Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 December	18 December >

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 keep. Editors may wish to discuss proposals for renaming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terror

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep- This is an encyclopedic article, not a dictionary entry. See the wiktionary entry for comparison. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as creator of article. The topic is not in Category:English words but in Category:Violence, where I have now moved it. In the previous AfD discussion it was argued that the topic is a WP:POVFORK of terrorism. This is not the case; terror has a long history that extends far earlier then modern terrorism was even invented. The difference between terrorism and terror can be expressed by a Russian reversal: If you assassinate the president, it is terrorism; if the president assassinates you, it is terror.

The article has suffered from very poor maintenance and povish editing. I have restored all deleted content and removed attempts to create. dictionary definition. The new version is here. Please see that the content is not removed before this AfD runs out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A common word of this kind should not be a red-link. The topic of ideological intimidation, purges and violence is certainly notable. Warden (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Warden. Such a notable term should not be subject to deletion. Also, a valid reason has not been given for deletion. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The history of this article shows the problem - its relation to the Terrorism article entirely. POVForks are not valid articles, and this ia very clear such fork, and deletable on that specific ground. 'Keep" !votes which do not dispute this fact are just "votes" alas, and do not negate policy-based arguments for deletion. POVforks do, indeed, have "content" but that does not change their nature. That "Terror" is a notable topic does not negate the fact that "terrorism" is already an article, and is the same topic! That the POV fork has been "expanded" does not negate WP policies about such forks. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is different from that of the terrorism article. The latter refers to modern terrorism - bombing and acts of violence by groups such as the IRA and Al Quaeda. This topic is more about political repression such as the purges of the Jacobins and Stalin. Given that these are both huge topics, we would be overloading the articles to try to treat them together. Warden (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a legitimate topic and sufficiently distinct from terrorism so that it might make sense to write a separate article on it. Weak because I don't really see all that much potential without significant overlap with terrorism, Le terreur and probably a few other articles as well. Still, if there are serious problems (e.g. the article might turn into a POV fork), redirecting to an article that discusses terror (maybe a section of terrorism or Le terreur) will be the correct solution. Hans Adler 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename. This is not the primary meaning of "terror" - that is clearly "fear". Terror (disambiguation) should be moved to Terror and the current article to Terror (political concept) or similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rename as Necrothesp). Though not an ideally constructed article, this is about something more than terrorism. Both the Reign of Terror and Stalin's purges were acts of a state on its citizens, whereas terrorism concernes the acts of insurgents to acheive political ends by coersing the state to accede to theri demands. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I just can't see how this article violates wp:notdic. At least some of the sources used do seem to establish the encyclopedic notability of the concept of terror itself. Also, I would be fine with Necrothesp's rename proposal. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:30, 22 December 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. causa sui (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Horne (driver)

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

Non-notable racing driver; doesn't seem to have advanced beyond Formula Ford. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Racing is non-notable events does not create notability. Not finding significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Scottdrink (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casus Luciferi

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

no independent notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This album is notable, but I doubt I will improve it during the next days. So please don’t delete it but redirect to the band article, similar to Rabid Death’s Curse. --217/83 20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 24 December 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3ABN Radio programs

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

poorly sourced list of WP:NN shows on WP:NN network created by WP:COI author to promote his organization's shows. Fails WP:NLIST.

Failed {{prod}} without explanation Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unremarkable radio programs lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all : Non notable perWP:NLIST and WP:ADVERT (WP:COI). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cum On Everybody

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. I propose this redirect to The Slim Shady LP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album - there's nothing worth merging here.--Michig (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not a single (looks like a B-Side to a single), should be removed from the single's lists as well. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:09, 20 December 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher)

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG found in the article or in a Google search. Not to be confused with Silver Moon Books, which is also nominated for deletion. Sandstein 20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and while there are some results with books, they're almost all copies of Wikipedia articles or business mentions in various magazines. There was only one book hit where it looked like the business was mentioned, and that was with a book called "Out of the Margins" [1] Much of the other book hits were for things that SMB had published. In a general search all of the hits came back with business generated content, such as entries for books they released and listings for their business. It looks like it's one of those businesses that does do good business, but just hasn't gotten a lot of notice for what they've done and to be honest, probably never will because it doesn't have the press-grabbing resources that other publishers might have. It's frustrating, but unfortunately the way it so often turns out to be as far as women's publishing goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I reckon that "Out of the Margins" reference is likely to be for the other publisher of that name also at AfD? AllyD (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Silver Moon Bookshop. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Moon Books

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG found in the article or in a Google search. Not to be confused with Silver Moon Books (erotic publisher), which is also nominated for deletion. Could be redirected to Silver Moon Bookshop after deletion; all content in this one-sentence article is already in that other article. Sandstein 20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD linked here seems to be for the erotic publisher. For this one, the crossover with the linked bookshop makes it difficult to isolate particular references, but some such as "Feminist interventions in international communication" are as much about the publisher as the bookshop. But given that crossover there's an argument for a Mergeto on Silver Moon Bookshop as the resolution? AllyD (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm seeing good coverage in multiple secondary reliable independent sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources, and what sort of coverage? Sandstein 09:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of what I found in searching related to the erotic publisher rather than this business. I just wasn't able to find anything that wasn't a business listing, copy of a Wikipedia article, or a notice of something that was being published by the business. Much like the erotic publisher by the same name, this is a case of a business that might be doing well but just isn't getting enough notice to provide enough reliable sources to prove notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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) 01:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Silver Moon Bookshop. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and create redirect - there doesn't much to merge. Not wiki notable org. Youreallycan (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Silver Moon Bookshop. Not enough stuff for a separate article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manzur Nu'mani

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

I am having difficulty finding non-trivial RS coverage of this person. Zero refs. Tagged for being an orphan for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an Indian scholar, systematic bias might make it hard to come up with sources, so I feel we should subject this article to less harsh criticism. What coverage at all have you found? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned up zero Gnews archives hits. Some of the systematic bias concerns he avoids. Like the average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia, he is: (1) a male, (2) formally educated, (3) a non-labourer, hailing from (4) a country win which English is an official (subsidiary, in his case) language. In any event, I don't think that we address systemic bias by lowering our notability standards, but rather by looking carefully for substantive RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is the same person as the Muhammad Manzur Nu'mani who was involved with the Jamaat-e-Islami in the 1940s (this seems likely but not certain), there seem to be quite enough good GBook hits to establish notability - in which case, keep (and add the information to the article). PWilkinson (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His name is more commonly transliterated to English as Muhammad Manzoor Nomani. Pseudofusulina (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or just looking for Manzoor Nomani (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) may be even better - some sources either transliterate Muhammad as Mohammad, abbreviate it or omit it altogether. Given the sources I am now seeing, we are looking at a religious figure (and controversialist) who was influential among at least a significant minority of Indian Muslims from the late 1930s to the 1990s - and Al Furqan, the journal and publishing house he founded in Lucknow, seems to be continuing at least some of that influence even today. The problem now seems to be that while there are quite a few reliable sources, they all seem to be concentrating on particular periods or aspects of his career - I haven't yet spotted any overviews. But while this may make the article tricky to write while avoiding synthesis, I have no doubts of his notability. The conditional keep that I gave above is now definite. PWilkinson (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Epeefleche that we address our systematic bias by looking carefully for sources--but that means looking beyond the googles. Anyone who appears notable on the basis of verifiable information from India would need a careful search in local print sources before rejecting as unsourceable--and our criterion is not unsourced, but unsourceable. Unfortunately, India at present has neither a union catalog of books, nor a comprehensive index to articles in periodicals and newspapers. When such indexes become available, I predict a great expansion of our coverage from that country. Meanwhile, it is rash to make the judgment of unsourceable on the basis of information available online in the US, or indeed from even a print search with resources available in any US library I know of. the source given in even G News by Pseudofusulina's spelling [2] a[[ears sufficient for WEP:V, and enough of an indication of WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 100 Indian scholar articles on wp. See Category:Indian scholars. It is not clear to me that Indian scholars are "unsourceable". Nor -- correct me if I am incorrect -- is it our policy to keep articles where we lack substantial RS coverage, on the basis of the supposition that such coverage exists. In addition, this article has zero refs -- it is not my understanding (tell me if I am incorrect) that we should by policy keep this information (which I challenge, as it is unreferenced) which lacks any refs, let alone RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it an unfortunate dilemma: material which almost certainly can be sourced, but not by any of the people present here. It is not difficult to source Indian scholars who work in Western fields. It is very difficult for the people here to source scholars of hadith, such as he is, Indian or otherwise, --and even harder for Hindu and Buddhist religious scholars. I agree that we can't have articles for which there is no verification at all. However, this does not apply to him.

