 2001/02). Then there are individual tables from rsssf for each championship, but there is no 1931-2011 all-time table published in that website (or any other that is not taking it from Wikipedia, as far as I know).
It has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Examples:

La Nación: [3], [4] talking about River Plate in different contexts.
Télam: [5] talking about Talleres de Córdoba.
Clarín (newspaper): [6] talking about River.
El Patagónico: [7] (citing Télam).
Club Atlético Vélez Sársfield: [8] cites the club's 5th position in the all-time table among its historical numbers.
Clásico Deportivo: [9] cites each team's position in the all-time table (among other data) in anticipation of the championship.
es:Alejandro Fabbri [10] cites the table when talking about the history of Club Atlético Platense.
es:Infobae: [11] talks about Estudiantes surpassing Racing in the table.

I don't have time to keep looking around, but you get the gist of it. Being an all-time table there are no big changes every day, so there are not many news to report in the press regarding the matter. However, as you can see, it is regularly mentioned/cited.

Summary: WP:NOTSTATS does not prohibit articles containing only stats, it just asks the editor to make it decently readable and contextualized. If this article is not readable or contextualized, we should work on that, not delete it. There are enough reliable independent sources that cover the topic in question (actually, cover other topics while making reference to the topic in question).

Regards. Fache (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I am not convinced by Fache's extensive arguments, and to me, this table is nothing but NOTSTATS and OR. Giant Snowman 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fail to see how this article violates NOTSTATS while Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 doesn't (the article is cited in the rule itself). I also fail to see how a fully referenced article can be OR. Regards. Fache (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless its a copyright violation. It can't quite be compared with similar articles on lower divisions recently deleted. Sitting on top of the All-time Argentine Primera División table is a genuine achievement while on lower division All-time tables this could just mean the club failed consistently to gain promotion. For top divisions, this tables make sense, but a bit more text would definetly give this article a better right to exist. Calistemon (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And keep any other tables of this nature. There are all kinds of ranking tables in Wikipedia (a perfect example cited above) and as long as it is footnoted and sourced properly there is plenty of encyclopedic value on it. There are also thousands of lists on Wikipedia, and this table could be split into several lists which would be perfectly acceptable, which makes no sense. Just because there are precedents it doesn't mean it was right to have deleted similar articles before. Proposing this article for deletion reeks of Systemic bias. At the very worst, move to a section in the Argentine Primera División article. --ChaChaFut (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apolgies to those involved for not replying sooner, I seem to have missed this on my watchlist. Thanks to Fache for providing those sources, although I can't read Spanish, I will take your word for it that those sources are discussing the all-time table in sufficient detail for it to be called significant coverage, which means GNG is met. Personally, I still feel that this falls foul of WP:NOTSTATS, criterion 3: "Wikipedia articles should not be excessive listings of statistics". I do feel that, as an article consisting only of two lines of text and the rest statistics, this is excessive. However, if the consensus is that this article is not excessive, then *shrug* so be it. To ChaChaFut, why does my nominating this article for deletion reek of systematic bias? Jenks24 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, at least not to me. You have nomiated a large number of those articles, regardless of which country and certainly not targeted individual leagues/countries alone. Your assessmet of the intro is correct, too, it is to short. The only thing I disagree with is that the article should be deleted. I've mentioned it in another discussion before, but featured lists like List of Formula One drivers prove that this kind of stats do have their place on Wikipedia and can even make it to the main page. Calistemon (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NOTSTATS, I guess it depends on interpretation. The rule does not end where you end your cite, it later says: "[i]n addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." What I read there is "in cases where the article should be a list of statistics because there is no other reasonable way of putting the information, use tables."

Regards. Fache (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article would pass GNG with coverage of the sorts described by Fache, and while the lack of text is troubling, it can easily be addressed by someone with sufficient knowledge of Argentine football. Jogurney (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Askariz

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

Band which does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. No released albums, no coverage in reliable sources indicating that WP:GNG is met. Previously speedied. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahan Atma Singh Khalsa

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

No evidence of notability. Several of the "references" don't even mention the subject of the article, and none of them is significant coverage in a reliable source. (PROD contested without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbosaurus: The duel begins

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

No notability per WP:NFILM Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too soon for an article about this Malaysian CGI film. No independent sources speak toward this prokect. Even their own website states "Coming Soon" and director and cast "To be anounced".[12] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --Lambiam 04:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Gemini Awards

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

This article reads a lot like an advertisement, I think a section in the main article for this awards show would work much better Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of established set of articles on Gemini Awards by year. Same way we've got articles on Emmy Awards by year, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs improvement and it needs more links. Basically, it needs to be wikified by someone who knows about those articles. I'll appropriately tag the article. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL Keep. Never should have been brought to AfD. One of a long series of articles about major annual awards in the Canadian television industry. Rewriting the prose along the style of the previous years would have been a better approach for the nominator to take. PK T(alk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go ahead and withdraw this nomination. I didn't know about the other articles before listing the debate. Let this be a lesson to me-never list an article that's part of a successful series. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 22:22, 25 August 2011 (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. As there is no clear consensus here, I am closing it as such, but without prejudice against a speedy renomination. Just one note: although the Air National Guard certainly is notable, that does not imply that all the institutions of the ANG are inherantly notable - reliable, independent sources are required to verify the fact of individual centres, etc. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I.G. Brown Air National Guard Training and Education Center

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

The article is directly copied form the source [13] Roh^G??· 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is directly copied (actually it's not directly, but very closely copied) from the source because it is owned by the same organization as the source. Our commander asked us to create a Wikipedia page for our organization, so I used the information we created for our Fact Sheet Page [14]. Just trying to follow orders here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angtectv (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Orders or no, this page does not meet WP:N nor WP:RS as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameWasTaken (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

Here are some third-party sources verifying the I.G. Brown Air National Guard Training and Education Center:

--Angtectv (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know questioning your superiors in the military may be insubordination, but could you tell your superior officer that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be written directly by their subjects? We try hard to be an objective encyclopedia, and it is nearly impossible to be objective when creating and writing articles about yourself or your organization. If you really must try to create a page, you should look over our guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest. Them From Space 18:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the COI page for further information. It's all a learning process for us. --Angtectv (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; although there is obvious COI issues here, looking at the searches available this might be locally notable, and there are sufficient reliable sources to indicate notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a copyvio, since U.S. federal government publications are automatically in the public domain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per RightCowLeftCoast. IMO this sounds like a not insignificant training institution in the Air National Guard and as pointed out above there is coverage, albeit limited, in WP:RS. Seems likely to be notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a major military organization. 82 full time regular staff? absurd, we do not keep technical schools at that level. . DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reference comment on TEC size; TEC graduates in excess of 3000 students per year and is the largest NCO Academy in the Air Force. The average daily student load is in excess of 300. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.25.153 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could use a few more sources, but I agree with RightCowLeftCoast and Anotherclown regarding notability, especially as the Air National Guard is certainly notable in itself. Several Times (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's All Me

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

Song has no notability, failing the requirments of WP:N and WP:NSONGS. No valid claims and all sources from one site. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't chart, sources are no good. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:38, 27 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pezhham Akhavass

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

Seems WP:AUTOBIO and I think there is no notable work :)Ladsgroup^بحث 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Persian wikipedia, creator is fa:User talk:Akhavass! [15]:)Ladsgroup^بحث 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence proffered that the subject meets the GNG or WP:MUSIC. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:19, 26 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad Kollanyi

I understand that you have checked third party websites such as guitar player magazine, musicweek and the rest which had been referenced. I would like to remind you that the the references to these sources are true and accurate and it should not be the artists fault if the links don't take you to the exact reference page. It is out of the artists control. I would like to know if the decision to delete the page can be reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpad.kollanyi (talk • contribs) 11:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this autobiography does not meet WP:BIO or WP:BAND. I cannot find any third-party reliable sources in a Google search, and no GNews hits.

There are two references given in the “Awards and nominations” section. However, these are dead links. A search of Guitar Player Magazine reveals nothing. Same with a search of Music Week, so I cannot verify the statements made. Verification is made all the more difficult as the OP has more than once changed the significance of these statements. Of note, what is now described as ‘being featured’ in an issue of Guitar Player Magazine for their contest, was once described as “received honorable mention”. The latter more than likely does not meet notability standards. I did find a quote on what appears to be Music Week's Sound Cloud channel, but if this is the extent of what they wrote about Sonic Temple (Kollanyi's band), I don't believe that it meets the standards for notability in the absence of more reliable sources cited in the article.

Being a semi-finalist in the UK songwriting contest (even though I cannot confirm this as the website only goes as far back as 2010) does not satisfy the notability guidelines.

The external links at the bottom of the page, describing an “interview” are in fact very short clips of Kollanyi playing the guitar.

No charting singles. The record label, “Gold Dust Records” appears to have only one client: Kollanyi’s own Sonic Temple. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find absoluetely no reliable sources whatsoever writing about this musician. The claimed achievements are rather minor and are difficult to verify, but even if verified, still would not meed the threshold for inclusion. Most telling for a muscian is that he has barely released any material; with one demo and one EP released on a label that only has him as an artist (self-released), it's unsurprising that there is a lack of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Abraham

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

Fails WP:BIO per lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Hill source is okay, but all the other mentions of her I can find are trivial - naming her among half a dozen other people considering a Senate run, for example, or quoting her in an article about something else. Nor is a secondary position in a state-level party one that confers automatic notability. Does not inherit notability from her politician husband.

(Careful in GNews - there are a lot of people named Jane Abraham.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Hill is a fine source and it is seconded by UPI reporting she was considering running for Senate and then the Associated Press reporting that she decided not to run. (The AP article titled "AP Exclusive: Jane Abraham decides not to run for U.S. Senate" can be seen on Free Republic.com post #1442305. Its URL engages the WP blacklist spam filter.) She does not meet WP:Politician by being elected, but she meets it by being discussed in detail in mainstream independent articles devoted to her alone: AP and UPI. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the UPI source you link, but it's so short as to be trivial; the AP source isn't much better, and it's also fundamentally a news piece in the way the Hill article (IMO) isn't. This sort of here-today-gone-tomorrow coverage isn't the sort of thing that attests encyclopedic notability. (I suppose we could also redirect to Spencer Abraham the way Marcus Bachmann, who received far more coverage, redirects to Michele Bachmann.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the UPI piece is pretty short, but the AP piece is longer, with biographical detail, and lots more talk of her political options. I think it is enough for a keep !vote. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we should keep it as well. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N with The Hill and AP pieces.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does need improvement, but Abraham is notable as per the articles mentioned above. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health Decisions

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

This is unverified and spammy; more importantly I do not believe it meets our notability guidelines for organizations. That there's a blatant COI and a wealth of non-neutral language is beside the point, I guess, but interesting to note. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, does not meet WP:N. And again, lacks acceptable sources and is obviously promotional.MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional; will be blocking user after this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (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. I'm going to defer a rename to consideration at an RM should anyone want to go there. Courcelles 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft seat map

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

The concept of an aircraft seat map does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Anybody that wishes to argue for the article to be kept will need to cite specific examples of coverage in order to not have me reply with a link to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and/or WP:ITSNOTABLE and/or WP:ILIKEIT. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 17:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yep - multiple reliable sources, and of interest to any user of an online booking process as well. Thus bith notable per sources and encyclopedic value. A two-fer. It could also include such sources as [16] indicating how fuel costs impact seat configuration, [17] appears to be on poiint as well. No reason to delete - default to Keep. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...although both of those seem to be about seat configuration rather than about the aircraft seat diagrams – in the same way that we have separate articles for town planning and map. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you failed to note that the topic is 1. Encyclopedic in nature. Which is rule #1 IIRC. 2. That the article is sourced, and that the topic is reliably sourced and 3. That additional reliable sources on the topic fully establish notability of the topic. 4. Finally - that "deletion" actually requires specific "reasons for deletion." Now that the topic is sourced, notable and encyclopedic, there is preccisou little reason to flog a dead horse here. By the way, the onus is on grounds for deletion last I checked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have not established that this topic is notable. You have (perhaps) established that a different topic is notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Boothroyd─╢ 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appending: Guess where Aircraft seat configuration leads? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to address the points made in the previous discussion. Warden (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I clearly rebutted the points by pointing out that they failed to produce sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't; you have made no specific reference to the previous discussion - all we have here is some vague bluster. Warden (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion did not include direct references to any specific sources, therefore it did not establish notability. What can I do to make that statement less vague? (You, meanwhile, with your vote, have failed to provide any reason to keep the article.) ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It contained multiple direct references to specific sources. Warden (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move per Collect. I think it would be better to move this content to Aircraft seat configuration and switch the redirects. smithers - talk 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Smithers. Seat configuration is a big topic - undoubtedly encyclopedic and the factors taken into consideration and the differences they make would be approriate in a Wikipedia article. Mapping as used here is a dependent topic and would most usefully be covered within a configuration article. --AJHingston (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but better sourcing. This is a different topic than Aircraft seat configuration. It addresses the vexing question of why you select a seat that appears to be in a comfortable part of a cabin, using a perfectly good seat map, and find yourself listening to toilet flushes behind your head all the way to Tokyo. Unfortunately, the article seems to be mostly original research. Topic is fine, writing quality is fine, so keep it and bring it up to sourcing standards. Bella the Ball (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to provide any sources, or is this just a WP:MUSTBESOURCES comment? ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there so must be sources. No, seriously, I don't know whether or not there are sources, and I don't have enough time in the day to track them down. The main thrust of my "keep" is because the article is about a relevant topic. It works as an enhanced stub. We keep stubs if they are about legitimate topics. We don't tell people who vote on whether a stub should stay that they should go out and find the sources. So yeah, there must be sources. Or not. There are tags for that, no? Bella the Ball (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, reliable sources talk about it (though I'd dispute the reliable source status of 3 out of the 4 sources used). That doesn't mean that the topic should be a stand alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Akehurst

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

Young political writer and activist, but does not yet meet WP:GNG (or WP:POLITICIAN - the UK youth parliament does not legislate). Note that the Parliamentary Press Gallery writing award, though a considerable achievement, is awarded to about a dozen young people each year. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CyberMark International

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. Notability claims in article are limited to being named a top 30 firm by a website, and classified as ethical by a local BBB. I am unable to find any reliable secondary source coverage to back the notability of such claims. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. 95% of content is self-marketing type info. Facts relating to guessing potential notability are noticeably absent from the text. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: ...an Internet marketing company.... specializes in a wide range of web marketing services, including search engine optimization (SEO), pay-per-click (PPC) advertising and social media marketing as well as web design, web development and web programming.... Claims to minimum importance for an organization are also lacking. Top 30 list from a trade group you've never heard of, and that doesn't confer notability on 29 other businesses: named one of the top 30 integrated search firms in North America by TopSEOs.com. They stayed out of trouble with the local Better Business Bureau: the Better Business Bureau (BBB) of Central, Northern and Western Arizona selected CyberMark as a Business Ethics Award winner. I would have named this for speedy deletion before bringing it to AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be many sources aside from that one award. Nothing on Google, Google News (Archive as well) and Yahoo that didn't mention that one award, small mention here. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roycemore School

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

Reason IAREALSOTHENIGGEST (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Very biased, written like an advertisement, and no sources cited.[reply]

Userfy (if someone wants it) 90% of the article reads like their website. Just info info for prospective students/customers and marketing info. That needs to get deleted. And it needs references added. Has zero references, zero indication of wp: notability, but I'm guessing that it has the possibility of being able to establish notability. Being several years old and having the above problems means that the status quo isn't working. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per established consensus that secondary schools are presumed notable. Shortcomings in the current version of the article should be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion of an article on a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator has been blocked indefinitely for violating the Wikipedia username policy. This very expensive private school, established 1915, includes a high school, which makes it notable per the defacto notability standard observable in the outcomes of countless AFDs in recent years. Editing is the solution to any problems noted in the article. Google Book search is your friend: Here is a 1917 reference from The Western Architect with extensive coverage of the school and particularly its building:[18].The Chicago Sun Times in 1999 called the building "a big stucco-clad craftsman treasure.." Chicago magazine in 2007 looked at 56 private high schools in the Chicago area and said Roycemore had the lowest student faculty ratio at 9.7, with a tuition of $18,425 per year, not quite the highest.. Basic info about he school is in the handbooks of private schools in the US, which have had coverage of this school from 1918 to the present time. Edison (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The AfD notice does not appear on the article. AFD is not for cleanup. And in addition to Edison's well-taken points, the original school building is on the U.S. national register of historic places. This AfD is pure trolling from a douchenozzle.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable school and clean up outwtih this AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep disruptive nomination. No prejudice to a good faith renomination. Them From Space 15:36, 29 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Consulate General, Toronto

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

Written like an advertisement or a website. This may need for deletion or to keep it. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada–Switzerland relations; I don't see that there's anything to keep here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, reads like a yellow pages listing. Near zero encyclopedic content to be lost. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Maethordaer (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canada-Switzerland relations --TommyBoy (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvagable content, implausible redirect and I see the author appears to work for the consulate... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 27 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Ciampa

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

Article was deproded without addressing the concern. It still appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I have been unable to find reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements for an academic. Google scholar search turns up some citations, but not significant enough number to quality for WP:ACADEMIC. The most highly cited piece is "The presence and function of scripture in Galatians 1 and 2" with only 18 cites, followed by "The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach" with only 4 cites. This does not appear to be sufficient for Academic notability on Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete? Question mark is because I'm not versed on WP:ACADEMIC. But there is zero indication of wp:notability, has only one reference which is the website of his school. Appears to have written much. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete has plenty of articles, some of them in quite good journals. concerning the one with 18 cites, not a particularly high number, a bunch of them are in master's theses, which mean nothing for citation counting. fails wp:academic on all counts, and seems to meet no other notability standard. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of having met any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find GS cites to be 18, 4 , 5, 3. to give an h index of 3. Inadequate for WP:Prof#C1, even for a low cited field. Is there anything else? I note that a lot of BLPs on the staff of this institution have recently been written. If this is being done at the behest of some naive institutional manager he should be warned that this can be a recipe for humiliation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2011 (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. I would really feel silly saying "no consensus" here because nobody is saying "delete" but the two "keep" !voters are really not sure. The idea of redirecting makes sense but let's give the article's creator a little time to "show us the money" and we can then revisit this issue in a month or so which is the customary waiting time for a standard "no consensus" close anyway. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Media

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

Article was deproded without addressing the concern. It still appears to fail WP:COMPANY. I am unable to find substantial reliable source references in secondary sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep The article is very new and it appears that wp:notability is possible for the subject. Give the editors a few months to put sourcing in to establish wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added references for "Stone Silence" as an award-winning documentary. However, is that sufficient for the production company's notability? AllyD (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd feel more confident in voting keep if this had an article on Polish Wikipedia. I do think that the director and owner, Krzysztof Kopczyński is notable. Some if not all of the productions, same. But the company... hmmm. Probably, as the organization behind dozens of documentaries? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:CORP since I cannot find "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" about the company. The company's relationship with Stone Silence and the director does not count because WP:CORP says, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." I am willing to change my mind if significant coverage can be provided. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director's article is fine since it is a plausible search term. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krzysztof Kopczyński where this production company is already spoken of in context to the filmmaker/founder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 14 September 2011 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Jefferson Davis

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

Article was deproded, but still appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I have been unable to find reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements for an academic. Google scholar search turns up some citations, but not significant enough number to quality for WP:ACADEMIC. The largest number of cites scholar turns up are 33 to a single book entitled, "Evangelical ethics: issues facing the church today." The next highest cited was only 17 for a book entitled, "Evangelical Ethics." Some false hits turn up for a different scholar in the early 20th century who writes about parasitic fungi. Overall the citations do not appear significant enough to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if someone will take it. Currently no indication of wp:notability, but it's a brand new article. Ability to establish wp:notabity looks unklikely but possible. Too soon to tell for a article that is just a few days old. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I've known his name for years. I think he's quite well known in his field - as witnessed by the debates with which he's involved. So WP:ACADEMIC is not the only guideline - his name yields 66,000 GHits. I also note that a book published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press features an essay responding to him, so he's not known just in evangelical circles. St Anselm (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find GS cites to be 33, 17, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5.. to give an h index of 6. Barely adequate for WP:Prof#C1, even for a low cited field. Is there anything else? I note that a lot of BLPs on the staff of this institution have recently been written. If this is being done at the behest of the institution it should be warned that this can be a recipe for humiliation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and they're a mixed bag. Some are obviously notable (presidents, named chairs) and some are not notable (Jeffrey Niehaus?, Roy Ciampa?). And with this one, I'm not sure. I've heard his name a lot, and seen his books, and so I expect that he's notable. St Anselm (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also some Google News coverage. -- 202.124.75.235 (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of those hits are about this person. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Actually, it's the Google News coverage that enables me to vote keep. Some of it is pay-per-view, but it looks like we have multiple sources providing non-trivial coverage. St Anselm (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked through the google news results and can't find anything significant (I found 3 or 4 articles where he is quoted peripherally) that refers to THIS John Jefferson Davis. Could you provide a few links to the articles you have found that you believe are this guy and are significant coverage? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking particularly of the article in the Boston Globe, but there were quite a few others. The news results indicate he is often asked by the mainstream media to give his opinion on various issues. St Anselm (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The problem with this artiucle is that it is a mere stub. If he had a list of what he has published, it ought to be possible to tell whehter he is a notable academic or merly a lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endast

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

No indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable unsigned band. Article is unsourced and amounts to little more than a fluff-laden promotional piece, and no third-party hits on Google. Fails WP:BAND. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 15:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep Article is just a few days old. Ability to meet wp:notability looks like a possibility. Source-based notability appears the only possibility, right now has no sources suitable for that. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The exclaim.ca piece is good, and they seem to getting some attention, but not enough to meet notability yet. The usual caveats apply — frankie (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if we had other sources besides the exclaim source, I would say keep. The #6 place for iTunes Canada is impressive but insufficiently sourced. Moogwrench (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had a lot of work since this deletion nomination started. Discography and activity make this band notable. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discography and activity do not make any band notable. Independent coverage of the band and/or their albums and activity indicates notability. The coverage of Endast referenced in the article does not appear to rise above the independent blog level. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no charting; no playing to stadium crowds. fails WP:BAND Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boulou Ebanda de B'béri

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

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. According to Google Scholar, he hasn't been cited by anyone. There's simply no evidence of scholarly importance here. BlueonGray (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ??? My own look at the Google Scholar link above finds three pages of hits of this Academic being cited,[19] but I do not speak French. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Are you sure? Because this search shows 10 publications and zero citations.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, remove the word "author" from your search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But then we're not necessarily dealing with scholarly citations of his work. If we merely do a search on his name, and it shows up as part of a conference abstract or in the acknowledgements in a book, that's not a scholarly citation. Doing a Google search on scholarly works authored by the subject tells us not only how many scholarly pieces he has published, but also which pieces have been cited by whom. It does not appear that anyone has cited his work.--BlueonGray (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Seems that he is more than just an average college professor, and one who is making an impact within his field. We have him as 'Director of the Audiovisual Media Lab for the studies of Cultures and Societies' at University of Ottawa whose prizes and scholarships include the 2003 Van Horne Prize and the 2005 Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) New Initiative Scholarship, and whose publications appear in the journals Cultural Studies, CiNéMAS, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, Canadian Journal of Communication, Critical Arts, American Journal of Semiotics, and who is the author of Mapping Alternative Expressions of Blackness in Cinema (Germany, BASS 80, 2006), and the editor of Introduction to Media Studies: A Reader (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 2007) and Les "Cultural Studies" dans les mondes fraconphones, University of Ottawa Press (2010).[20]. WP:ACADEMICS cautions that "most of new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role. The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure." And it also guides that we might consider "publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals," which this man appears to have.[21] And even though WP:BIO states "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources", we DO have secondary sources that can verify this fellow, his work, his 'ideas', and his influence.. Wikipedia does not expect a scholar to get the coverage as might a politician, athlete, or film star, and being cited is only a small portion of what editors are allowed to consider when determining notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Introduction to Media Studies was a textbook, not a monograph. It has since been discontinued and isn't even listed on the OUP website. Many academics start labs and centers, and many more publish in peer-reviewed journals. However, output is different from reception. There is no evidence of influence in his discipline: no influential piece of scholarship, no transformative idea or theory. For an associate professor to have not even one citation is rather surprising. There are graduate students who have made a bigger impact.--BlueonGray (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much published, zero cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I thought, given the lack of citations to his scholarly articles, and the description of him as a filmmaker in his article, that maybe WP:CREATIVE might be a better criterion than WP:PROF to look for notability. But I can't find any there either. Zero hits on Google news archive. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I do agree that WP:AUTHOR would be more applicable, but Google News archive appears broken. I can input a specific known article date and source and it comes up empty. Sure wish Google would get the stick out of their corporate butt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "breaking" of my ability to use News Archives was due to my using IE7. Now udated to IE8, I find that Nice {French) reports him chosen as one of the jurors at the Pan African Film Festival at Cannes. The Chatham Daily News [22] has chosen to quote him in detail about the Promised Land Symposium. Things which do not usually happen to a non-notable professor, as apparently, and even if not cited by scholars, his expertise in his particular field is being sought out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' based on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: okay, the participation as a judge at Cannes does change things. He still doesn't appear to have had any scholarly impact. He's notable; just not for scholarly reasons.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. User:Dr. Blofeld has shown me as notable enough for Wikipedia, but not neccessarily for scholarly impact. Article will need cleanup and refocus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have relisted this as the reference found above was a couple of days ago, and others who suggested deleting the article have not had time to discuss this. If they all change to "keep", I am happy to close this as a "keep", otherwise further discussion for a week might show a clear consensus one way or the otherPhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr Blofeld's reference lifts it over the threshold. --Pgallert (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod (rapper)

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

Article deleted twice before after discussions (see first discussion and second discussion; note the second discussion was under the name of "Young Hot Rod"). No deletion review was done as far as I can tell. I am hesitant to simply delete since the article appears to now assert some degree of notability. I have absolutely no knowledge in the field, however, and therefore as far as I am concerned this is a procedural renominate with no opinion on my part. It is my strong opinion that in light of the recreations, if the article is again deleted after a discussion that the article should be salted. --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If claims in the text are true, wp:notability is a possibility. But also has the look of a possible smoke-and-mirrors job. Has few or none wp:notability suitable references. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two singles released and a third on the way. Only two of the refs given in the article are anywhere near reliable. This is a case of too-soon. Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Allmusic, Vibe and mtv.com sources in the article are all good. He has been found notable by third parties due to the g-unit connection and satisfies wp:music regardless of any subjective assessment of his career to date. 86.44.26.197 (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. References are very weak. Allmusic, imdb, iTunes are all-inclusive databases that in themselves don't prove notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maskall

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

This unreferenced article on a Belize settlement fails to establish its subject's notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Strike, Belize

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

The unreferenced article of a Belize settlement fails to establish its subject's notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstone Pond

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

This unreferenced article on a Belize settlement fails to establish the notability of its subject. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I'm going to close this as a CSD G11 so if someone wishes to write sourced neutral article on the subject they may do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4pm

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

Blatant advertisement for a non-notable company. No third-party hits on Google, and article cites subject's own website and non-English references as sources. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 95% of the content as blatant advertising. This is basically a sales brochure for the product. After that, I'm not sure whether it meets wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Swallow

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

This BLP fails to establish the notability of its subject. It relies on a single non-independent source. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability, no references suitable for that. Ability to meet wp:notability looks very unlikely. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Kiernan

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has yet to play at a fully-professional level of football. Lack of any significant media coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related for the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL at this moment in time. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Neither person meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG, any coverage I have found is not significant, and of local interest only:

Brendan Kiernan: nothing other than trivial mention in match reports.