I admit I made my statement yesterday on a hunch. Today I checked the hunch, and I was correct, since for this particular individual, the books can be verified: [ http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Manzur%20Nu'mani WorldCat listing] -- over 100 books, some translated into English such as Meaning and message of the traditions = Maʻārif al-Ḥadīs̲ : being an English translation of Maulana Mohammad Manzoor Nomaniʼs Maariful Hadith OCLC 13525757 and Islamic faith and practice, OCLC 539491 . I think that certainly meets WP:V, and is probably enough to imply WP:N also. I should really have done this search yesterday. A search of the googles without searching worldcat is inadequate for anyone who may have published books. But some do regard a library catalog as a arcane tool for specialists. So even in the Googles: Epeefleche, did you actually search Google books: [3] Multiple source about him, including several that refers to him as a religious leader, including " another possible contender for the office of amir was Muhammad Manzur Nu'mani, a Deobandi religious leader, who was the editor of Al- Furqan, a respectable religious journal in Lucknow" [4]. This is not a trivial mention. It's a statement that he was a viable candidate for high office and editor of a respectable religious journal. Frankly, I think it is unwise to take your statements that something is unsourceable on good faith alone, as we normally do take such statements to avoid duplicating each others' work. At this point, I think that other people need to check everything you say you can find no sources, or non non-trivial sources, and I hope to have time after coping with your current group of mostly reckless nominations to recheck every deleted article where the deletion relied upon your statement that you could not find sources. If you were merely careless, I retract what I said about reckless, for anyone can make errors--and I expect you to show it as I would in a similar case, by withdrawing the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG -- Good work. Apparently we both missed that in our first searches. As did each of the other editors here. I routinely as my general practice check both gnews and gbooks (at a minimum).

You can see by my first post, below the nomintation but on the same date in response to the first comment, why we had a difference in search results, however. I (as you can tell from that post, above) was searching for him under the spelling "Manzoor Nu'mani". Which, as our friend PWilkinson indicated (later) is the subject's more common English transliterated name. My gbooks search would have yielded this result. A mere 5 snippet views, and 2 previews, insufficient to base a notability determination on IMHO. I'm still not sure how I came to his "more common" transliterated name, rather than the better one and one in the article name which you used which yielded a bevy of results. But it appears that all of the editors in this string must have done the same until you used the better name (assuming they all did searches). I would likely also have searched using all three names, since the article when it refers to him refers to him as "Maulana". If you run that search, you also find the results are meager -- under both spellings of his name -- yielding only 3 hits, which seem insufficient as well. In any event, if you look at my initial posting, and that of PWilkinson as well, you will understand how such a mistake can be made. I apologize -- but hope you can see how it was made, and that the search used was transparent to others in the first place.

One last point -- I'm not sure I agree that we have trouble sourcing Indian scholars of hadith in the least. If you're not impressed by our Category:Indian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam, and the sources therein, you need only look at all the sources you found on this scholar when you (to your credit) spelled his name correctly, which I had not done. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Per DGG's findings, using the better spelling of the scholar's name -- per the above.Bold text

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. Sandstein 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlavi

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

Perhaps someone else can find substantial RS refs for this person; I cannot. Zero refs; tagged for that problem for 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. Currently this is a potentially good article with plenty of almost certainly true claims to notability (as a religious leader, the author of a textbook on Islam that is still widely used, and a politician at least), but rather stymied by the complete lack of references and carelessness with linking. I have found one very substantial potentially good source, which may indeed have been used by the article's original author. It's apparently a translation of a biographical article in Urdu, intended for use with English translations of the subject's textbook on Islam. However, it just seems to be floating around the Net as a PDF, so I don't know quite how to determine its reliability. His role in founding the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind seems to be confirmed on the organisation's own website, though under a different version of his name - a very definite problem here, as the three-word article title seems to be excerpted from a sixteen-word name, including honorifics (for instance, "Mufti" for certain and possibly "Kifayatullah") and patronymics, and the apparent family name "Dehlavi" could instead be just a toponym ("of Delhi"). Also, Urdu (or Hindi or Arabic) to English transcription is something of a minefield - for instance, "Dehlavi" can also appear as "Dehlvi" or "Dahlawi". I therefore seriously suspect that my lack of success in finding references to him in sources from his lifetime is that I simply haven't been able to work out what those sources would have called him. More work obviously needed, though I doubt I have either the time or the expertise to do it. PWilkinson (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan killer

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

Non-notable film, fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article itself has 30 sources. Not all are reliable, but enough are to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of Wikipedia:Notability (films) does it follow? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it satisfies the first part since it has shown semi-widely and has received reviews and some coverage from some of the more notable horror review sites, although at the same time there's enough doubt that there's enough here to completely cement a keep. I've voted "keep" and fleshed out the article as best as I could, but if there's enough reasoning to delete it then I'm not going to fight it. Some of the stuff is sort of debatable, such as the "best new filmmaker"-type award.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment Virtually all of the sources are blogs or user-generated content, and much of it appears to be social-media-manipulation. This WP article appears to be part of the campaign. How much of the referencing is useful, and how real and significant are the stated awards? Acroterion (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm in the process of cleaning the article up and wading through all of the content linked in here. I can't promise I'll clean it up enough to keep it, but the current state is pretty terrible. On a side note, it does look like it won Best Picture at Terror Molins De Rei (per Dread Central), so I'm thinking this might be something to keep. It just needs a lot of work. I'll hold off on my opinion until after I'm done.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep. I did a massive rehaul of the page and it seems that there is enough notability here to warrant keeping it. I had to remove most of the sources since they were to non-notable blogs or to questionable sources, but there's enough reliable sources to places like Dread Central & such that I could show notability. I also changed the page name slightly so it's properly capitalized. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I do see the point about the awards and I agree that I'm slightly worried about the notability of said awards, more so for the Antonio Margheriti award because it's hard to find mentions of it beyond TOK. (It does appear to be a real award, I'm just not sure how recently this award started being given.) It has been reviewed by some of the more major review sites out there, so it does have that going for it. (I'm not sure about Almas Obscuras since it's all in Spanish, but didn't appear to be a blog.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep per work done by User:Tokyogirl79 and additional sources available that were not used, such as Bloody-Disgusting [5] When dealing with independent horror films, we look to those reliable sources that deal with such... and for films receiving recognition in Europe we do not always need English-language sources. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well done Tokyogirl79 for the hard work, and for helping out the newbie. There is something ironic in not being able to cite Facebook for a film that was ... but I won't go there. The article is now well sourced and well written, and interesting too. It's clearly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed, really just piling on now, but great rescue. The article clearly shows the subject's notability via sources considered reliable for the topic. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:21, 23 December 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. --MuZemike 02:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Allon

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

This is not the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent third-party sources, a WP:BASIC requirement. Rather, he gets mention in coverage of companies, which may or may not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, but which do not inure to this subject. Even if this subject were to WP:INHERIT some notability from the coverage, it's worth noting that the coverage exists because his companies were acquired by Google and Twitter, mostly indicating notability for the buyers. This subject certainly doesn't inherit anything from Google or Twitter, and his activities otherwise don't seem notable as far as I can tell. JFHJr (㊟) 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources might establish notability for the algorithm, not for Allon himself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. The article has at least two good sources, [6] and [7], easily satisfying WP:GNG and way more than is often accepted. Msnicki (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Techcrunch is SPS, Msnicki [8]. Julpan is SPS. The whole second paragraph requires proof.

Agree with JFHJr, “...companies were acquired by Google and Twitter, mostly indicating notability for the buyers”, not for the non-notable Ori Allon. It fails WP:BASIC. It fails WP:GNG as sources may establish notability for the algorithm, definitely not for the subject himself. Liilllyyy (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Liilllyyy[reply]

Move article to Orion search engine algorithm or similar. The algorithm appears to be notable, its creator, not so much. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per ItsZippy and Liilllyyy. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Latin kings of Alba Longa. --MuZemike 02:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Alba Longa

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

A naïve article, not separating fact from fiction. I marked this for speedy A10, as an inferior duplicate of Latin kings of Alba Longa, but it was challenged as "The article Alba Longa is about the ancient city of Alba Longa. The Kingdom of Alba Longa had its capital in the city of Alba Longa but spread to take over other cities. Just as the Roman Kingdom included more cities than just Rome, the Kingdom of Alba Longa included more than just Alba Longa.--R-41"

As I read Livy, which is the standard presentation of the legend, [9] there is no indication that in the legendary history its Kings ruled over more than that single city, including its immediately surrounding territory. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources included in the article that back up claims that it ruled over more cities than just Alba Longa. This source (Livy, Valerie M Warrior (ed). The History of Rome, Books 1-5. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006. Pp. 8.) states that it ruled over Lavinium, this source (Andrea Carandini, Stephen Sartarelli. Rome: Day One. English edition. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 2011. Pp. 33.) states that it ruled over Latium. According to legend the famous last King of Alba Longa, Romulus, arrived (then as King of Alba Longa) to the site where he established a new settlement, Rome, and became king of the Roman Kingdom. Second of all First it is against Wikipedia policy to assume an unwelcoming behaviour to users, that is demonstrated by the user DGG stating that it is a "naïve article, not separating fact from fiction", if there are problems these should be addressed first to the person who added them (in this case me, as I added the material) to seek a solution rather than denouncing it. It is true that legend is involved in Roman history, but historians so far have accepted the existence of figures such as Aeneas and Romulus, though they may question legends surrounding them.--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath and relax - No one was saying anything about you personally. As someone unfamiliar with the material, I can't say that DGG's assessment is that far off the mark - but only as it relates to the article itself. Note that you have multiple statements of fact, but these are sourced to a book called "Worlds of Myth", which might imply (correctly or incorrectly) that the fact is mixing in with the fiction (or the myth). Another statement begins with "According to Legend...", and yet is presented as factual. Now, we do have Alba Longa, and I'm not clear on the difference between that article and this one - could you elaborate on why we would need both? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless improved, Delete -- However much the Romans may have believed it as fact, the Aeneid is a work of fiction. This article reads like history, which it is not. It is certainly rescuable, but it cannot be allowed to remnain in its present form. On the whole, as we already have Latin kings of Alba Longa and Alba Longa, I rather doubt we need this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Latin kings of Alba Longa. (How'd this escape mny attention the first time around?) Frankly, if nothing else, this title makes more sense for the material at Latin Kings. When dealing with traditional history from sources like Livy, you pretty much have to take the sources at face value even if legend and mythology are mixed in; they're infallible by being immune to contradiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alba Longa or Latin kings of Alba Longa. - Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 29 December 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. Kurykh (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Nili