Jack Turner: as above.

Ryan Jackson: this short article from Surrey Herald.

James Mulley: this longer article from Uxbridge Gazette.

Quasi human | Talk 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. The above articles Gene93k provided are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Hazard-SJ ± 02:47, 1 September 2011 (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. Nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jurč

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

Article about a Slovakian footballer. It contains three sources all leading to football databases containing very basic biographical details. Insufficient to establish the notability of the subject. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as he meets WP:NFOOTY. My bad.

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. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Halfmoon

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable settlement in Belize. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~no opinion on this one. hard to see whether it exists as more than a plantation, in which case would fail notability.~~ — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers Bank

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

Non-notable settlement in Belize. Article lacks any references. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bermudian Landing

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable settlement in Belize. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Saunders

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayor with no other claims to notability or coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well now - I don't know that I would characterize Flagstaff as a "small town". Still, I could not find any significant coverage - in fact, I could not find any coverage at all, possibly due to the time frame when he served (1958-1960). --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Head Cabbage

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable settlement in Belize FiachraByrne (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willows Bank

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable settlement in Belize. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul's Bank

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable village in Belize. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown Sibun

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

Non-notable article about a settlement in Belize. No references. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Worldwide Ltd

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

I am fixing this nomination on behalf of User:Torro20092009 who stated "this is pure unadulterated advertising and serves no purpose. It is certainly not noteworthy in any shape or form" Pontificalibus (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about an online real estate broker for office space. Referenced to press releases, government directories, and petty trade awards of the sort that do not confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure self advertising and that is all it does. It is self promotion talking about awards it's received which are industry related and not independent awards. It has nothing notable nor is it of public interest at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.86.83 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —86.176.86.83 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nominator withdraws, no remaining delete votes (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

João Filipe Rabelo da Costa e Silva

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

Article on 21 yr old Brazilian footballer who has played one season for Sao Paulo. The single source for the article is a database of Brazilian footballers. It does not establish his notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as he meets WP:NFOOTY. My bad.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mckean County American Legion Riders

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

2 line entry about some kind of organisation. No context. No references. No notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. No references. Near-zero chance of being able to meet it. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 Canadian Forces Supply Depot (7 CFSD)

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

An article about a Canadian military organisation. It lists one source which is the Canadian National Archives and leads me to suspect that this article is based on original research. Notability of the subject has not been established. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much encyclopedic content, probably could meet wp:notability. Material looks plausible. Lacking sources. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not enough to speculate that a subject might be notable, contain alleged "encyclopedic content" or that the material in an article looks superficially plausible. In order to sustain a Wikipedia article, WP:V and WP:GNG require that the article have multiple, independent, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," and that the detail be supported by inline citations. This is not the case here. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple, independant and reliable sources are available and will be added by end September 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrigan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Hendrigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the creating editor says they can provide references, shouldn't they be given a chance to do so. If they are unable to do so before the end of the AfD, may I suggest userfying it to a subpage of the creator's userpage? There, they can work on it, and reintroduce it to the encyclopedia proper when sources have been added. -- saberwyn 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the editor can provide references, surely several days is enough to do so. If he cannot, of course there's no problem with userfying the article. Indeed, nothing prevents him from doing so now. (That being said, the article creator hasn't made a contribution either to this article or to Wikipedia in nearly a month as of 9/1, aside from his comment in this AfD.) ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 05:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My research has found many independent verifiable sources. This article just need to be wikified. Badly written and constructed articles do not need to be deleted. Just needs to be corrected.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid. Would you mind supplying those sources, please? Ravenswing 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a week later. I see no sources. I also see no reason why there would be any sources for notability , for this sort of supply organization. I also don't see the point of userification--if the unit has ever done something sufficiently non-routine that non-trivial sources actually exist, the article can be easily enough restored. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 16 September 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Buje

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

Unsourced article on Croation football club. Non-notable subject. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Slobodnica

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

Non-notable Croatian football club. Unsourced. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Višnjevac

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

Unsourced article on Croatian football club. Fails to establish notability FiachraByrne (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governor's Mansion (Tobolsk, Russia)

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

Possibly warrants merger rather than deletion. Article lacks sources and fails to establish notability of its subject. It's unlikely that this topic warrants its own article. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An official governor's residence, of the gigantic Siberia no less (there would be no question of notability if this an official Governor's residence in the United States) and very historic with the events of Nicholas II and his family being exiled here. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. It's also a federally protected building in Russia based on the reference. Sources are probably not in English and therefore harder to find, but the topic is clearly notable nonetheless. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I removed all the problems: wrote an article from scratch and added five sources proving the notability. There is also a book specifically devoted to Tobolsk architecture and featuring the mansion, I believe, as a separate chapter, but currently I have no access to it. The current state of the article should be sufficient to keep it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11. Advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebSphere Business Modeler

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

Article on computer software that lacks sources and discernible encyclopedic content FiachraByrne (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and reads like an advertisement. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Jadran Kaštel Sućurac

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

Unreferenced article about a Croatian football club that fails to establish its subject's notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Jadran Luka Ploče

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

Article about a Croatian football club that is unreferenced. Article fails to establish notability of its subject. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Neretvanac

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

Non-referenced article on a Croatian football club. Notability unestablished. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HNK Primorac Biograd na Moru

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

Article about a Croatian football club that lacks any sources and fails to establish its subject's notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Chich

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

Current article consists of a single line and contains no references. The topic may indeed be notable but there are no English language sources that I can check to verify this. Unless someone fluent in Vietnamese can provide reliable sources this article should be deleted. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows ample coverage of this Vietnamese historical figure in English, Vietnamese, French, German and Italian. Clearly notable, and the stub should be improved through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to Lê Lợi). Just because an article is a stub on a topic is from a faraway land and time is not reason enough for deletion. Google is not the best place to research Lê Dynasty Vietnam anyway. — AjaxSmack 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with AjaxSmack. Added a reference to a French language source. No doubt more material is available in Vietnamese. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the availability of reliable sources, [23], and reference added to article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the book search results and what's been said. This person was notable. Dream Focus 15:31, 13 September 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welf Herfurth

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

No reliable sources can be found to establish Herfurth's notability. To be sure, he has a voice and sources can be found linking to his writings, but not much in the realm of any independent sources writing about him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any independent reliable sources discussing Herfurth in significant detail. Does not pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Uskok

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

This unsourced article about a Croation football fails to establish its subjects notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as 3rd tier professional club appears to meet notability guidelines for football clubs. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pavol Cicman

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

Article about a non-notable footballer that has no reliable sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as he meets WP:NFOOTY. My bad.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2011 (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. — Joseph Fox 18:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renard Queenston

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

Disputed prod. BLP with no reliable sources and a weak claim to notability. Dweller (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the sources listed are the most reliable sources out of the very few that are available. Many, many people that enjoy the specific genre know of Renard Queenston - but it doesn't mean that there will be an abundance of sources to prove that he is notable. Just google "Renard", and you'll find that he holds a fair portion of the top results. (MacklinB (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. The few sources are probably the most reliable, and as above with the google results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:NN, smells strongly of self-WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Srobak (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything NEEDS news sources to be notable, there are many notable articles on Wikipedia with no/a small amount of references, such as Metynnis argenteus. I'm going to say Keep Werehog7 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy WP:BLP mandates that biographies of living people must be properly sourced. On top of that you might find WP:V relevant. If articles elsewhere are bad, they should also be deleted or improved. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What label or labels does he work through? How would this pass the notability establishments? A few more sources would also be welcome, and it is slightly unfortunate that I am voting for deletion of this article. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on the article, his label is LapFox Trax. SalfEnergy 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the "keep" supporters above are correct in saying that the sources in the article are the most reliable available, then that is a reason for deletion rather than keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Piskei

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

Unsourced article which does not establish the notability of its subject. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2011 (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 by nominator. Keep in mind that all populaces, regardless of size, are generally kept as articles, as long as they are verifiable in reliable sources per WP:NPLACE. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shishtavec Municipality

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

Article fails to establish notability of subject. Does not contain appropriate reliable sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) since it exists. also, why nominate this when not nominating village in this municipality: Shishtavec? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going through the backlog of unassessed articles but I didn't read up on policy sufficiently for geographical locations or football players and clubs. So now I've created a bit of a mess. :(
Withdraw nomination for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). My bad; I failed to read the policy on geographical locations.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Bob" Fifer

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

Article on non-notable subject which relies on single (functioning) source. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found all the references working and wikified them into the article. I also added more references. His book was well-received and he is cited in other books and case studies (which I didn't include). Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bob Fifer passes WP:AUTHOR (3) because of the reviews and coverage he receives for his books—"Humble CEOs May Make the Best Bosses" from U.S. News & World Report, "Why earnings can surprise Wall Street" from USA Today, "Life in Escape: Great Falls resident Bob Fifer shares business and life lessons learned in his new book 'The Enlightened CEO.'" from Great Falls Connection, and "How to Double Your Profits" from Fortune. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Footnotes already showing indicate a sufficient public profile for this business-book author to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (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 Wiltshire Publications. Courcelles 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Horse News

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

Minor and non-notable publication with unverified distribution and no independent references. Suggest deletion and/or redirection to Wiltshire Publications Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frome Times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melksham Independent News, which are titles from the same publisher. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - notable information, such as referenced information about being the largest paper in its area, to Wiltshire Publications, then create a redirect from White Horse News to Wiltshire Publications.Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Neutrality^talk 07:35, 5 September 2011 (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 Wiltshire Publications. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melksham Independent News

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

Non-notable publication with small and unverified distribution figures. Suggest either deletion or redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frome Times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse News, which are titles from the same publisher. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - notable information to Wiltshire Publications, then create a redirect from Melksham Independent News to Wiltshire Publications. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Neutrality^talk 07:35, 5 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 BUSC Main Event Results

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

An article "about" something called the "2011 BUSC". Article has no discernible content. It has no references. The subject is non-notable and does not contain encyclopedic content. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no onther context, I'm guessing this is related to British Universities Snowsports Council. No reliable independent sources here (or there). Norespectasip (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Eden (album)

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

Non notable 2011 music album. No references. EL is for a commercial site (Sony Music Shop). FiachraByrne (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC),[reply]

Keep - Just because it's a Japanese album, it doesnt't mean it's not notable. Stop with the prejudice. Rafael39 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The group is easily notable, and the album is close enough to the confirmed release date that deletion would be moot. (Also, moved to After Eden because some people have this crazy notion that every album has to have (album) in its name.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album belongs to a notable Japanese group so it's a keep for me. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2011 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Scottish Cup Final

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

Non-notable sporting event. Unreferenced. EL leads to database of sporting events and does not establish notability FiachraByrne (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as it meets WP:NFOOTY. My bad.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiral of Life Mural Series

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

Non notable art mural. Article does not have any references and EL are to non-independent sites. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References and independent site have been added to the article. Scholarly articles are mentioned. DRC10 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2011 (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 Wiltshire Publications. Sandstein 06:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frome Times

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

Unclear notability because of lack of reliable secondary sources — Rod ^talk 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Wiltshire Publications, which has a number of other publications that should be deleted as non-notable. While the publications don't merit their own articles, perhaps publisher does - simply because it is the publisher of a number of very minor publications. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melksham Independent News and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse News, which are titles from the same publisher. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Wiltshire Publications. Neutrality^talk 07:35, 5 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brislington Ladies FC

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

Unclear notability & lack of reliable sources — Rod ^talk 12:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, doesn't appear to compete at a high enough level to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN Delusion23 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Positioning System over Internet Protocol (GPSoverIP)

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

This article, while appearing to describe a new protocol, really serves as a coatrack on which to hang an advertisement for this one particular vendor's service. The protocol is described in vague enough terms to make it completely incomprehensible what actual innovation has been achieved, and the terminology appears in web searches only related to the one company that is developing this service. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nomination. Coatrack spam (It fulfils all the key tasks of modern, high performance protocols....) and original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, many thanks for the objections. Depending on the corresponding approach of each individual, these observations are quite understandable.