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

Apparently a postdoctoral researcher, with no significant publications in major journals ; nothing visible in Google Scholar DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As DGG said, no significant publications; not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to nom this myself, but I wanted to check the impressive list of references first, to make sure that it wasn't simply an article on a notable individual with poor citation formatting. Alas, none of the references listed at the end of the article seem to have anything to do with the article's subject, and the subject doesn't have any evident notability himself. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 December 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 Limkokwing University of Creative Technology. Kurykh (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limkokwing Digital Creativity Studios

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

While the university that this is a member of may well be notable, this studio/ training center lacks indicia of notability such as substantial coverage in independent RSs. The vast majority of the article is unreferenced. Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Limkokwing University of Creative Technology - The studio is notable of itself; rather, the university that it is part of is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to type "not notable of itself".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rerdirect and Merge to Limkokwing University of Creative Technology . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 23 December 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. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melis Bilen

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

Person does not notable. Page has been deleted many times in Turkish Wikipedia. Esc2003 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 17. Snotbot t • c » 17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources for this SPA creation--this one seems to be about the best. The rest seem to be primary, social media, or fluff. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage in reliable sources. The fact that it has been deleted on the Turkish Wikipedia suggests that there are not sufficient Turkish language sources either. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deleted in tr.wiki from lack of any reliable sources. Same applies here.--Khutuck (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hürriyet, Milliyet, Kıbrıs Gazetesi and TRT all are reliable sources. Also, neither the deletion discussion at the Turkish Wikipedia nor the deletion log explicitly mention a lack of reliable sources; they just state (without further elaboration) that the subject fails the criteria for encyclopedic significance. --Lambiam 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the sources, but that doesn't mean that the particular items referenced are substantial (I don't think they are). Also, even for a WP:RS source, there are degrees--for a WP:RS newspaper, is it a front-page item? Buried as filler in the classified section? In the online-only "lifestyles" section? In the online-only "lifestyles" section's blog? For example, the best-of-the-lot source that I referenced (above) seems somewhere inside this spectrum. I will say that it was fascinating to look at the Turkish AfD--although the voting returned an unanimous delete result, they don't seem to go in for a lot of chit-chat over there, do they? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first three references are to independent reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage, which is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Lambiam 13:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is for inadequate first version. Discussed for last version in user talk pages (1, 2, 3). -- Esc2003 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, marginally notable. Meets the criterion #1 for notability set forth at WP:MUSICBIO. (The article could do with some serious pruning, though; it is now blown up beyond proportion.) --Lambiam 13:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Khutuck --Tacci2023 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article absulately is not notable.--Reality006 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reality006 --Sabri76'^talk 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't check the sources. But from what I gathered from the text, she is notable enough to say in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lambiam. the middle-market sources seem sufficiently far from unreliable or trivial, even for a BLP. also bare accounts of tr wiki happenings are irrelevant and poisoning the well. if there is an argument against the sources beyond Hobbes' reservations please make it here. the laconic delete votes are just puzzling. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When all sources and content are analysed in detail, it obviously is notable. The page should definitely be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.161.213 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick IV of Fürstenberg

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

Biograpical article that is only a genealogical entry. No other indication of importance. Nobility alone doesn't create notabiliy. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ben Ben (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's in the major German biographical dictionary, and we regard everyone there as notable . He was a ruling prince, with sovereignty over his County under the Holy Roman Empire. Just needs expansion and context--there are detailed histories, and much more to be said. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; WP:POLITICIAN is sufficient, since sovereigns of independent states are politicians who have held national office, no matter how tiny the state. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Same as in the article discussion about his father: One of his successors was raised to principality, see Fürstenberg (principality). He died as a Count, not as a Fürst. Redirect to Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg?--Ben Ben (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fail to see what would be gained by deletion here. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The determining issue here ought to be whether he held significant political power. For example, we accord notability to mayors of major municipalities, members of provincial legislatures, etc, and the fact that the system of government was different and the post was hereditary is not relevant for Wikipedia. He is not required to have been sovereign ruler in his own right. That is without considering whether he would have been notable in his own time, and I find it inconceivable that he would not. --AJHingston (talk) 22:59, 25 December 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 in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Consensus is to keep. Michig (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Schmieder Arboretum

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

Non-notable arboretum at a university. Not recognized for any unique plantlife or conservation measures or anything really. Just having some trees. GrapedApe (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable arboretum at a university. See here, for example. Warden (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on that source, I would be amenable to a content merge to Delaware Valley College.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC) (nom)[reply]

Keep. This is a college arboretum. Why would you unilaterally decide that it is not notable and "just has some trees"? There are thousands of organized arboretum articles in Wikipedia, so please do not merge it into the Delaware Valley College article. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove the notability of the Henry Schmieder Arboretum by adding multiple independent reliable sources, which is required under Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Otherwise, the guideline states that "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." (i.e. merge into Delaware Valley College)--GrapedApe (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article now cites two scholarly references for the arboretum. Daderot (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been unable to identify the portion of Early North American Arboreta source relating to the Henry Schmieder Arboretum. Please assist.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – The nominator hasn't advanced any arguments to substantiate the opinion of the nomination, and hasn't qualified the statement of the arboretum as being unrecognized per they types of plantlife present at the arboretum. Perhaps the nominator should attempt more research, rather than asking it of others. This nomination seems to be more of an opinion rather than based upon first checking out the availability of reliable sources. Improve the article instead, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Merry Christmas, happy holidays and a happy new year. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 24 December 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. The discussion was already relisted three times and still no substantial discussion took place. Thus the close is no consenus with the leave for speedy renomination. A merge discussion can take place at the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transporter (album)

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

Disputed prod, the album has not been reviewed by Pitchfork as deprodder says. No significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Immaculate Machine. In fairness to deprodder, his/her arguments referred to the band only, and are valid--but only for the band, which doesn't much matter for this discussion. This album was not reviewed by Pitchfork, or really anywhere, that I can see. And none of its songs were ever featured on iTunes--in fact, this album is not available at all on iTunes. If substantial sourcing can be found, I am happy to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timeless Miracle. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Enchanted Chamber

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

Disputed prod with the assertion that it is popular. No reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless this album was named something different in Swedish and there's coverage under that name, I'm not seeing anything reliable to show that this passes notability guidelines at this time. I also couldn't bring up the website listed that was supposed to show how the album was popular, so that site's reliability is unknown at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I see no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - a redirect makes some sense. -- Whpq (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band article as a plausible search term.--Michig (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson

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

Architectural firm. Article states that "a number of their works are listed in the US National Register of Historic Places" which, I don't think, is enough to indicate notability by itself. I searched and found lots of articles where they are mentioned trivially as the architectural firm attached to a particular project, but no independent coverage of the firm as an individual entity. If this is deleted, the redirect at Hirsch and Watson Helfensteller should go too. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article documented already within its first 10 minutes of existence before the AFD nom, the firm designed not one or two, but 12 different notable buildings listed on the National Register, each notable enough for its own wikipedia article. With two references already. There should be a strong presumption that the firm will be notable. --do ncr am 16:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until such time as the article creator can supply some substantive content about this architecture firm. As Doncram states, the NRHP listings establish a presumption that the firm is notable per WP:N, but the current content about trivia like the misspellings of "Helfensteller" is insufficient for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nom-Comment I'm not going to wiki-lawyer this to death, but I anticipated the notability arguments, but on reflection, I don't think I was clear enough in my nomination. Yes, the firm has worked on many famous and historically important projects. But Notability is not Inherited. Those projects and historical sites may (or may not) be notable on their own merits, but the fact that the project or site is notable, does not make the architectural firm that headed the project notable. If anyone can find one non-trivial mention in a reliable source that covers the firm and not a project the firm headed then I'll withdraw this AFD and go away. But "They worked on notable projects, so they are notable" is not a valid argument. I've said my piece and I'll crawl back into my wiki-hole now. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps I should clarify my comment about a "presumption". Because multiple works by this firm are listed on the National Register, I presume that this firm is sufficiently documented in the National Register documents that it will be established as notable at some time in the future when Doncram has obtained and read the National Register materials and writes up what he has learned about the firm. Until such time, its notability is not established and the page does not belong in article space. Due to the likelihood that the firm's notability can be established in the future, I think it's acceptable to allow Doncram to maintain the page in user space. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with userfy - as long as it doesn't get moved back into article space until the firm has independent coverage. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - I have several concerns... 1) - there is the need for Secondary sources. The NRHP itself would be a PRIMARY source for the fact that an architect or firm designed buildings that are listed by the NRHP. We are not supposed to use primary sources to establish notability. What is needed is a secondary source (say an article in an architecture magazine, or a book on architectural history) that notes that the firm designed all these notable buildings. Do we have such a source? 2) - we need to be careful when it comes to claims that "the firm is mentioned in the NRHP documentation."... in many cases the mention is nothing more than a passing reference. The building may be listed for reasons that have nothing to do with the architect. For example, the building may be listed on the NRHP because of its association with a particular famous person (such as being the person's birth place). If this is the case, the fact that a particular architect or firm designed it is really nothing more than trivia... or at best, background information. Again, what is needed are some secondary source that note the connection between the building and the architect, and discuss it in some depth... enough to make it clear that the connection is considered important. All this said... I absolutely agree that there is a strong potential for an article in this specific case. An architectural firm that designed 12 historic buildings should be mentioned in lots and lots of secondary sources that can be used to establish its notability. But... we can not assume that this is the case. The article should stay in user space until some of those likely sources are actually found and added. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Orlady. What we need to do is research architectural history and see if this firm is notable within that context. The NRHP nominations for the properties, if available, can shed some light on whether the properties were nominated for their architecture or historic personages or events associated with them. Certainly the fact that so many of their buildings have been listed suggests there might be some notability there, but we need specifics beyond "X number of buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places". Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the WP:NOTINHERITED as working in this case. It is clear in the literal cases, that Person X being notable does not make the children of person X notable. Person X was notable for certain things, which usually have nothing to do with their children, parents, siblings, or casual friends. The situation is different with a notable building. It is often (but not invariably) notable because it is architecturally interesting. The architect or firm is the proximate cause of that notability, not merely related in some irrelevant fashion. Would we declare that David is notable, but Michelangelo not? Would we declare that The Starry Night is notable, but argue that Vincent van Gogh is not? I'm not arguing for an automatic, inflexible rule, but a general presumption seems warranted. On the merits, I support Orlady's suggestion to userfy--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with SPhilbrick. Broadly paraphrasing the WP:NOTINHERITED, items associated with notable subjects do not inherit notability simply because of the association. In this case, however, we're talking something different. Most or all of the Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson buildings are on the NRHP for architectural criteria (for those unfamiliar, structures can be listed on the Register for one or more of multiple reasons, "architectural criteria" being one of them). That means that the architectural firm created the very thing that makes these structures notable to begin with. That's a far cry from mere association. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we need to userfy and not delete outright. I see this as being akin to the "restaurant" example at WP:NOTE... only in reverse. Unless it can be established that the buildings are primarily notable for their architecture, the architects should not inherit notability from the building. If that can be established through reliable sources, then the situation changes. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not finding the restaurant example you mention at WP:NOTE; could you please steer us to it? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My error... I got my notability guidelines mixed up... the example is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (specifically: Wikipedia:ORG#No inherited notability) Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, I'm afraid that I can't agree with Sphilbrick's and Andrew Jameson's argument. The architectural notability of a structure doesn't necessarily translate into notability for the architect. For example, properties might be listed under the "architecture" area of significance because they're surviving examples of a type or style that was once widespread; the architect's contribution might have been mere hackwork, of a sort done by scores of other architects at the time. Second, a passage in WP:SOURCESEARCH states, "Notability requires the presence of in-depth and significant treatment of a subject..." I assume that the editor who created the article wouldn't have done so had he/she not been strongly interested in the subject, and devoted considerable research time to it. The fact that all this research didn't turn up a source attesting to the notability of the firm seems to create a fairly strong presumption of non-notability. Ammodramus (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We may be closer than you think. I agree that the oldest surviving example of an architectural style may be notable, even thought the architect involved may not be, but I think that is an exception, rather than common. I tried to address that with "not ... an automatic, inflexible rule, but a general presumption", assuming that we would start with the presumption that the architect was notable, but could override that with consensus, based upon arguments you suggest. However, I don't see any such arguments presented in this case, so not following the "delete" recommendation. Lack of references will ultimately doom this article, but I have no way of being sure that no such references will ever be found, this suggests userfication in this case, where it seems plausible that such documents may exist somewhere.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, in this particular case, I think the wide use of their standard designs is a suitable criterion to showe their notability. And the NHRP is a secondary source. It is prepared by historians on the basis of primary documents. They're as much secondary work as any other interpretative work by historians. But more generally, what are architects notable for, if not for designing notable buildings? When there's an historic building, for whatever reason, the architects' name will of course be part of the article. People should be able to link from that to a description of their career. Perfectly natural encyclopedic question once you're reading about the building: what did they do before and after? The proper use of NOT INHERITED is that not all the works of a notable architect will be notable, except for the case of famous architects --most notable architects will have done some trivial work among the important projects=. I see I'm a minority opinion , but that is no reason not to give it, because a minority view sometimes gets adopted sooner or later. I continue to maintain the general proposition that criteria for notability should be categorical when such a criterion is applicable, so we do not have to debate the notability of each individual case. If it leads to a few articles on subjects of borderline notability , this harms the encyclopedia less than the time spent in the discussions, time spent quibbling when we ought to be writing about all the truly notable ones we do not yet have. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! --do ncr am 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some general consensus above that the firm is in fact notable, that most agree that documents do exist that would satisfy everyone, although specific documentation has not yet been found to satisfy everyone yet. Then, tag it with "stub" or "expand" or "refimprove". It's likely that a St. Louis area historical society person, or a librarian, or someone out there with the right books and clippings files and access to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's archives will add further to the article, if the article exists. If the article is "userfied", that won't happen. I don't want it; it doesn't belong to me. And, the deletion record, plus bureaucratic enforcement of a no-article status quo, would most likely confound and frustrate the good efforts of any St. Louis area new editor who actually wanted to try to start from scratch. Why not let the person start from a pretty good effort that provides nice links to 12 NRHP-listed works by the firm, plus links to Moolah Temple and the theatre article, and which already provides some good context. It could be better yes, and it eventually will be. --do ncr am 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that to me, this argument sounds a lot like: "I'm sure that X is notable, although I can't be bothered to research it myself; but if we put an article out there, sooner or later somebody else will do the work."

First, this seems to be going about things backward. In WP:YFA, we're told to gather sources and establish notability before we ever launch an article. Here, however, the plan seems to be: post an article based on a general presumption of notability, and trust that someone, sometime, will make the effort to demonstrate that the subject actually is notable.

Second, I don't share my fellow editor's optimism about the future improvement of the article. Wikipedia has an abundance of e m b a r r a s s i n g l y m i n i m a l s u b s t u b s about NRHP sites that were created as two-sentence one-reference stubs over a year ago, and that remain two-sentence one-reference stubs to this day. I'm not at all sanguine about the intervention of the hypothetical St. Louis historian, and I think we must proceed on the assumption that the article will go unimproved for a long, long time after its posting. If we allow an article to go up that doesn't satisfy WP:NRVE today, it doesn't seem likely that someone will fix it in the reasonably near future. Ammodramus (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, thank you for caring. I hear your concern for the NRHP articles, several thousand of which I agree are pretty crummy. One way that many of them are crummy is that the writer had no clue what was the association of a listed person or firm. Several hundred existing Wikipedia articles probably falsely assert (explicitly, or by infobox "architect=" assertion) that an associated person or firm is an architect, when in fact the named person or firm is a builder or engineer instead. Also many hundred falsely assert that a building was built in a given year, when in fact that was a year of other significance. And there are other problems in the one- or two-sentence NRHP articles. But your taking a stand against this architect article is misplaced. Removal of the article would impoverish 12 NRHP articles and 2 other articles that link here now. If the current architect article is removed, what then for the 14 linking articles? I suppose one could basically copy the entire current architect article into each one of those, to provide some context for the readers of those articles. Or construct a Navbox with information about the other buildings designed by the same architect. It seems best to let there be an architect article which answers the question of who the hell is "Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson" and what else have they done, rather than forcing know-nothing ignorance into each of the 14 articles that are somewhat informed currently by the existing article. I can't promise, of course, that this particular architect article will get better developed by a local historian or librarian coming forward. But, odds are a lot better that we'll get to a decent article a year from now, if we have this one as a pretty good start. At the moment, it fully establishes that the firm is an architectural firm, rather than a building contractor or an engineering firm. And it provides convenient navigation. I think it is all right, more than all right, to leave this in an article, rather than to force duplicative copying of the information into 14 articles, in order to provide appropriate context in each of them separately.