The different points of view and perceptions of the participants in the discussions often make it impossible to get a uniform opinion on a particular topic.

For this reason I would like to take the opportunity to raise a few facts for discussion which possibly could enable a change of point of view and therefore the formation of a new opinion:

Standardized protocols (TCP/IP) are only to a certain extent suitable for transferring positions and data from moving objects into the mobile internet, and depending on the situation, often deliver defective results.
The requirements of users concerning telematics (one of the growth markets of the future) are getting more and more comprehensive and demanding. Since these requirements can only be implemented with difficulty and with limitations with the existing standards, a new technological basis would appear to be a good idea.
The developer, André Jurleit, has recognized this, and has decided to develop something with a team which is tailored exactly to these special conditions. André Jurleit has already been awarded for his efforts and for the development itself with a wide range of independent accolades:Convergator of the Year 2006; Deutscher Internetpreis 2007 (German Internet Prize;)Convergator of the Year 2008 (two times winner);Telematics Award 2010
The technology GPSoverIP (Global Positioning System over Internet Protocol) was created to transfer information in constellations where it is no longer possible with other solutions. This technology therefore offers a new basis for special areas of use.
Many well-known companies, associations or academic institutions such as Porsche, Deutsche Bahn, ADAC (Deutscher Automobil Club), Navigon and the Fraunhofer Institute have opted to use GPSoverIP technology or to begin a cooperation. In addition to this, a wide range of further companies and developers are already making use of this technology.
The technology itself was developed in Germany, the market in which it is most widely used, although it is now being used throughout Europe and also in Asia to an increasing degree.
The fact that a terminology is frequently only mentioned in the context of the relevant supplier/developer/producer is in the nature of the fact that one does not make one's intellectual property directly freely available to the entire industry. The depth of the functional descriptions is to be viewed in the same context. But for all this, we can't really expect an encyclopedia to provide directions that are detailed enough for making counterfeit products, can we? Is it not about making a topic understandable to those that have limited knowledge of it? For users to be able to look up what something means? How something works?

Finally, I want to make the point that a new standard exists when a development has established itself over several years and many are relying on it. In this context, information should then be available in encyclopedias and also in Wikipedia. --Paula2005 (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creation comment was "Creating a new page; translation from german version". Existence in another wikipedia is not enough evidence for notability. There needs to be something written about it by an independent source (beyond advertising). Technically, do not see any innovation, since non-TCP protocols over IP have been in use since at least the 1980s. See User Datagram Protocol for example. So it just seems an advertisement. W Nowicki (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (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 by nominator.. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Rodales

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

No sources. No notability FiachraByrne (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom as he meets WP:NFOOTY. My bad.FiachraByrne (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mayers

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

Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR, with no third-party refs. Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem notable, is unreferenced and his works are non-notable. ItsZippy (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kmetija

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

Article does not establish notability of topic. Lacks sources FiachraByrne (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem to be plenty of reliable sources here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I went through the Google search results posted above and found two items in English, which I've added to the article. I don't speak Slovene and was unable to evaluate the remaining hits. The article now contains two presumably reliable sources which are independent of the subject — but since both sources are from the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), they aren't independent of each other, so at least one more source (from somewhere else) needs to be found in order to satisfy the letter of the notability requirement of multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and of one another. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 9 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena products

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

Just a loosely related list of products that aren't really notable other than being associated with the singer Delete Secret ^account 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could easily be a section within the Selena article. Blueboy 96 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Selena_Etc.. A lot of work has gone in to the article. I think it's worth merging. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most (if not all) the stuff has nothing to do with the boutique, and it's unsourced to boot. Secret ^account 06:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok. How about merging the stuff that does have something to do with the boutique? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which I don't know as there isn't any sources in the article or I can't find any sources of which items was in the boutique. Secret ^account 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a product catalog, which is what the vast bulk of this article attempts to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a non-issue, as other artists have such pages, and while Selena may be deceased, her estate and record company still market her, so the page serves a purpose! Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_spears_products — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.13.29 (talk • contribs)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Secret ^account 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, why can britney spears have a product page and selena can't? 108.199.117.101 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — 108.199.117.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Because the Spears articles has reliable sourcing and this doesn't, and the Spears article is AFD material as well. Secret ^account 01:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources for the WP:GNG. Nominate the britney list later. Dzlife (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that coverage is insufficient.--Kubigula (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Zamboanga

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

Article about a shopping mall that has not yet been built. No sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and no indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As yet unbuilt, no coverage indicating notability. sonia♫ 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both comments above are FALSE. Here is one source that took very little time to find, which postulates about the desire to have the mall in their area: Should we welcome an SM in Zamboanga City? from Zambotimes.com. It appears that the nominators simply stated there are "no sources" without actually doing any research to qualify their statements, which nullifies those statements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The article was the fifth link in a Google search for SM City Zamboanga, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The Zambotimes.com article above does not actually support any of the information in this article - other than the name SM City Zamboanga - so unfortunately it does not constitute "in-depth coverage". Notability of this planned shopping centre is still very much in dispute. --DAJF (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Centre for Vedic Learning (Jabalpur)

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

Non-notable topic about an unbuilt tower. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Been proposed, no real reliable source coverage. —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems silly to have an article about a building that hasn't been constructed yet (especially since the project has been in the pipeline for what must be decades by now), but I'm tentatively in favour of hanging on to this. It's been the subject of considerable coverage and speculation for years now, and even if it never gets built, the concept seems to have had enough mentions to be notable. Yunshui (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not notable enough and does not deserve its own page. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Building is still only in the "vision" stage! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:05, 15 September 2011 (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. mentions are not the detailed couverage we need for an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computation and Neural Systems

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

Individual university courses are not usually considered notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, provisionally and without prejudice. A synopsis of the subjects covered in the class (i.e. computation and neural systems) may well be a valuable article, and may be redundant to existing articles; I have not looked. A history of how the class came to be taught is unlikely at best to be a major subject of discussion in independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge if it were better sourced, probably Artificial intelligence or Artificial neural network. There is also Bio-inspired computing but it also not well cited. Also of course California Institute of Technology which mentions it (without a link) as just one in a list of undergraduate programs. Note it is not a single "class" (which is how "course" is often meant) but an academic program. But still, would need to show general notability to remain stand-alone, with an independent source saying something about it, more than it existing. No citations at all, just link to its own web site and others inline. Would also observe the user Perona seems a single purpose account. Only edits related to this article are seen in the history. One was adding a link to the graduate program section of Caltech's article. But that was reverted without comment, perhaps because it was sourced to the 2011 registrar newsletter which nowhere I could find mentions this program. The article states (without citation) that "Pietro Perona" is an "executive officer" of the program. Actually from its web page, it might be more involved in Computational neuroscience? I am not an expert in any of these fields. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - university courses are not notable, and there is no attempt to establish notability in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about a class, it's about an organization. Caltech's CNS program was the first of its kind, I believe, and has great historical importance, with members like Carver Mead and J. J. Hopfield, among others. I think the article should be renamed as Computation and Neural Systems program (Cal Tech), but in any case there is plenty of reason for it to exist. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to something like Caltech Computation and Neural Systems program. This is a kin to an article like MIT Media Lab. To be clear it's an article about an entire program of study and not just a single course. While there is no specific notability criteria here we can look at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) as a guide. The program was associated with the launch of several important conferences. The program directors are all notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Broken Segue 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a longstanding program/department at Caltech. --Kvng (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not debating the existence of the program. But just because it had notable alumni does not make it notable. Programs at Stanford, CMU, UC-Berkeley etc. also had notable alumni so this is not that unusual. Many of them are "longstanding" moreso than this one. The MIT Media Lab has been covered in both local and national press (although its article also needs better citations). Every academic program is "important" or "historic" to the people in it. What Wikipedia guidelines say is needed is for someone outside the program to write about it. I see since my comment an editor anonymously added some citations to books and articles written by the people in it. This is not the same, unless they articles are actually about the program in the article (or is the article supposed to be about the field in general, vs. the prgram at Caltech? If so, it would be in lower case). W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move as suggested above. The Caltech CNS programme has had some very notable participants and achievements, and there are at least a few outside sources mentioning it; one of the more interesting being Romy Wyllie (Caltech's Architectural Heritage: From Spanish tile to modern stone, Balcony Press, 2000), discussing the use of analog integrated circuit patterns as an architectural motif. 202.124.73.24 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2011 (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. 2 listings have not attracted consensus.' ,maybe a reoeat in 6 months might get more attention DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Duets Arab World

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

Non-notable topic. Article is totally unsourced FiachraByrne (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article has been moved to Celebrity Duets ديو المشاهير, tho I have preserved the original title as a redirect. Syrthiss (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to a title all in the Roman alphabet, either Celebrity Duets Arab World or something more appropriate. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) says, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: The primary issue, being notability, has not yet been addressed. Secondary issues, such as article titles, can also be explored but the main issue remains to be notability. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:39, 9 September 2011 (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 The Price Is Right pricing games. Courcelles 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hangers

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Price is Right pricing games

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

This article was nominated twice and survived deletion twice. This is nominated the third time, so will this article be "kept"? To me, if so, then the article should find resources. Only one trivial fact is cited (the model's husband missing in action), and that is not helpful enough to keep this article alive. If not, then I propose a merge with List of The Price is Right pricing games. Don't get me started on the rules vs. "original research" and the unaffiliated fansites; also, don't point out how Drew Carey assumes the "popularity" of this game as he has no proof whatsoever. Gh87 (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It would make a nice section in an article. Little / insufficient indication of wp:notability for a stand-alone article. Scope of topic is too narrow for such. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In the absence of reliable sources discussing this game in depth, we must presume it has no independent notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking for deletion a third tme after it has already survived two attempts is excessive and it is one of the most popular games on TPIR. I vote keep. TySoltaur (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I bolded your votes for more emphasis. You accused me for Wikipedia:canvassing in my talk page, and you haven't given me a slight reason or proof for that. Also, I have stroke through your original post and replied in my own talk page. You think that I have "lured" voters with this AfD's original post. Instead of stooping low and do harm, how about Wikipedia:Deletion review after this AfD is over? --Gh87 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Otherwise, how about {{AfD-merge to}}? --Gh87 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You spammed to a large number of people (just look at Gh87's contributions, the number of people that were spammed with the same message in a short amount of time). That is canvassing which Wiki frowns upon. And you haven't really given any 'NEW' evidence that despite two previous attempts from other people why this article should be deleted. TySoltaur (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Accusing me of spamming? Just look at your old revision of your talk page as of 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC). You were blocked for your behavior. C'mon! Show everyone a link of my contributions. Just give everyone a link to my contributions, okay? --Gh87 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        that is IRRELEVANT to the AfD, dude. Are you that desperate that you are willing to post stuff that has no bearing on his article? TySoltaur (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What about this revision? You have been blocked on May 2011. [24] --Gh87 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC) How is this irrelevant to this AfD? Also, I'm questioning your credibility. Am I wrong? --Gh87 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        you are destroyin your own credibility by bringing stuff into here that has no bearing on the AfD discussion nor the article itself. And I am done hereTySoltaur (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are done here, can I strike through your messages and mine with an exception of our own votes? Or we can let the administrators deal with them. You voted "keep", and I voted "merge"; we can leave them unstroke. Are we resolved? Also, I will strike through all the messages that either you gave me or I typed in my own talk page, so we both will pass through this, won't we? --Gh87 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You are free to strike your own posts, but not mine. TySoltaur (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, what kind of "same message", as you mentioned in my talk page are you referring? The articles that haven't improved and that have no notability and citation established for years? If that's not what you are referring, then what? --Gh87 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As to the same essage, it's on the same Userpage of everyone you contacted. (Look at Gh's contribution page and look at the userpage everyone he posted on. EXACT SAME MESSAGE. That is spamming. TySoltaur (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You mean {{afd-notice}}? --Gh87 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Lol, catfight Sloggerbum (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straight redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. No independent reliable sources at all in the article, even after several years. Any pertinent information is already in the larger article, nothing significant to merge into it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per North8000 and Psychonaut. Willking1979 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Price is Right pricing games—No sourced information to merge into target article, and target already contains a sufficient overview. While the game may be part of pop culture or a favorite of fans, no sources are included to address WP:N guidelines for a stand-alone article. Article has been tagged with needing more refs for 4+ years. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as there is in fact one reliable source cited (which is why I changed the template from unreferenced to refimprove way back in 2008--and that appears to be the only reason I was alerted to this AfD) and much (not not necessarily all) of the information in this article should be retained. - Dravecky (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there is a reliable source, but it is a primary source, not an independent one. The content's verifiable, it's just that the one source listed doesn't establish enough to be notable. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above since there is a relevant sourced fact that should carry over. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! My god! No one here likes game show articles, it seems to me.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Chris[reply]
- Unfortunately, there are no non-fan-based sources that can keep this article alive. Conclude all you want, but without non-fansite sources of older rules, where can we find them? --Gh87 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it would apear there is not a consensus for deletion. Some are saying merge, yet others are saying keep. Few if any have actualy voted for deletion besides you. TySoltaur (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you doing here? Almost everyone in this nomination (excluding previous nominations) says "merge". Also, you said that you are done here; clearly, I don't see your plans to strike out your non-consensus replies. Are you going to sockpuppet here? --Gh87 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - just who do you think you are, trying to tell others where they may or may not post? If I choose to post an observation here, I can and will if I choose to, regardless of your opinion. And I will not strike my comments, I prefer to leave them for all to see. (and btw, merge is not the same as delete, which is the purpose you were trying for with this AfD, right? So I would say based on evidence of the votes that the article will survive this 3rd deletion attempt in some form TySoltaur (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I removed the spacing for you. Anyway, if you believe that this article will be kept by the "consensus", fine! Merge doesn't mean "keep" either; remember that! --Gh87 (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey, you two, this isn't the time to be arguing.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Chris[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. Courcelles 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animax Pakistan

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

Article does not establish notability of topic FiachraByrne (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A good couple of sentences/ small section for the Animax article. No indication of wp:notability for stand-alone article. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the official website is for the Animax in India, the link provided is an year old not sure if any progress has been made since or not, but there is absolutely no coverage whatsoever. CapMan07008 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the single report linked to in the article (which appears to be user generated content), I have been unable to find anything about Animax Pakistan. A Google search only shows a Facebook account that could very well be a fake, but there is no official website. Going to AXN's homepage, it appears that Pakistan is instead covered by Animax India. So the article fails a basic verifiability check. —Farix (t | c) 12:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not even see any references for Animax Pakistan in the Animax India article, does this even exisit or is it a fan made hoax? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2011 (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 rename, and keep. Courcelles 19:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi general election, 2014

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

An unsourced articled for an event that has not yet occurred. Non-notable topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep This stub on an inevitably notable topic (a national election) is a good starter. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Next Bangladeshi general election, as per Next United Kingdom general election. Having 2014 fails WP:CRYSTAL, and can be renamed to 2014 if/when it is announced. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to happen, unless the world ends at 2012. Preparations have already begun, with regards to gerrymandering and putting important people in places. Sounds pretty notable to me. Dunno whether renaming serves any purpose, but the article should stay one way or another. (By the way, I opened the article, and hence you might question my POV) - Ratibgreat (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my main question is - will it 100% take place in 2014? Could they call it early and have it this year or next? I have no doubt it is notable and an election will take place at somepoint, but can it be for certain (as of today) that 2014 will be the year it happens? Lugnuts (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering that - can the Parliament can be dissolved early in Bangladesh (forcing earlier elections) and/or has the date for the next election been fixed by whatever authority fixes the date for the election? It looks like even if the answer to the first question is "no," the elections could theoretically be held on December 30th or 31st of 2013. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it hasn't been fixed at 2014. For all that we know, it must be held within the date mentioned in the article. The idea is, after the dissolution of the parliament (which in theory may happen tomorrow) some interim government will take control of the nation to allow the Election Commission to orchestrate a free and fair election without any party having the upper hand. Hence, it logically follows that if the parliament expires at its longest, elections will be in 2014.

But no, this is not anything concrete. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think the article should be Renamed to Next Bangladeshi general election. This sounds like Bangladesh is on a similar track to the United Kingdom (a parliament which could be dissolved at any time up to the end of 2013, prompting an election) and should therefore be named in the same manner. As Lugnuts pointed out, WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from assuming that the parliament will "expire[] at its longest." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Gaurantee that the election will take place as the parliament could be dissolved any moment, no point in having a 1 line article on something may not even happen. CapMan07008 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovell Chronicle

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

Non notable local newspaper FiachraByrne (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 105 year old newspaper serving 5 towns; wp:notability is probably establishable, but not yet in the article due to it being so new. Content is brief and encyclopedic/informative. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a brief article, however appears to be notable according to a Google search. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's also referenced in Mondo Times here, although this is just a directory listing. However, the article has merit for its historical context. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Girl (Hot Rod song)

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

Non notable musical release. Contains only one rs. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the band's article. No indication of wp:notability for stand-alone article, and such looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non notable release from a non notable artist. Will probably be no place to merge the article as the artist's article, Hot Rod (rapper) is up for its 3rd time to be deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Yukon/NWT Scotties Tournament of Hearts

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

An article for an event that has not yet occurred. It is not yet a notable event. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. There appear to be no reliable sources independent of the subject that verify that this event will in fact take place, as yet. No WP:Crystal ball is needed to confirm that the 2012 Summer Olympics or the 2014 FIFA World Cup will happen. That said, I wish only the best to all involved with the tournament.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future smaller event, no content, no indication of wp:notability, a bunch of blank tables to place non-encyclopedic content into. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is an event that occurs every year and is part of the Wikipedia Curling Project. As information becomes available, the page is updated on a regular basis. There is no need to delete it, as the members of the Wikipedia Curling Project will recreate it. Sirrussellott (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although, I'd prefer these articles be created closer to when they happen. It does (or will meet) WP:CURLING in terms of event notability. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it is pretty bare, these events when they begin usher in a lot of information. Hence the need to have as much ready before the event begins. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No need to go through the trouble of deleting then recreating the article now that it has been created. The article will become notable and should be kept. I will say, though, that I'd rather there be no placement of empty tables (besides the Curlingboxes) and that the article were created after the first few weeks of the start of the season. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP In fact, this event is *precisely* like the items Shirt58 noted as not needing WP:Crystal ball, the NWT Scotties Tournament of Hearts is the Northwest Territorial Qualifier for the Canadian National Championship, which is the direct qualifier to the World Championship. It is guaranteed that all three of these events will occur. GormtheDBA (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Films For The Blind

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

The subject of this article does not yet exist. Create an article once the album has been released. No sources for article. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not currently exist, and zero sources, no indication of wp:notability for a separate article (aside from the artist's article) looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Crystal ... future album that is not yet produced. No sources. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy inspired by WP:DONTBITE. --Trevj (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allodoxaphobia

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a poorly sourced non-notable phobia; the potential list of phobias is infinite. Not every phobia is sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep. There are scholarly and book sources to support that the word is real (although not widely used), and I don't see any harm in having an article about it as long as the article is verifiable. Looie496 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, but what specific sources do you mean and do they discuss the subject in sufficient detail to support an article?FiachraByrne (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that this has ever been documented in a subject, suggesting that it's just something that got made up and put into lists of phobias and a couple of insiprational books. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In most sources, the term appears only as an item in a list of miscellaneous phobias. No evidence that the term is notable or that it is widely used. Sporadic use on blogs and in low-quality sources does not establish sufficient notability. It looks like it's a word that was coined simply for the purpose of coining a word. WP:TRIVIA applies. Search of Google scholar indicates that it is highly unlikely that notability requirements will ever be meet. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this a recognised condition. A few writers thinking "Oh someone's afraid of speaking publicly so they must be afraid of what people think about them - they must be afraid of opinions....in my guide to all possible prefixes to the word -phobia that's called allodoxaphobia, so I'm going to use that word in my book for motivational speakers" does not constitute anything other than the misuse of a neologism.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Fuel Cell Partnership

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

Short stub with unclear notability. Ephemeral project. No independent sources about this project. Beagel (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep however it's mainly because I am finding hits for it, but unfortunately I don't speak the language of most of the site (taiwan, mandarin?). I believe it could (fairly?) meet notability, but I simply don't have the language skills to comfirm this. One non "asian" language I found this mentioned was an article involving Canada- the link is http://www.canada.org.tw/taiwan/highlights-faits/2011/CHFCA-TFCP-MOU-2011.aspx?lang=eng. Just by reading I would assume that this article can meet notability, but once again I simply don't have the language skills to examine the majority of the info involved that I have found on the web. I think this may just be a case where we are an english wiki (with all the so-called "western" ideas that go with it) and simply don't have adequate coverage on in our own media institutions. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite the fact that the Taiwan Fuel Cell Partnership signed a MoU with the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association, is there anything about the Taiwan Fuel Cell Partnership? If not, by my understanding this article is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Possible sources in Chinese needs verification if they are reliable and about the subject. Although interwiki is not an argument for AfD, but there is no article in Chinese (or in any other language) for this organization, so it is doubtful if it is really notable even by these standards. Beagel (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Oh I generally agree with you Beagel, but since I am not fluent (or even novice) in the languages I am finding I figured it best, IMHO, to just let it stand until more sources either do or do not appear. Perhaps that is a bit naive on my part but as I've said I am a bit of an inclusionist so I tend to give the benefit of the doubt more often than not. However if we cannot provide any more sources than found and other language sources are no more than what we see here then I whole-heartedly agree with ya. As always I am a "class" "True Neutral" so I will change accordingly. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources (including in other languages) for adding and improving the article, I will agree with 'keep'. I just don't see these sources right now (I am also not the Chinese speaker, so if anybody familiar with this language could help, it will be excellent). Beagel (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established as written. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Still insufficient discussion from which to plot consensus. Let's discuss this further. BusterD (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Does not even have any notability related claims in text. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parisha Vadyam

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

Non-notable "genre of percussion music"? Quick search on google reveals little (other than this document and its category). Unable to find any images related to percussion. Dengero (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Bing and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found references from Government of Kerala [25], Kerala Council of Historical Research [26], and two books [27] which mentions the music form. I am not at all familiar with the music form, but I am quite familiar with Panchavadyam, which according to the article evolved from Parisha Vadyam. At most the article should be merged with the history of Pancha Vadyam. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 19:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magherafelt Sky Blues F.C.

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

Does not appear to play in a national league (just an amateur, intermediate, regional one), so fails WP:FOOTYN. Fails WP:GNG since appears only to have one independent reliable source. Sitush (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:FOOTYN as the club has "played in the national cup" : Irish Cup 2010/11. Not playing in a national league is irrelevant. Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then why did you not state the cup point in the article or in the edit summary for your removal of the PROD? These Irish football and cricket stubs you are creating with an absolute minimum of sourcing (often, none) are placing a ridiculous burden on other people if you have even a tad of notability information that you could include more or less at the outset. I withdraw the AfD due to the point now raised. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why did I not state the cup point? Because I didn't need to - a reference to WP:FOOTYN was sufficient. Why did you not read WP:FOOTYN? Mooretwin (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I tried to source it. I'm usually pretty good at sourcing. There was no indication that they played in the national league structure etc & your proven total misunderstanding of the cricket notability guidelines made me extremely wary of your position. Honestly, the problem with this and many other of your sports club articles (which have been deleted) is that you provide no support. As soon as you mentioned the cup thing, I was prepared to withdraw the nomination if it is properly sourced. The onus is on you to provide a decent stub otherwise A7 applies etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mooretwin and WP:BEFORE places responsibility for checking for sources on the person nominating the article for deletion. Keresaspa (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : As the article stands, it could be deleted as CSD A7 as it makes no claim to the significance of the club, as WP:FOOTYN says that clubs playing in the "national cup are assumed to meet WP:N" with only the one source looks like it may be one of the cases where this assumption is wrong and this club may well fail WP:GNG so unless better sourcing is forthcoming it should be deleted without prejudice to recreation if sourcing is later found. Mt king ^(edits) 16:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the update by Keresaspa, moving to neutral. Mt king ^(edits) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has now been expanded a bit by me. Keresaspa (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Keresaspa (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a national cup, so meets WP:FOOTYN. Note to nominator - playing in a regional or amateur league is NOT reason to delete, many notable teams do so. Giant Snowman 12:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, has played in a national cup. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:12, 28 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savoy Hotel Blackpool

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

Unreferenced article about an unremarkable hotel. It isn't a historic or listed building converted into a hotel. No notable events have taken place, or notable people stayed there. It is simply one of a number of similar hotels in a seaside resort. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a google search and couldn't find anything that would really merit an article to itself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Could not find any reason why it is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer and Katherine Ostroth

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

Non notable subjects. Only appeared sporadically for a few months on a soap show when they were 7 months to a year old. Article even states they haven't acted since. Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC) *Delete as nominator. Pudge MclameO (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this article is unsourced, and playing an infant for a few months on a television show isn't enough to establish a performer as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another easily deletable article about child actors that have long moved on from the business into normal life. I don't understand why the soap crufters think we need to know more about children who basically acted as living props for soap characters. Nate • (chatter) 08:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trading a role back and forth in Ryan's Hope when infants is not notability, specially as "goo-goo", "dah-dah" and happy gurgling when cued by their on set handler is not exactly acting. Based upon the one (shared) role, we have a failure to meet WP:ENT. Now certainly some young twins can go on from there and become notable, but these two did not. Also, lacking any reliable sourcing makes this a BLP problem. I'm sure there's a Soap Wikia that would love this.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 25 August 2011 (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 Sony. Or other target, if a better one exists Courcelles 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony PictureStation DPP-EX50

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into what? --Kvng (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Sony/Products. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems that some editors are trying to turn WP into a product catalogue!!!! WP is an encyclopaedia... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alan Liefting. Just another product! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:22, 8 September 2011 (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 Sony. Or other article, should a better target exist Courcelles 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walkman Core

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into what? --Kvng (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Sony/Products. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No notability proven. Just another product. WP is not a catalog. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:24, 8 September 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Alfred Kunz

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

Having reviewed the previous AfD, I think the editors involved were in error. This case is not notable, and the claim made that the victim was notable before being murdered is not supported in the existing article, nor by a cursory search for reliable sources.