Creating articles for the architects, engineers, and builders associated with many NRHP sites is a way forward to improve the NRHP articles, which is what you want. FWIW, there are now 364 articles in Category:NRHP architects, 48 articles in Category:NRHP builders, 8 articles in Category:NRHP engineers. --do ncr am 00:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram... in a comment above you said "There is some general consensus above that the firm is in fact notable"... I disagree. I think there is a general consensus that the firm is likely to be notable... I would even go so far as to say there is a consensus that it probably is notable. But "probably" does not equate to "is". To move from probably to is, you need reliable secondary sources that discuss the firm (and do so in some depth - a passing mention on the NRHP database, or in a nomination document is not enough). Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To move from probably to is, you need reliable secondary sources that discuss the firm (and do so in some depth - a passing mention on the NRHP database, or in a nomination document is not enough)"—And we've now come full circle back to the statement that I made in the original nom... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more. Livitup, no offense, but your view would support putting a "stub" tag in the article (already present), calling for further expansion, and does not support removing the article from the wikipedia altogether. --do ncr am 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some non-trivial (but not exactly in-depth) coverage of the firm in the book, Parkview: A St. Louis Urban Oasis 1905-2005 as well as in Missouri's contribution to American architecture. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --do ncr am 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough blue links of this firm's projects showing that it could be renamed List of buildings designed by Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson and pass muster as a list. It's far better for the encyclopedia to have this article than that, or worse yet, to blow it all away. Sufficient collective achievement to merit encyclopedic history. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a voice of reason. --do ncr am 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not turn it into a category then? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Purplebackpack89, there's a good discussion of how categories and lists are complementary at wp:CLT, including admonishment that some duplication of function is not a valid argument for deletion of one. And, in particular here, if the article were deleted, there would be no location where complete info on the architects is given, though one could navigate by category among the articles, each containing a redlink to the architect. It would beg for creation of a central architect article. --do ncr am 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and others. Clearly a notable architectural firm based on its accomplishments of record. bd2412 T 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Please note I have reformatted and rearranged the existing text in the article (no new text was added to the body). Notability has been established by the existence of peer reviews alone: non-notable architectural firms do not get any coverage. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard America

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Google News and Google Books turned up nothing. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Give me a break. This 8-minute short, directed by and featuring unknowns, can't even scrape together an Imdb listing. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nowhere near notable enough. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:28, 17 December 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 Bring You Home. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This I Promise You (Ronan Keating song)

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

Non notable song. Directly per the article "The song failed to chart on the UK Singles Chart, and also failed to achieve any success in Ireland." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the song charted in Ireland, so it is notable. MusicCollector17 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.162.193 (talk) [reply]

From the policy : Notability aside (which is borderline in this case), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a review of the single as part of the critical reception section and have wrote a description of the music video. Have also added verification for it's Irish chart position and updated the tracklisting. User86 08:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent album Bring You Home per WP:NSONGS: "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". Till I Go Home (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what did i just say above? Does anybody on this page actually read? User86 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid personal attacks. ok, so the reference for the chart you linked does not include that song anywhere in its content, so that is not currently WP:V. It does indicate the album charted, so that article is safe. In any case, the article indicated that it was the "Irish Chart", but the site says it tracks the "UK Chart", so it is not backing up the chart item in question in any case. The review is good, but I'm not sure if one review, on a music blog (albeit a fairly professionally done one) satisfies WP:N or WP:MUSIC but I will let others weigh in on that. The description of the video is mostly WP:OR but I would let that slide assuming the other criteria are met.

No need to get snappy with other editors here, the appropriate SNG has already been outlined, and the review you have provided does not appear to be from a reliable source. Till I Go Home (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the album. Lack of coverage means we don't have enough for a standalone article, and the details here can be covered in the album article.--Michig (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the album. This fluffed up article has almost no info worth preserving that is not already contained in album article. I have deleted the "Charts" section from the article, as the source provided contradicted the claim made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bring You Home - The song is not notable in itself; policy suggests we should redirect to the album, as an article on that exists. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:12, 17 December 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 due to media sources found which make the article topic meet WP:N and WP:V. Please make use of them in the article ASAP or the article may be nominated for deletion again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South African National Schools Moot Court Competition

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

Non-notable event. No wide coverage on the internet (for what that is worth relating to South Afrika). Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Only "About 156 results" on Google search, no results elsewhere. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources covering the event are notable, preeminent and diverse with due regard that the inaugural event was held in 2011. A selection of some of the sources:

South African governmental departments:

South African statutory bodies:

Law Society of South Africa

Public universities:

National Newspapers:

Mail & Gaurdian

Local Newspapers:

Online Newspapers:

South Africa the Good News

Legal newspapers:

Legalbrief

Legal journals:

De Rebus

Ngo's:

It should be noted that locally the event is referred to as the National Schools Moot Court Competition (the "South African" part being omitted) and several sources are omitted when searching for "South African National Schools Moot Court Competition". Furthermore the event is officially supported by the South African government and several statutory bodies. Purple Duke (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even without "South Africa" there are less then 10.000 internet hits. But without facebook, linkedin, wikipedia (and clones), youtube, yelp, myspace, twitter, and vimeo is looses 75% of its hits. Sorry, but the competition has to grow a bit more. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the presumption in favour of notability as per Wikipedia:Notability applies to the topic and that said presumption is not derogated from merely because of a lack of hits. Sources "are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English"^[1]. Wide coverage on the internet does therefore not seem to be a requirement. The sources supra and several not annotated reflect a neutral point of view, are credible and provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

This state endorsed moot court competition, judged by Constitutional Court Judges (the highest court in South Africa for constitutional matters in a country where the constitution is the supreme law), is indeed in its infancy but the lesser degree of proliferation of online publications in South Africa should be noted and if the number of hits are indicative of a "non-notable event" (which from my understanding Wikipedia:Notability is not a requirement) then the online presence should be compared to a similar type of event originating from a country with a similar socio-economic environment and internet penetration and not against an arbitrary number of hits. In said circumstances the approximate 2500 hits then seem adequate for now. Purple Duke (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Notability (events), I would asked for more evidence of notability in the article. And please be aware that sources like Twitter and Facebook are not accepted as reliable sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding the topic is not an "event" (Wiktionary:Event) as per Wikipedia:Notability (events), and the general Wikipedia:Notability applies. I refer to my argument supra. No sources like Twitter and Facebook have been consulted or referenced, see the extract of reliable sources supra. The 2500 refers to the 25% of 10.000 internet hits not facebook, linkedin, wikipedia (and clones), youtube, yelp, myspace, twitter, and vimeo as calculated by you supra. Purple Duke (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the request for deletion is: (my emphasis)

"Non-notable event. No wide coverage on the internet (for what that is worth relating to South [sic] Afrika)."

Wikipedia:Notability states: (my emphasis)

'"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'

Please provide the context and meaning of the Wikipedia policy.Purple Duke (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've run my own search. Agree that lack of significant coverage in independent sources means it's not notable. asnac (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be all for keeping this article - there are, after all, similar competitions held in other countries including the UK. A similar example is the National High School Mock Trial Championship in the US, which has an article. However, I'm always dubious when I see something described as "annual" event "established in 2011". However, I would add this comment:. Don't judge this by the number of Google hits - size isn't everything, it's the quality that counts. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the invitation of the 2nd National Schools Moot Court Competition - March and April 2012 on the South African Department of Basic Education website and information regarding the second event from the University of Pretoria. Purple Duke (talk) 15:54, 26 December 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.~~ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Addendum: The result was Keep. From the closing administrator's talk page (verbatim):[reply]

"Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne, what is your rationale for deletion of the article? In the AfD, you simply wrote "The result was delete." without providing any analysis of the !votes and arguments presented in the AfD discussion. Clarification of your rationale for this AfD result would be most helpful. Please respond at the discussion page for the AfD page here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It was a genuine error (perhaps I inadvertantly clicked on the wrong button). The result was of of course a clear keep, and I will restore the the article. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)"

(Non-administrator addendum correction). Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Payne

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

Person is not notable Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any substantial citations among the self-publicity (searched using Google). Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 30 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect and mention at Weightism. Stephanie Payne is an important Australian activist defending people against discrimination. Reliable sources do exist, see e.g. Yahoo News, Herald Sun or some of the sources listed in our article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd have no objection to redirect, mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Weightism related content to Weightism and redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dunno - I still don't see anything that even justifies a redirect. She speaks up about the issues and makes public appearances for certain causes. Her and hundreds of thousands of others. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a lot of articles about people who make public appearances for certain causes. The important thing is how are the appearances noted by media and the public. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Payne has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated in the article's references section (e.g. [10][11][12]). Pburka (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Significant coverage in reliable sources confers with this topic's inclusion in Wikipedia: Herald-Sun, Yahoo News 1, Yahoo News 2. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [13] is all about her. She gets coverage. Dream Focus 21:44, 18 December 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jakie James Warren

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

Non-notable person. Peerage and his famous godmother is not enough to make him personally notable, as notability is not inherited. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping you will not delete this page, and I encourage other contributors. This person is a celebrity/public figure. His connections with Prince Harry and the Princesses of York, his businesses in London & Royal Escot, and his association with the property where a hit TV show is filmed all make him worthy of note. Additionally, he is something of a hearthrob with a large fan following. I'm sure many people will look to this page for tidbits about him. Uspolista (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Copied from talkpage article by Night of the Big Wind[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability criteria on own merits. I can't find anything on an internet search that indicates the contrary. asnac (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No personal notability, simply known by association with others. Uspolista rather gives the game away: "His connections with...", "his association with ..." "he is something of a hearthrob" do not justify an article made up of "tidbits". Emeraude (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a sizable portion of a search brings up links to the AfD and not much else, it's safe to say that you probably don't pass notability guidelines. I wasn't able to find anything reliable that mentioned him that wasn't linked back to the AfD or a blog.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Egon VIII of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Marriage_and_descendants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria of Hohenzollern-Hechingen

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

No indication of importance in the article or on the internet. Notability is not inherited, so her family or husband don't make her notable. Merging with husband an option? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Egon VIII of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Marriage_and_descendants, the relevant section in her husband's article, per nom. Marrying him (at age 13) seems to be her only claim to notability. There is already more information about her in her husband's article than in this one, but I think that there are one or two bits here worth saving, so not a straight redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Egon VIII of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Marriage_and_descendants. Beeing married is not a criteria for notability WP:PEOPLE#Family.--Ben Ben (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to her husband. Just another non-notable wife and mother. Hans Adler 17:24, 17 December 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. Suggest talk page discussion on possible moving to more appropriate page name Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim of Furstenburg

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

No indication of importance in the article or on the internet. Rootsweb is not a reliable source as it is a self-publishing genealogy site! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beeing a Count alone is not enough for an article. (Yes, Count - not Prince. And his name is Fürstenberg, not ...burg. He is alreadey listed in Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg#Counts of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg (1559 - 1664). See refs there for name and title.--Ben Ben (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep. Sounds to me as if the county linked by Ben Ben was one of the independent German states (many counties were independent); if so, he was a monarch on the level of kings in other countries, and such a status would definitely make him pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One of his successors was raised to principality, see Fürstenberg (principality). He died as a Count, 69 years before that. Hope the year is right, then at least one fact would be right in this copy of an rootsweb entry. Rename and redirect to Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg? --Ben Ben (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject's precise position in the arcane pecking order of the Holy Roman Empire doesn't matter - he was sovereign in his realm. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of whether he was technically sovereign does not matter. Did he hold a significant political office? Clearly so, and if we accord notability to mayors of large municipalities, members of provincial legislatures, etc we have to accord it here. --AJHingston (talk) 23:20, 25 December 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. --MuZemike 02:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobb Deep (album)

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

Non-existing album. Wikipedia is no crystal bol. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it hasn't been recorded yet it could never happen.--Michig (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy. Yes, they've notified the hip hop media that they are planning a new album, and those media have duly noted it. But if for whatever reason it doesn't happen, I don't see that there is already enough substantial coverage to merit an article. On the other hand, it seems a good bet that it will be released in the next 3-6 months and, if so, a slam dunk that it will be notable, given their track record, hence my vote. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incubate or userfy (listen to your heart.) Per Michig. Rap records are particularly susceptible to development hell. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 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 A7 as about an MMORPG guild that had no assertion of notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rest In Peace (dofus)

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

Generally will qualify under A1.When Google Translate shows the text in English,the result is clearly understood.It fails to identify the subject's topic. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 14:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -it's not in English (so, G1), and it has no context (so, A1). Failing that, the article has no sources and does not contain anything encyclopedic; it seems to be a posting about a game. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, G1 specifically excludes "coherent non-English material", so that won't apply given Dipankan001's comments above. Quasi human | Talk 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not speedy), the context may have been lost in translation, it's pretty clear that it's something to do with a MMORPG called Dofus, based on the translation, I belive it may be a guild for that MMORPG, if that is the case, that is enough context to pass A1 for me. I think that AfD is the way to go unless someone who knows French better than me can clarify. I am !voting delete due to a lack of any coverage in reliable sources about this. Quasi human | Talk 19:48, 17 December 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. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strict conditional

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

The strict conditional is nothing more than the ordinary conditional statement used in philosophy, logic, and mathematics. Both conditional statements and strict conditionals are the same: they are both, by definition, statements for which the conlcusion is true every time the hypothesis is true. Having this extra, separate article for the strict conditional is therefore just redundant. There is already an article all about conditional statements. This page on strict conditionals should be deleted for the sake of simplification. Hanlon1755 (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I am disturbed by this nomination. Nominator is a SPA created today who has spent his/her time creating and editing a new page created today currently called Conditional statement (logic), along with some edits on related pages linking to this one. The new article is still flagged as unreviewed. And yet, nominator is already requesting that the competing article be deleted, an article that was created seven years ago and has been improved by the edits of multiple editors over that time. It could be possible that the new article is better, but that merger discussion should be happening on the discussion tabs of these two pages, not in AfD. In fact, this AfD strikes me as an attempt to circumvent such a discussion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is effectively proposing merger by suggesting that two articles are equivalent. The topic, by this name, is notable (e.g. An introduction to non-classical logic). Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The nominator appears not to understand the point of modal logic, the subject area in which this article lies. In particular, it is not true, and the article makes very clear that it is not true, that strict implication is the same as non-modal implication. Thus, the deletion rationale is invalid and without a valid reason for deletion we should close this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Perfectly appropriate article. No valid reason for deleting it.Greg Bard (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the nomination is based on an incorrect statement, per David Eppstein. Instead, the incorrect article Conditional statement (logic) should be deleted. -- 202.124.72.133 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Keep or Merge. I would recommend, then, at the very least merging the two articles. Seeing that "conditional statements" are more popular term used by authors, as the references in Conditional statement (logic) show, including page numbers where the content can be found, I would recommend merging Strict conditional into Conditional statements (logic). This will make the content easier to read for people yearning to learn more about conditional statements. I have worked with conditional statements in logic for years and am knowledegable on the topic. I do not at all recommend deleting Conditional statement (logic); it is a very useful, detailed, and thoroughly sourced article. Seeing that I am the one who provoked the discussion I will remove the AfD status from Strict conditional. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an ongoing dispute regarding Conditional statement (logic), but that's not relevant here unless that article goes to AfD. Admins, please note that the nomination has been withdrawn. -- 202.124.72.121 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 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.

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strict_conditional

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly

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

Cannot find much more info on this journal than that mentioned in the sole EL, which is outdated (cf: http://www.wildstrom.com/susan/permission_slip.htm). The link given on the last page to the website of the publisher in Singapore is dead, cannot find another link for this publisher. It is even difficult to find out what the journal really is about, some websites list it as a research journal, others say its a "recreational math" magazine. In the absence of verifiable information from reliable sources, I don't think this can be kept. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NJournals and also (regardless of its significance) for lack of reliable references that we can use to source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The last Web Archive of the publisher is in 2003 but there is this blog entry for a 2009 edition. (The recreational one referred to in the nom is probably Journal of Mathematics and Informatics - different publication.) However I agree with David - there's not enough third party evidence of notability. --Northernhenge (talk) 00:46, 18 December 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (speak) 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Euro Sport

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

This is a review, not a usefull article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. The article is in bad shape, but this is a notable subject, it doesn't reach the level at which blowing it up and starting over would be necessary, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article on Honda VT500 series which mentions the Euro model, and is rather clearer than this article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Honda VT500, which is standard practice for sub-models of a vehicle model line. If, later on, sufficient quality material about the Euro Sport grows so large that the VT500 article becomes unwieldy, we can spawn a sub-article, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have tidied it up. Biscuittin (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Media

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

The article appears to fail WP:ORG due to a lack of substantial sources. The "projects delivered" do not, to me, appear to demonstrate significant impact and a review of the sources included show that all of the ones on the surface appearing to be non-primary do not actually mention "Umbrella Media". I find no reliable sources on a GBooks or GNews archives search. Upgraded from an (A7) speedy deletion just in case I am missing something that might be a geographic bias problem. Fæ (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, Umbrella Media is the informal name given by the daily commuters to the LED screens fitted on the cities busiest traffic junctions. Because of its hull type umbrella shape design on top of the structure with red and white colors, people have started calling it Umbrella TV. It is gaining widespread popularity because of its placement, right beside a traffic signal, making it a hard to miss thing. It belongs to Umbrella Media Worke, which is the O&M wing of International Techno Media. Due to legal risks involved, ownership of installment sites have been taken up by International Techno Media, while O&M activities are taken care by Umbrella Media Worke. I hope i've correctly depicted the arrangement.