In addition, claims of the connection of this case to the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is not supported by reliable sources.

I think this article was voted into existence, rather than a careful consideration being given to the arguments presented by the keepers. But there is no deadline. So delete. Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM. As I stated in the previous AFD, the subject's only real claim to notability is the fact that he was murdered. The prior AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest).4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep there's no question that this article fails wp:victim, but I think that the notability standard is wrong in this case. there is ongoing discussion of the case, and it's clearly important to a lot of people, and covered in reliable sources, e.g. this and this and this. if i knew how to do it, i'd try to get the notability standard changed to include victims who, in their victimhood, provoked ongoing discussion of the crime they were the victim of. for instance, Kitty Genovese. she also clearly fails wp:victim, but nevertheless is clearly notable. obviously this case is obscure compared to that one, but nevertheless it seems to be generating a lot of discussion, and for over ten years, and thus I think it should be kept. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment oh, and also, the article is titled "Murder of Alfred Kunz", so no one is claiming that the victim himself is notable, but only that his murder is notable, which is parallel to the case of kitty genovese. i think that there are sufficient reliable sources to support notability of murder, without claiming notability of victim per se. this was discussed on the kitty genovese talk page in relation to that crime: Talk:Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Name_of_article. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's an unsolved murder that is notable and has received extensive press coverage. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since apparently I was not clear or wikilawyery enough in the nom, this fails WP:NEVENT, the case itself is not notable (As I said, but it seems not clearly enough). There is absolutely zero national media attention on this case, and there barely was when it happened. This is one of the thousands of murders that populate the news cycle each year, none of them notable enough for an encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still vote keep for the reasons given above. It has merited news coverage in large regional newspapers and remains unsolved. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although there has been some coverage of the event (i.e. murder), it does appear to fail the sub-guidelines at WP:EVENT. I would not object to the information being merged to a "Crime" subsection in Dane, Wisconsin. Location (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unsolved murder, with alot of press coverage and details that makes it stand out.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of press coverage when it happened doesn't make an event notable. What details? The way I see it, the only uncommon fact is that the murder was of a priest, and that is not enough for notability. --Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Weak Keep, see below.) A brutal unsolved murder, but not apparently connected with any larger theme or with ongoing major publicity. I assume it got local/regional news coverage at the time, although none is cited in the article. But stories published since the time of the murder are not in Reliable Sources or mainstream media. I couldn't find the coverage in "large regional newspapers" that Bookworm mentioned. The references at the article, and cited above by Alf, are mostly from minor or fringe media, or mention this case only in passing. Google News archive found only one hit. If the case is "still generating a lot of discussion," I could not find it and the links provided here do not demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure how you got only one hit out of google news. i got close to 300, although clearly not all are about the murdered priest. here is one from the milwaukee journal sentinel published four years after the murder. this one and this one, also cited above are from the last couple of years. they're not from a fringe source, but from The Capital Times, which is at least regional; it's certainly a real paper. the first of these two does more than just mention the case, it explains that the cops are sure they know who did it but don't have evidence to indict. this shows ongoing television coverage in madison over the years (see list of other stories at bottom of article). Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either; this was my result. The links you have given here are very helpful; would you consider adding some of them to the article? It would strengthen it quite a bit. Rereading WP:EVENT, this kind of coverage might supply enough "depth, duration and diversity" to qualify as a "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i will certainly add them to the article, although i'm not sure when i'll have time to do it. i usually do try to add sources to articles up for deletion if i can find them, but i just haven't had the time to work through this one. i'm concerned that the afd discussion is about to expire, though. i'm not sure exactly what to do in a case like this. i definitely do not have time to work them cleanly into the body of the article today. how about if i add them to the talk page so they're preserved, along with a note that they need to be integrated, and i'll try to get to it within the week? — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment OK, I found some time and threw in a few more sources and up-to-date information. see what you think. there's probably more that could be done, but maybe this is enough for now, give that there's no deadline and stuff. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not the most notorious crime in the world, but it does seem to satisfy the criteria of receiving coverage with "depth, duration and diversity." It needs more sources like the ones Alf just added (I used one of them to add notability to the lead paragraph). Right now way too much of the article is sourced to the non-neutral, conspiracy-flogging article in the Las Vegas Weekly. Those links should be replaced with mainstream news sources to strengthen the article. I just replaced two of the links, but I'd like to see that article gone entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - mostly because it essentially has no coverage as a national story. However, it does have reasonably significant regional coverage (including a behind pay-wall Chicago Tribune story) that is continuous over a long period showing interest (several years worth) and importance. Moogwrench (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lance scheduler

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

An article about an open source software projec. The article has no sources and has no assertion of notability, so clearly fails WP:GNG. I can find no evidence that such notability is likely to exist.: as far as I can tell this is a imnor hobby project with no real users and that has so far had no impact. Speedy delete request was (rightly) declined, the Prod was removed by the original author without comment, so here we are. Claviere (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA so possibly promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crownie (cookie + brownie)

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

While undoubtedly tasty, also non-notable. Contested proposed deletion. Neutrality^talk 05:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unfortunately favoring the delete option, because there is no establishment of notability. Also, does this treat concoction have significant notable coverage? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see discussion at WP:Food and drink. --Slashme (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Backtable. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:12, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grace

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

A letter writing competition for primary-school students run by an Irish nonprofit which does not have its own article. Undoubtedly a noble cause, but does not meet the notability threshold. Contested proposed deletion. Neutrality^talk 05:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any coverage in reliable sources, much less significant coverage that would pass GNG. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:40, 8 September 2011 (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 Ashburn, Virginia#Fire-rescue and emergency services. Consensus here favours redirecting the page to the article on the town, and to aid in navigation that is generally advised as opposed to outright deletion. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburn Volunteer Fire-Rescue Department

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

A small volunteer fire department. While undoubtedly a noble organization, it does not meet the notability requirements (significant coverage with sources addressing subject directly in detail, etc.) Neutrality^talk 05:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ashburn, Virginia (where it's covered already) if anyone feels like it. General precedent is to cover police and fire departments in the articles of the communities they serve, and the article gives no indication that this should be an exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ashburn, Virginia. No secondary sources establishing sufficient notability for its own article, with all due respect to the volunteers. Passing mention in one source on Google News, and Google search revealed no sites establishing notability beyond the local scale in the first 200 hits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant data, such as data that doesn't require sourcing, to Ashburn, Virginia. I already merged the gallery from Ashburn Volunteer Fire-Rescue Department to Ashburn, Virginia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2011 (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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. If any administrator disagrees with this close they have my permission to restore the article and reopen this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Danger

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

While the article makes out a borderline case for notability (still probably not notable, but it would be close) if all the claims present were adequately sourced, the article has no reliable sources, and I have been unable to locate any. The article therefor fails WP:BIO. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While minimally relevant to the deletion discussion, an IP editor claiming to be the subject requested deletion in an edit, and claimed that some of the material in the article was untrue. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds for deletion without even reaching that claim, but I wanted to make a note of it in the interests transparency. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SLAMM "Nederland vs Thailand III"

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

Could not find independent sources to establish the notability of this martial arts event. Page is primarily a results listing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no independent sources and is just routine sports coverage. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication the event was notable. The article appears to be simply sports results with no sources to support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2011 (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.

Stephanie Adams

The result was Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. Page has already been redirected to appropriate target (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here, here, here, here and here. The article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTED I've redirected the page to the notable Drummond Cricket Club Ground per WP:BEBOLD, I've also included a sentence about the club playing there. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portadown Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the small size and low tier of such amateur clubs, they can sometimes meet WP:GNG due to their age and extensive history. However I find nothing in Google Books and only a few passing mentions in the Google news archives. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2011 (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 List of cricket clubs in Ireland. v/r - T P 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurelvale Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A second secondary source has been added to the article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, a secondary source that is self-published, without an apparently valid ISBN, no record at WorldCat and minimal hits at Google (209 GHits, including sellers, no GBooks hit at all, no GScholar) , Even the reviews at ulstercricketer.com share the domain name used by the author for enquiries about purchase. I know that Google is not everything, but is this good enough? - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this. Whilst I am well aware of AGF, a lot of books of this type contain tables etc and I am concerned that this may be just a passing mention (just because the club is listed in a book would not in itself indicate notability, and a single page mention does not seem like much). Could you possibly either mail me a scan of the relevant bit or transcribe onto the article talk page? Use a throwaway email account if you want. It would be so much easier if these clubs had actually won the Senior Cup or the top tier of the league at some point (as indeed one did, the AfD of which I opposed recently for that reason). - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to the insulting comment immediately above, clearly in breach of AGF. (You seem to have plenty of time on your hands: order the book from the library if you don't believe the reference to be genuine.) But just to refute the first allegation, the ISBN is 0-9545892-0-3. Mooretwin (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the existence of the ref, just that is appears unlikely to address the subject [club] in significant detail so even with it it sill fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, like all the others listed in the nomination, existence does not equal notability. Mt king ^(edits) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cricket clubs in Ireland, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CLUB.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2011 (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 Drake's#Popular Products. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devil dogs

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

From a Google search, there doesn't seem to be anything substantive on the topic. All the information in this article is contained in the Drake's article, where a short blurb should belong. Unless something interesting about this can be found and added to the article, the topic doesn't seem notable. Joe Schmedley^Talk 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — —Darkwind (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. This article not needed.Borock (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake's#Popular Products for now. At this time, there is simply not enough information to justify a one-sentence stub article. 03:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. This is still a stub, and has the potential to reach the status of articles on its sister products, Yodels, Ring Dings and others. (The only problem is that there should be a capital "D" on Dogs. That will then require a disambiguation or hatnote for the band The Devil Dogs, which now shows up as a link on the Drake's page.) — Michael J 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Much of the information on Yodels and Ring Dings is unsourced, and seems difficult to source. Wouldn't this article similarly tempt WP:OR to occur? Joe Schmedley^Talk 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ | Redirect . Agree with Michael J. Devil Dogs are a venerable part of the American cupboard. Love em or loathe em, they deserve a full article. ~~The fact that the article is currently a stub is not a reason to remove it.~~ Bella the Ball (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the readers, not reward deserving subjects. The readers are just as well informed by the info in Drake's without individual articles on each snack cake.Borock (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm persuaded that a redirect will satisfy all current cravings, and does not prejudice a good article being created at any point in the future. Bella the Ball (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the reasons stated above. This does have the potential to become a better article but so far there's not enough info to really warrant its own article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect unless somebody steps up to improve the article now, as opposed to in the hypothetical future. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note If the decision is to redirect, please see my comment above about capitalization. There should also be a redirect on both Devil dogs and Devil Dogs.