If possible, it will be very kind of you to show me the direction which will make this article clear, informative & impactful. Thanks & Regards Dexter.enemy (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this same question at my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, Both organisations in the article are equally responsible for the functioning of this Umbrella Media/Umbrella TV/LED Screen Network. After your suggestion, i edited the article so that it shows the work breakdown between these two forms. Please note that both firms are independent and are working in collaboration. One firm is doing the front room job, whereas the other doing the backroom. Umbrella Media is a dis-joint, which both said organisations share. Please share opinion on the future course of action/modification. Thanks & Regards Dexter.enemy (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article illustrates a new emerging trend in the field of digital out of home advertising by setting up screens in a place never imagined. Links attached shows the notability, as it is the first time ever somebody has shown this kind of approach. Please share your opinion. Also, please suggest how to make it more impact oriented. Collective insight is always better than single persons thought process! Thanks and regards, Dexter.enemy (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)— Dexter.enemy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's very spammy, there's not much on it at all so bias be damned, no sourcing means no sourcing regardless of where in the world it is. tutterMouse (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a new trend in digital out of home advertising. Industry dynamics is changing and this media is paving the way for next generation out of home entertainment medium. People in delhi used this as a medium to watch Commonwealth games 2011, held in New Delhi. It was the first time, people on road could actually see it while commuting. 182.68.249.124 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)— 182.68.249.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep One of the LED screen placed near Pragati Maidan was used in Delhi Motor Show ‘12 in January to exclusively cover for the new model launches. Stutter.tsk (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Stutter.tsk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom, this article fails WP:ORG. Stubbleboy 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toqeer Ahmed Malik

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

With greatest respect, Dr Ahmed Malik would appear to fail WP:ACADEMIC Shirt58 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the article could be greatly expanded with the information from his official CV at [14], the material there does not indicate meeting WP:PROF or any other criterion. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy, does not even make a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:29, 19 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenrothes Skate Park

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

I don't think most skate parks, including this one, are notable. Just as the local basketball court isn't notable either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Google news/web searches return nothing beyond trivial mentions. No statement as to why it is more important than thousands of other such parks around the world. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Fastily. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Liravongsa

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

Contested prod about a futures trader and his company. No evidence that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Relatively few ghits for "Liravongsa -wikipedia", many of them irrelevant. Only one reference, subscriber-only. His claim to notability seems to rest on that of his company, but the company's notability isn't established (e.g. is "the first proprietary Ichimoku automated trading system" notable?) and anyway notability isn't inherited. Given the name of the article's author, closely similar to that of the company, I suspect a major conflict of interest andy (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, this reads as a self-authored puff-piece with no evidence of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person has posted actual original source code that is of value. I know because that's how I found this article thread. I suggest keeping this article as there may be other original coding contributions if this article is available as a median. In addition to this, it reads unbiased in my opinion, with little talk of his company. Also the WSJ did refernce his name directly as a fund manager. So, I don't understand the prod or puff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.169.43 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — 99.24.169.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately "it's useful" isn't sufficient here; we need actual evidence of notability, such as magazine articles that discuss Liravongsa (and perhaps his algorithms too, but again, an article on the code wouldn't be enough to save this article as notability cannot be "inherited" from a product to a person). If you know of such sources that we can quote, list them here and we can update the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notabiity. Most of the content is accolades/promotional rather than coverage. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 25 December 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. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Muhammad Yunus Khan

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

Appears to be non-notable, due to paucity of RS substantive coverage, lack of refs (tagged for that for 2 years now), and orphan status. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Written as a tribute article, so also fails WP:MEMORIAL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BME PR

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

I cannot find the requisite substantive RS coverage of this PR company. Tagged for notability for well over 2 years. Authored by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long-term notability query which remains sourced only to the company's own site. No indication of notability indicated or found. AllyD (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another public relations consultancy advertising on Wikipedia. Article is essentially a PR info sheet with a client list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 19 December 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAKCO

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

Appears non-notable, given the absence of non trivial RS coverage. Tagged for its lack of refs and reading like an advert for over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill electrical contracting company with no claims to achievements of the sort that get a business remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims or evidence of notability beyond the norm. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sound like they might be notable, but I can't find a single mention on gnews. Notability definitely not established and unlikely to be so.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 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 Deleted under G11 by myself. Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DatingCouch

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

The website is down for the most part: the article itself mostly talks about why is online dating so big and it feels like a business proposal more than anything else. There is no importance to this site that was given out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable website. --Katarighe (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as spam, don't know why this article had their original CSD declined in the first place, very obvious advertising and the two "reliable sources" listed doesn't have anything to do with this website, the rest of the sources aren't reliable. Secret ^account 04:09, 20 December 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnoor Baloch

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

Unnotable actress. Unreferenced biography of a living person. bender235 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There is some credibility to the article's assertions of notability, being that she is in fact a moderately well known model and actress in Pakistan. A Google search yields several relevant results, and she has a starring role in a Pakistani television series that has its own article on Wikipedia, but even that one barely survived AfD back in 2008. This is a borderline case, and I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to barely notable living people. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several results returned on Google. There is evidence that the actress has starred in several television serials and films. The article could do with improvement although that's no reason to call the subject unnotable. Mar4d (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person is notable enough and citations can be found for enough content for a separate article. The google search gives 398,000 results (mostly about this person including many news results) and then we have books [15] [16] [17] [18]. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Sources have been offered. Relisting for additional discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:15, 17 December 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. Michig (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telecomax Group

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

Appears to be non-notable, given the paucity of coverage. Tagged as such for over three years. Zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yes i will agree the article is non-notable. Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is remarkably vague on what they make or do, and apparently it has never been better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 19 December 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. No arguments have been raised against deletion. If better sourcing can be found, a future article may be a possibility, but nothing has been presented to indicate that this is a possibility at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Аbkhaz-adyg people

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

Appears to be a synthesis of different ethnic groups of the Caucasus. The only apparent link between the listed groups is that their languages are all part of the Northwest Caucasian group. But, whether the peoples are also linked by culture (customs, folklore etc.), shared history, genetics etc is unclear. The only source doesn't accurately support the text and may not be a reliable source for this topic. Claret Ash 06:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence can be found that anyone (except the article's creator) considers the ensemble of speakers of the various Northwest Caucasian languages a "people". --Lambiam 19:43, 25 December 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Pistone

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

four cites is not enough for WP:PROF, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 20:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article does not give any indication that this might meet WP:PROF. The "weak" is because I don't have time to search around for more sources myself, I hope and trust that the nom has done this. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. The assertion that her research is "pioneering" is not backed-up by any sources. Location (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After several searches, I have not found coverage in reliable sources. Directory listings exist, such as this listing on the Rutgers University website, but otherwise, not finding reliable sources that cover this individual. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kulangattil Family

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

A complete absence of reliable sources, and a total failure of Google Books to produce sources, makes me think that we are dealing with a non-notable topic whose content comes from tradition, lore, and original research. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of sources. Indian sub-continent articles frequently leave a lot to be desired, and this is one of them. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clearly documented article. Many Malayalam books quoting these facts.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulangattil (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above editor is the author of the article. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google books shows zero results. We are definitely dealing with OR. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local family masquerading as a historical family of importance. Salih (talk) 18:32, 17 December 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/Nomination withdrawn. I can see that this isn't going either way any time soon, and the default is to keep. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppál Bulcsú

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

This one's a bit complicated. The article was submitted in Hungarian, then listed at WP:PNT where it remained untranslated after two weeks. As is the usual practice in the translation department, the article was prodded. But because the prod nominator had used the wrong acronym in the deletion rationale, the reviewing admin declined the prod. That admin realized his mistake, however, but cited the possibility that this individual might be notable, and that a machine translation might be a good starting point for an article. Personally, I agree that it could be done; however, GScholar returns nothing on this individual, and GNews returns only three hits, one of which is actually something he wrote. Though it's not hopeless, it's not quite enough to pass WP:BIO just yet. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I offered to rewrite this in English and , quite possibly, show notability as meeting WP:PROF as an expert on Aquinas (his publisher is the leading French academic publisher, which has a branch in Budapest, which is why I was willing to try it--I wouldn't have offered otherwise) , the nom., knowing this, insisted on nominating it anyway without first giving me a chance. GScholar and GNews are not noted for their coverage of Hungarians religious scholars, and the absence of material there is irrelevant. Myself, I can't actually judge until there's a chance to present it properly. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If we can get it tidied up, we should do not, not delete merely because this was not done fast enough. Hope DGG can do that. I cannot as I do not speak Hungarian! Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the lack of sources found in the search. As an academic, he's a suitable article topic if we get no sources, so recreation would be good if more are found after AFD. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been translated and formatted. And although there's still only one reliable secondary source we should give this a try per DGG's comments on Hoppal's expertise. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ArcelorMittal. --MuZemike 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArcelorMittal Dhamm Processing Pvt Ltd

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

The article had no references and can be part of Arcelor Mittal main article Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ArcelorMittal. Nothing notable about this. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gee

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

No attempt to establish notability, cursory internet search reveals credits only, nothing else. Parrot of Doom 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like an interesting guy to chat to in the Pub, but simply not notable enough for an article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:18, 17 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Grubbs

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

Why the page should be deleted Tasterson (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a tag questioning the notability of this person since 2008, ample time for interested contributors to remedy the sorely lacking notability features of this article. It's also had a "verification" tag since June 2008.

This person's purported notability seems to be based on the fact he plays guitar, has self-released several CDs, has taught guitar for 15 years and attended (briefly, for less than a complete term, no degree) Berklee School of Music, and was mentioned in a number of (mostly) small guitar magazine over 20 years ago (most in the late '80s). He has never played in a notable band (lists "3 Green Windows", links to their personal site, Google brings up no citations at all for this band) and has never been signed to even a small record label nor released even an indie label album, only self-produced and self-released CDs, and those were also in the late '80s to mid-'90s. This article seems long over-due for deletion, with over 3 years sporting a "notability issues" tag. Tasterson (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom makes it sound like a sad case, but are we sure of that?