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 deleted per G7 after author blanked and tagged the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think-tion

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

Non notable theory by non-notable author. Self published. Only real reference is to a "similar" theory by someone actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — —Darkwind (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think therefore I should have a Wikipedia page. No indication that this approach has any substantial followers or has been paid any attention anywhere. Bella the Ball (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. (Also, this gives philosophy a bad name: it isn't philosophy, it's cod psychology.) —Tom Morris (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication of notability as well as a lack of outside sources. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no reason for this article to remain on wikipedia. If the author and his theory become more well known and notable in the future then it should be added but at this moment in time there's no reason for it to be here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete sounds like something Dilbert's pointy-haired boss would come up with. In fact parts of it really come off as some sort of parody of pseudo-business gobbledygook: "The elements of Think-tion are similar to Six Thinking Hats, Six Action Shoes, and Six Value Medals." I swear that's actually in the article and I did not make it up. We're not deleting it for being stupid, though, we're deleting it for being non-notable and poorly sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Deardorff

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

No visible notability. Everything here is self-published. WorldCat shows only his MA and doctoral theses. prod removed, with the reaso" Dr. Dale S. Deardorff's work is in innovation research is recognized as a vital citation for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBDI ". The actual reference there is to his doctoral thesis, and it documents the word "others" (other applications of HBDI, unspecified) . I tried to clean up the article but discovered there would be nothing left if I did so. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — —Darkwind (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable subject. Attending conferences does not make one notable. Bella the Ball (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by SPAs with no third party references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article hints at any kind of notability, academic or otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing at all leaps out as meeting any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Simon

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

Holocaust survivor who is a motivational speaker for local schools. Majority of coverage are trivial local mentions of his appearances at various schools. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Darkwind (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Coverage is not trivial but acceptable third-party refs in reliable sources, and subject demonstrates strong regional notability. I wikified the article to provide inline citations. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is local coverage of a speaker to middle schoolers not WP:ROUTINE? Just another WP:Run-of-the-mill motivational speaker. On a side note, GS returns nothing on his work at UCSB, so fails WP:ACADEMIC. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 16:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new ref that says he earned his teaching degree at UCSB and taught languages at Ventura College. Yoninah (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - Vanadus is right, this just doesn't make the cut. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject does not meet the notability guidlines. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reports in high school newspapers and other local and/or trivial coverage won't cut it. There's one LA Times piece which is significant, but it's from the local section and is clearly intended to be local news, and in any case it still fails WP:BIO, which requires multiple. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with local news? Surely you don't mean that someone has to be written up in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN in order to qualify for a Wikipedia biography? Many people are well-known in their region but not nationally. And why do you write off the Ventura County Star, which is a member of the Scripps group? Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Vanadus and Roscelese. CapMan07008 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in the Los Angeles Times establishes notability, regardless of what section of the newspaper it's in. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist comment: Aditional content has been added since the last opinion, which might require reexamination. Sandstein 06:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply - No, all you've done is squeeze more juice out of the same lemons, plus adding links to a local school newspaper and an anthology of college student writing compiled by the local college. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Internet research reveals he has has received substantial coverage in secondary sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability and the reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article, in addition to other sources available, more then establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article has enough WP:RS in any case. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. I don't see a policy difference vis-à-vis what newspaper section the coverage is in. CityO fSilver 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reason why local sections don't necessarily give sufficient sourcing for notability, is that they cover ever event in the community, regardless of importance. None of the ones here show anything more than that. Incidentally, I don't exactly see how anyone could in 1941 search for Nazi criminals in Germany as part of the US Army. By the time the Allies reached Germany he was, according to the article, a pilot in the Air Force. However, a little confusion is understandable, because the source for this part of the article is a student essay, [28]. It's presumably based on his own account in the local talk he gave, not on any actual documentation. Based on the statement on the talk p. from the original editor, the entire article amounts to a personal account by the subject. I consequently regard the newspaper articles essentially as based on his own publicity for himself. Based on the attribution for the image, that ed. cvlaims to own the copyright on the image, which would make the article either an autobiography or written by a close relative. . DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 16 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster (manufacturer)

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. The company that bought over Wooster doesn't even have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:26, 3 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukwonago community library

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

No particular indication of notability and numerous problems with the article itself. Prioryman (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP Notability guidelines. No apparent secondary sources discussing the library, or establishing its encyclopedic notability. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs complete rewrite and no indication of why this is more notable than any other library. Royal broil 12:12, 8 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Group

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

This group does not seem notable at all, only 9 mentions in the news Darkness Shines (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9 mentions, 5 of which are related to other companies, not the company in question. SimongarciaME (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any notable coverage on Google, Google News and Yahoo that was both third-party and notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also see links to elysian real estate as a seperate page regarding same company, and masood naseeb. All pages are using 3rd party press release sites to establish notability, which does the opposite. It seems promotionalism accross. SimongarciaME (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another business real estate brokerage company. References are all to non-independent press releases. The most interesting part of one of the linked sites was the part that said Your Banner Ad Here instead - Showing along with ALL Articles covering Real Estate/Property Management Announcements. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:01, 27 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft Quartet

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

I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, not even trivial, much less significant. Thus this fails the GNG. Also fails WP:BAND as it has not charted or released any material on major labels - indeed, its two albums appear to be self-released, as this source seems to indicate that the band's guitarist works for the record label. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any significant coverage by sources, same as Roscelese. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Man Group DVD Premium

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

no indication given that this is a notable DVD. google and amazon searches reveal no info on it. its admittedly a rarity, which doesnt exclude notability, but when combined with lack of information, means it really shouldnt have its own article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 01:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as long as WP:GNG is still policy, no way this one can stay. I could find zero information on it. I looked at amazon and couldn't even find it. It appears to have zero impact on the world and therefore does not merit inclusion. The Blue Man Group discography article already lists this so there's no point in merging either especially since it cites no sources. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:57, 25 August 2011 (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 consensus is to delete, but without prejudice against re-creation if/when he plays an NFL game PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeQuin Evans

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

nn football player who has never appeared in a NFL game nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This appears to be a technically correct application of the notability rule. However, the article indicates that this player is currently on an NFL roster. Unless he's cut, which I suppose is always possible (especially for a back-up), he'll be playing his first NFL game in a couple of weeks. So the article may have been rewritten a couple of weeks early, but does it make much sense to delete it now and then re-create it three weeks from now? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Yes, Newyorkbrad. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 02:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because, at present, he does not appear to be notable, and going by anything else would violate WP:CRYSTAL. But if you want to try to look ahead, I'll suggest that, as a third-string linebacker (according to the most recent roster at Bengals.com), he may make the practice squad but is unlikely to make the active roster, so he won't be playing in games any time soon. cmadler (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. College football players who have had significant non-trivial coverage of their collegiate playing career may pass WP:GNG even if they never play in the NFL. Have not had time to evaluate, but examples of what appear to be non-trivial coverage include (1) DeQuin Evans Trying To Make It With The Bengals, (2) Ex-Cat Evans discusses remarkable journey from juvenile detention to NFL's Bengals, (3) Evans says he'll pick on signing day, (4) What's Wrong With DeQuin Evans?, Evans ready for big home debut, (5) Injuries wrecking Evans' senior year. Cbl62 (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if/when he plays an NFL game. He doesn't appear to be notable as a collegiate athlete (and I say this as a University of Kentucky alumnus and fan). The links given above by Cbl62 strike me as run-of-the-mill coverage for a signed undrafted free agent. As things currently stand, given his position on the depth chart (third-string), I'd guess he may make the Bengals' practice squad but not the active roster. cmadler (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:ATH and as cmadler mentioned, the coverage seems very routine.--Giants27(T|C) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not convinced notability is established by significant coverage, but worst-case GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who's highest accomplishment appears to be 4th team All-SEC in 2009. —Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect to Cincinnati_Bengals#Current_roster until he plays his first game? I almost supervoted a redirect but thought better of it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he might never play a game? cmadler (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NewYorkBrad, and there's no harm is sending to a quick AfD again if he's cut and doesn't play. Cbl62 almost makes the point that his college coverage may be significant enough on its own (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Perez (American football)).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:33, 2 September 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Kraft

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rather depressing specimen of an attempt to claim inherited notability - being "assistant engineer" to, or vaguely "working with," a notable person is not a WP:ENTERTAINER criterion, the albums appear to be self-released (per Valley Advocate source which says that Kraft is from Microearth Records, Microearth Records being the company that release the albums), and coverage is inadequate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Attack page. causa sui (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tales-from-the-Goondocks

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

No evidence that the usage of this term is at all widespread. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, although the ghits suggests it's more of a user name than a real slang term. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exists but according to Google it never made the news or was reported in books. Borock (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless scrap of totally non-notable forum drama, borderline speedy as attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 25 August 2011 (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 Transparency International. Courcelles 23:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency International Kenya

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

Delete or redirect to Transparency International. There is no need for an extra article out of the 70+ branches TI has. Dengero (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transparency International No evidence that this chapter of TI is specifically notable per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Current sources in the article are primary sources or documents that do not mention the organization. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transparency International. Neutrality^talk 22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A key chapter of Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and publicizes corporate and political corruption in international development. The headquarters of the organization is located in Germany; no section exists documenting it's chapters in the main article for Transparency International; the article is worthy of existing per being in Kenya, a country working to improve human rights; there are likely other reliable sources that are available in journals, books, newspapers, magazines, etc. (not just via web search). Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps allow more time for print sources to be used as reliable sources for the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2011 (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. Gee hammer, maybe WP:SOGOTP should become policy. While it's clear that no delete buttons are going to be pushed at this time I'm still divided on whether to close "k" or "n" again. Per Nsk92's sources I think I'm going to "get off the pot" but if a closer examination finds them lacking I would have no objection to this being renominated in a month or 2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gonsalves

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious notability. Thin sources, only one valid assertation. Last two AFDs closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Let's go or get off the pot, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a bit weakish, but still). The award listed in the article does check out, and there are examples of detailed biographical coverage of him by third-party sources, e.g. in these two books: [29][30]. Also, appears to have won some kind of an award from the UN in 1991.[31] IMO, passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:GNG and the sources listed by Nsk92. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Progressive Dog Breeders' Alliance

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

As far as I can tell, this falls into the same category as World Wide Kennel Club and National Kennel Club. Aside from a mention on the Mountain View Cur Association homepage, since it's a charter, no reliable sources cover this organization at all and I don't think it can be considered noteworthy otherwise. Isolate the relevant info, look at the sources, and you'll see that there's very little behind this. Anna (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Wikipedia has become the resource of first resort for most computer users. This article provides a quick source of data about the IPDBA, and readers can see how it is sourced and decide for themselves how much credence they wish to give those sources. Otherwise, they are left to flounder through the internet, re-inventing the wheel. If a source can be found expressing Anna's opinion of the IPDBA, that source could be added. I am no advocate for the IPDBA; only for people trying to check them out who may need Wikpedia as a first step. See the "Context" section which objectively and neutrally points out the differences between the IPDBA and clubs such as the AKC. Also, Anna, the World Wide Kennel Club and National Kennel Club you cite have been removed, so I don't know what you mean by "falls into the same category" -- I don't know what I'm missing. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 14:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this because it seems to breach the policies/guidelines WP:V and WP:N. Verifiability is a requirement, and notability is important as well, though there are some exceptions. I don't have an opinion on the organization itself other than noting its similarities to those organizations (the AfDs are linked from the deletion log when you visit the pages), and I don't think you're an advocate, but I can't see how it fits the requirements for an article on Wikipedia. It lacks reliable sources, and there's really no way around that, is there? Anna (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization has some stature / geographic reach / size / notability, then this would be a useful article. But it has zero references, (and 2 of the 4 external links are dead, one to an unregistered domain) and does not even have info or claims regarding stature / geographic reach / size / notability. I'd say give it a couple weeks for the editors to add some of the above if it exists. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – team squads

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

This list is a repeat of the lists under Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games#Teams. It was tagged to be merged, but I can't see how merging this in there can work, or if it is needed with it's current set up. (see Talk:Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games) AIRcorn (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games then Delete. It can be merged following the format laid out in 2011 Varsity Cup with collapsible boxes (not templates). --Bob247 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The same should probably be done with these articles (Australia Maccabiah rugby union team, United Kingdom Maccabiah rugby union team, United States Maccabiah rugby union team, South Africa Maccabiah rugby union team, Canada Maccabiah rugby union team and Chile Maccabiah rugby union team) as they contain the same lists. Is there a way to add them to this discussion without opening new ones for each one? AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by this - "The same should probably be done with these articles" - are you saying that the articles should be merged into other articles, or that they should have collapsible lists? --MacRusgail (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my original deletion statement one of the reasons I considered deleting the Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – team squads article instead of merging was because the team lists were already included by linking to **** Maccabiah rugby union team. If the team list's are going to be merged as collapsable boxes into the parent article it seems pointless to link to the lists somewhere else as well. So if the decision is to merge the team list as a collapsible box then in my opinion these articles would be then become redundant and should probably be deleted. Sorry for not explaining this clearer in the first place. AIRcorn (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The individual nation pages should probably be nominated for deletion as well. --Bob247 (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order Bob247: you cannot merge and delete. Is there an objection to a redirect? It wouldn't be particularly useful, but it would preserve the edit history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:GNG. --Bob247 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Progressive Breeders' Alliance

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

I'd have put this one up with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Progressive Dog Breeders' Alliance, but am too late. I'm afraid that there are no reliable books, sites, etc. at all that cover this organization -- Google Hits are sparse too. Since it was founded in 1996, quite recently, I can't see a way that it would be considered "notable" without said coverage; it looks to be the parent organization of several registries that aren't covered in reputable secondary sources either. There seems to be no possibility, like I said above, of reliable third-party sourcing, in violation of verifiability. Anna (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article states, "As of early 2006, the IPEBA appears to be inactive or still in development. The IPEBA website has no list of recognized breeds or species and no links to chartered breed or species clubs." So this is an organization that doesn't do anything, has never done anything, and gives no reason to suspect will ever do anything. Bella the Ball (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moein

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched using both the English and Arabic spelling of his name. His pages on other Wikis are also unsourced. J04n(talk page) 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Benefit of the doubt. No real references. But lists like 27 albums spanning 26 years. Iranian performer. First guess is that has notability but editors didn't know how to write the article to establish it. North8000 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: he is a notable Persian singer but the article needs reliable sources. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced I can't vote to keep an unreferenced BLP, but it seems obvious that you can't release 23 albums across 3 decades and 3 labels without being notable. Source it up and it's good to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment : I aaded 2 reliable references from BBC Persian web site to keep the article. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spada2. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World of Books Ltd

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

Keep: Company has been covered by two sources (both in the article), and won a "business of the year" award from its local community. Two sources (though both are "in depth", as required by WP:CORP) and a local award is obviously borderline notable, but seems like just barely enough to justify a stub article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CORP. I think the local article fails under WP:CORPDEPTH: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." And that national article fails under the same criteria, for me, based on: "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage..." though it's a long article, as you say, it's pretty verbose as it discusses trivial matter with bloated sentences. If they could find some better references I might agree with you, but based on these two, I don't - shame, as I often buy books from them through Amazon and they are usually very good, but this article doesn't stand up to Wiki standards IMO. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 05:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created from a single-purpose account. I patrolled it as a new page on 10 June and proposed it for deletion. The article's creator removed the PROD banner but has added no further information in the two months since. The article fails to adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Dolphin (t) 07:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would prefer to delete but the telegraph article is solid. Appears nothing else of substance, will switch with a good rationale from other editors. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Telegraph is indeed a reliable source and covers the company quite nicely. But the video seems to to be puffery. Phearson (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep wp:notability is borderline. As an apparent non-profit, article has probably not been spun too badly by commercial interest. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (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 (t) (c) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Formula SimRacing World Championship

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

WP:Notability, WP:Event. Only one source has been provided for the article and it is internal to the subject. No notability for this subject has been established, or even attempted. Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2011 article as non-notable; zero GNews hits and no significant web hits. Procedural keep 2010 article, as it was never tagged with an AfD notice. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2010 article has now been PRODded by the nominator. While I suspect he/she has confused the two processes, I'm not going to correct it on the basis that there is only a day or two left on the AfD (and thus it would not have been tagged for a full week) and also because PROD will likely be enough to result in deletion anyway. Accordingly, I've simply endorsed the PROD rather than changing it to an AfD tag. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (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. There's no prejudice for an early renomination, in case the article is not improved. Wifione ^Message 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Kaur Khalsa

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

No evidence of notability. None of the references is a reliable independent source, and most give very little coverage. (PROD contested without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep Her first acting credits are as Kirsten Betts, and she also goes by Elandra Kirsten Meredith (for example, the page on her yoga establishment). She also has theatre and TV credits. So the material on her is more extensive than appears from the article as it was; two of us have been adding to it and rewriting. She does not appear to have had any major roles in film or theatre, but I believe she is mentioned enough to meet the notability criteria as a performer, in which case the article should be moved to Kirsten Lindholm with redirects from the other 3 names. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most biographical details are from IMDB and similar user-contributed web sites. There's only passing mention of her in reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Borderline on wp:notability. Benefit of the doubt. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

buuteeq

AfDs for this article:

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

this company does not appear to meet notability requirements, and the article is not using reliable sources (almost all of the sources are to Buuteeq's own website, interviews with Buuteeq staff at non-notable websites, or a solitary article at techcrunch). This article reads like a piece of corporate advertising, and there may be a CoI issue. The account that has created and maintained the article has not made any unrelated edits in the last 5 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BMDennis. A Google newssearch comes up with a press release, a blog by a staff member, and some articles that briefly include buuteeq in a list of companies that are doing financings.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This company looks like it has a lot of potential, including having raised significant vc funding. However, it has not yet accomplished anything substantial. Delete for now. If you think this topic will merit a return to Wikipedia down the road, go out and buy their stock. Bella the Ball (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 19:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Roupas

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

This individual does not appear to be independently notable. Herp Derp (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Alderman is very marginal. In terms of notability this is a slight notch below that. However he was the youngest county chairman in the state at age 25 according to this. He just left office to become a DuPage County assistant state’s attorney. He is mentioned here. He passes WP:GNG due to some scandals he was involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the article needs to be updated and expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Same reasons as previous post. North8000 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanbudō

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

A simple Google search gave me lots of hits, but didn't give me independent and reliable sources. The only source in the article is to a general karate page. It seems like this art might well be notable, but it's been tagged for lacking good sources since 2007.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes. ~~Keep~~. It's full-on Karate-do here. He is a notable martial artist who has published several books about his art (notably Karate and Nunchaku) in the French language. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is just copied from the nanbudo home page. The article still needs independent sources to show notability for either the art or the founder. Jakejr (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~All the work at FightingArts.com is original work. It has probably been copied the other way.~~ Have just noticed this though. Most of this article is a direct copy of content that is on this webpage ikpkf.webs.com. It looks like that has been copied direct from Wikipedia including Wikipedia edit links. Now I have mixed feelings about this article. Also, I am having a really hard time finding any WP:RS ~~other than the FightingArts.com article~~. I am striking my keep vote and just turning my contribution in to information for others. However, the martial artist that founded this style is notable and he has published several books. But this article isn't encyclopaedic and it is either infested with plagiarism or plagiarised by others. I think that there should be an article about the founder and any useful content in this article (if there is any that hasn't been plagiarised) merged in to that. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a notable martial art with reliable and independent sources. The fightingarts.com article clearly says "Reprinted with persmission from the Worldwide nanbudo federation's website", so it's not a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find reliable sources to support any claims of notability. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the previous commentators, I couldn't find any reliable sources to show this topic is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (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 Charles E. Bohlen. A new article on the award would be welcome, assuming someone can demonstrate it is notable. Courcelles 19:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avis Howard Thayer

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

Insufficient notability as the wife of a US ambassador. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Charles E. Bohlen or delete No indication of wp:notability. I'll handle the merge if desired. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment This should be changed to Avis Bohlen Award, and that should be the focus of the article. While the person in question does not meet notability, the award itself is significant. The article should include basic information about the woman for whom the award is named. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that your idea is better, even with the following practical challenge: Unless we get someone who is going to build the article, a quick change would be to a 2 stub with only one primary source on the topic. But, even with that issue, I still like your idea better. I'd also be willing to handle that morph/change. (just the basic change, not the "build") North8000 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2011 (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 acquisitions by Cisco Systems. Courcelles 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summa Four

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Article is about a "dumb switch" telecommunications company. Another tech business bought by Cisco Systems, this has a bit more unreferenced data than the others. News hits are to press releases, business page coverage of the loss of value of its stocks, press releases about the acquisition; the rest are all legal cases, wedding announcements of employees, and coincidental mentions of the number four in connection with baseball player Homer Summa. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge No argument was given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment merge/redirect to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems — Preceding unsigned comment added by LES 953 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if someone volunteers to handle it Brief encyclopedic content, good to preserve. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony DSR-PD150

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a frigin' model number. WP isn't a catalog. No references, no indication of notability. North8000 (talk)

Delete per North8000. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:16, 25 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Muncy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mitchell Muncy

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

not notable Soonersfan168 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I will admit that notability is borderline with this subject. I initially became aware of Muncy when I first became involved with the Banned Books Week article where I helped resolve a dispute between two editors, then helped expand the article. Muncy was a person quoted in the article. I then looked further at his involvement as an editor and commentator, and thought an article was warranted (I think it was even suggested to me at one point during a discussion on the BBW talk page). I'm not strongly attached to the article's inclusion. I'll admit that I'm having difficulty finding more coverage of Muncy than what is already in the article. -- Atama頭 21:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks very much for the help Atama. As I understand it, the requirement for a person's notability is that he have multiple articles written about him—specifically about what he's notable for—by reliable 3rd party sources. In the case of Mitchell Muncy, we have only one such article. The pieces he has written in the WSJ and elsewhere might themselves serve as reliable 3rd party sources on some other topic, but simply having your writing published by the Gray Lady or The New Yorker wouldn't establish your notability. It seems that Muncy received attention for his piece in the WSJ concerning banned books week, but, unhappily for his notability, it didn't cause profiles of him to be written in newspapers or other reliable 3rd party sources. Quotation of him may very well be appropriate in the article on Banned Books Week, but, as we know, that doesn't make him notable. Soonersfan168 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Benefit of the doubt. Brief article with useful encyclopedic content. wp:notability looks borderline. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how he doesn't fail the notability test, since he lacks significant coverage in the news media. The requirement for WP:SIGCOV is more than one source that covers the subject itself, no?--in this case, there was an article written in a conservative publication (The Washington Times) about the conservative company he worked for that included information about him. That qualifies as a reliable 3rd party source I believe, but his other presence in media is as the author of an article or a guest on a show--both times he's talking about something or someone else--as I understand it, those kinds of appearances, especially if there are only 2 or 3, don't serve to establish notability. Atama notes that Muncy came to his attention because of his BBW op-ed in the Wall Street Journal--if an article or profile had been written about Muncy as a result of his op-ed, that would be one thing, but his notability as a commentator does not seem to have met that threshold, even though he wrote what may fairly be termed a "controversial" op-ed about BBW.

As for the encyclopedic content of the article, if it can't be demonstrated that he's notable vis-a-vis the BBW debate, I'm not sure what about being on the staff of a small, and apparently defunct, publishing company suggests inclusion in an encyclopedia? Soonersfan168 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got in touch with Mitchell Muncy to see if he wanted the article removed, since according to WP:DPAFD his opinion is decisive if no consensus is reached. He has in fact requested deletion (ticket no. 2009111910057475) and says to me, "I would like very much to have the page deleted." Soonersfan168 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mitchel Muncy does not seem to fit the notability requirement. Perhaps he could be included in an article covering Banned Books Week. However, I do not believe he merits his own wikipedia page. Defensor1956 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kognitio

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

Appears to be a business-to-business IT consultant firm, although it's hard to tell with he way the article is written. Most of the sources do not meet the definition of independent, reliable sources. Does not seem to be a notable organization. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that this was previously deleted via the proposed deletion process, and that the creators of both versions are single purpose accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's uncertain from the article whether this is a software publisher or a consulting firm. Their chief product is the charmingly named "WX2", described as a full ANSI-SQL standards based analytical RDBMS that serves as a data warehouse appliance for data analytics. Oh, another one of those.

References are to petty trade third place awards from "SearchDataManagement.com", which I suspect has a limited audience outside the IT department; and to internal sites and tech investment analyst firms. None of that trade-only coverage confers notability. Google News finds mostly press release driven coverage of product rollouts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with previous posts plus: The whole article is basically a sales brochure. Once that is deleted, there is no content to worry about losing. Source based notability is marginal, and my guess is that it has already been maxed out by clever possible coi article writing. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer If this is deleted it will actually be the third time, once by CSD, once by PROD, and now once by AFD. I suggest it be WP:SALTed if deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Doesn't even appear to make an attempt at asserting notability. It exists, I guess, but that just isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irreparable advertising and salt it like a particularly bland soup. Several Times (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mumshad Dinawari

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

Incomprehensible writing about a fringe religious figure. Even if notable, it would be better to delete and start over than attempt to salvage this version. Inter rest (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see anything on Google and Yahoo, and I agree that if the article were notable it would be better to start on a new page. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same thoughts as two previous posts. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant delete four hits on google books, which seem from what i can see to be only as an entry in a list. no hits at all on academic onefile, on ATLA and ATLA Religion Database, on project muse, on Biography in Context, on wilson web, nothing. for some reason jstor is not letting me search, but really, there seems to be nothing, even with the alternative spellings given in the article. the only reason i'm reluctant is that the guy did exist per google books, and maybe everything about him is in urdu. i even tried various parts of what seems to be his name in the arabic wikipedia, and seems to be nothing. but still... oh well, i tried. clearly he isn't notable in the english speaking world, and i suppose that that's what we're mostly working with here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have managed to get a few results alf.laylah.wa.laylah missed. Using "Mumshad Dinwari" instead in Google Books gives four other possible sources, which however are probably closely linked with each other. Two are translations of Fariddudin Attar's Tazkirat al-Awliyā and the other two are in books by Idries Shah - who may simply be citing the Tazkirat al-Awliyā (not easy to tell - I don't have immediate access to anything beyond the GBooks snippets from any of these sources). To add to the fun, A.J. Arberry, on page XXXV of the introduction to his partial translation of the Tazkirat al-Awliyā mentions its section on "Memshad al-Dinawari" but considers it a later addition to the work (and he doesn't include it in his translation). I note that this is distinctly at variance with the views that the article as it stands seems to attribute to Arberry - and this unreliability seems to be typical of the contributions of the article's main editor, basically everything beyond the first sentence. And while the subject's presence in the Chishti silsila as teacher of Abu Ishaq Shami, mentioned in the first sentence, is verifiable and deserves (and gets) mention elsewhere in Wikipedia, it is not enough by itself for a separate article. So currently delete. PWilkinson (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2011 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circadian advantage

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

This article describes a rarely used term, and basically includes nothing that isn't described in circadian rhythm and jet lag (both much more common terms). The author of the article, by the way, is the scientist who claims to have coined the term, User:Wcwinter (Dr. W. Christopher Winter). bender235 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circadian rhythm as possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't matter if it is rare, references establish it is notable. No indication of a WP:COI problem. Topic is not discussed in Circadian rhythm or Jet lag. Could be merged into Circadian rhythm and/or Jet lag but it is not obvious how to do that or how that would improve things. Best to keep it as it is. --Kvng (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it should be merged with Jet lag, because it basically describes an effect that results from jet lag. --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option, after having read the two articles, not one that I would strongly support but, it is something you are welcome to explore WP:BOLDly or on the talk pages of the affected articles. --Kvng (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I haven't yet dug into the references to see if they actually use this term, vs. being one person's new name for something that already has other names or coverage. Has enough real content to be a separate article, and wp:notability of it by that name is a possibility. It would probably be better as a section in circadian rhythm or jet lag. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Atmoz. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:14, 25 August 2011 (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.