PremierGuitar **** Review

Adequacy.net Indie Music Reviews (positive)

Babyblaue Prog-Reviews (pretty negative) (in German)

Sounds quite close to being notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because a while back I advocated for keeping an article on a drummer/podcaster Brent Bradley and admins and other editors argued that merely having reviews written about you didn't make you notable, and one major consideration was the fact he had never released an album on anything but a self-produced label, nor had been a member of a band which did so. I came to agree with their assessment, that failing to sell a significant number of albums and merely being reviewed did not make you notable, necessarily. One very cogent argument made, which helped convince me, is the idea that these magazines need grist, they need something to write about, and consequently write about many thousands of bands and individuals: the compelling fact is 'do they advance to the next level from merely interesting to truly notable' and another argued that if anyone wanted information on these individuals, the reviews themselves were more than adequate to do so, Wikipedia did not need to catalog everyone mentioned in every magazine. I think the main points are that this individuals albums have all been self-produced, he was reviewed due to extensive self-promotion, and posted this article about himself, himself (he says so on his personal site). All this is in itself is not reason to not include someone on wikipedia, but the fact that the only notability he has at all is due to self-promotion, and none due to actual accomplishments, seems to make this article smack of another in a series of attempts to self-promote rather than inform the public. There must be millions of musicians with greater accomplishments than reviews in 3 magazines who are not included. However, I defer to the judgement of more experienced editors on this. I think this article is 1. not verifiable, hence the very old (2008) verifiability tag and 2. not notable, hence the 3 year notability tag, during which nothing of substance has been added. Perhaps, if consensus does feel this article is sufficiently notable, this tag should be removed after 3 years? Or, conversely, the article should be deleted. Tasterson (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those (terrible) arguments led to deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Bradley. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it helps, the criteria for musicians are at WP:MUSICBIO, which in a nutshell says the musician has to meet at least one of the listed criteria, such as having an album in the charts, releasing 2 albums on a major label, etc etc. The criterion that I think applies is number 1: "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician". Guess that means I have to be clear and vote! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood at the time, Brent Bradley himself keeps submitting the article after is was deleted the first time, either sheer persistence has won the editors over, or the editor(s) who most vociferously argued for deletion have reconsidered, or they just don't care anymore. Actually, BB is, I admit now, probably not notable enough to be in the wiki either. At least one independent or major label release should be attributed to anyone claiming to be a modern, professional musician of note, else what are they notable for? Your own website should certainly not be any kind of criteria, as you can say whatever you wish on your own website, with nothing to back it up. Tasterson (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, i think. If you follow the link, you will see that the BB article was deleted at AFD due only to the lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. To turn to the matter of Mr. Grubbs, in my opinion you should ask, or seek yourself to ascertain, "What makes adequacy.net a reliable source? What makes Babyblaue a reliable source?" The Premier Guitar source seems solid, so the subject is at least on the brink of notability. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, verification is 1. his personal site 2. an interview with the subject himself. If he is, indeed, notable, wouldn't it follow there would be some other reference to him on the net other than himself? This further backs up the idea most of his perceived "notability" is mere self-promotion. Tasterson (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Premier Guitar review, this, this, and several articles in the St. Petersburg Times (e.g. [19], [20], and a few others), is getting there in terms of notability, although I would really like to see more than this.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Premier Guitar review, the review by respectable freelancer Hamilton & the first local paper link are sufficient for me. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fady Ferraye

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

While this DJ/producer does exist, I cannot find non-trivial RS mentions of him sufficient to support a finding of notability. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by an SPA.Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to have been prolific, but that in itself doesn't give him notability. Other than a potential interview in Time Out Beirut, I can't find anything other than various blog entries, routine notices of performances, and various pages listing what tracks he's done. There's just not really anything reliable out there about this guy.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking in significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 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. Michig (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Dem Records

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

In looking for indicia of notability, I turned up zero gnews hits and zero gbooks hits in RSs for this record label/music publishing company. Tagged for notability and as an orphan for close to 3 years. Created by an SPA.Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable label. There isn't even any notable artists signed to it. Star Girls goes to a magazine. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No detectable products. Seems to be aspirational. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Pacing Gold

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

Apparently non-notable horse racing organization. Prod was added early in the article's history, but then removed by the creator with the addition of text but no sources. I have not found multiple third-party reliable sources with significant coverage of this organization, despite searching for such. I also cannot find sources that back up claims made in article. Dana boomer (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:ORG for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the company was really "well known around Australia", I'd expect to see more than the usual collection of trivial mentions in a web search. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Jamaliya Syed Khaleel Awn Moulana

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

I'm having trouble finding non-trivial RS coverage of this person, even working off of shortened versions of his name. The article is no help; despite its length, and some ELs, it has zero refs. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Open and shut case. MSJapan (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opusten ko Lexaurin

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

Album appears to be non-notable, due to lack of substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged as non-notable for well over 3 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several searches, I haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. No arguments in favour of keeping this, and consensus is that there is no evidence of notability. Michig (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limkokwing Mobile Academy

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

Appears non-notable; a stark absence of gnews hits and gbooks hits. Tagged as non-notable for 1 year. Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding coverage in RS after several searches. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Blatant advertising for a web site or web based service. Not a mainstream school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:WEB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 18 December 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. Wifione ^Message 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theasianparent

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

While I can find articles from this online magazine, I cannot find RS non-trivial coverage about it such as would confer notability upon it. Created by an SPA. Tagged for absence of notability for well over two years. Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google News brought up articles written by them while a Google search brought up the same thing including unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail all criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:44, 20 December 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. --MuZemike 02:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Whitney Thompson

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

Unremarkable lawyer/financier. A clean up of the poor sources and dead links would leave very few references. The subject has made a complaint that the presence of templates "makes me look like less of a businessperson". Deletion would be a solution to that problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't follow all of your links, but the first few made me wonder if you had read the entire articles. Have you, or are you relying on summaries? Also, the ones I read were passing mentions, not significant coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged some of the existing bad citations to help you identify them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reliable sources added to the article, that address the topic in detail:

"Buyer's approach: Savings will be shared with tenants". Tampa Bay Business Journal. January 21, 2011. Retrieved December 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Silva, Cristina (August 12, 2007). "Architectural perceptions clash". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved December 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)</ref>
Boey, Valerie (December 25, 2007). "20-somethings come up with $500 million real estate plan". Tampa News, Channel 10. Retrieved December 17, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are these technically reliable sources? Yes. But they're all painfully local (the SP Times ones are even in the "Neighborhood Times" section), and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. See WP:LOCAL and WP:BIAS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There isn't a disqualifier in WP:GNG regarding the geographic location of reliable sources. WP:LOCAL is an opinion essay, and not a policy or guideline. This topic appears to pass WP:GNG per coverage in reliable, third-party sources that address the topic in detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have a picture of him and quote him in an article about his business activities. [28] Other coverage seems to confer people think highly of his work, he successful and making tons of money. Dream Focus 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They also have a picture of Roger Jacques (plasterer), in the same article. Let me know when that's no longer a red link and I'll reconsider your opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They consider him and his activities notable enough to coverage. They didn't just call up and get a brief quote, but got his side of the story, and thought it important enough to take a picture and publish it of him. Dream Focus 21:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In Wikipedia terms, a complete non-entity. No notability whatsoever. Forget the "sources" - I've appeared in my local paper several times (and nationally once or twice) and been contacted and interviewed by local radio, but only because I was good at doing my job and they wanted insights form professionals who were.....good at their job. Not outstanding. Just good and available. (But they didn't take my photo. Boo hoo.) So what? There is nothing in the article (or the sources) to suggest anything out of the ordinary. Emeraude (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And call me suspicious, but I'm always dubious when an article has been created by a user who has made just one edit, ever, Emeraude (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How is the person a "non-entity" in Wikipedia terms? What do you mean specifically about "forget the sources?" The availability of reliable sources is exactly what qualifies topics for inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's notabilty that qualifies topics for inclusion. Reliable sources are the evidence for what we include (whether of people or any other topic) and do not confer notability. I can provide all sorts of reliable sources about myself, from birth certificate to my part in the school nativity play, to my degree results, to my public appointments, to my work being quoted elesewhere, but none of that makes me notable. That has to be earned. Although the sources quoted back up what is said about the subject of this AfD, they do not, IMO, provide any evdence that he satisfies Wikipdia's criteria for notability. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the criterion for topic notability per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added another reliable source to the article:

Meacham, Andrew (April 20, 2007). "KB Home plans to sell 4 Hillsborough parcels". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 30 December 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.

Tahir Abbas

This discussion has been hidden from view. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuPDF

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

spam with no real claim to notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. prod reconstruction. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra strong keep, with a dash of cinnamon. Is [29] [30] [31] enough for you? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources provide significant coverage of MuPDF, all are about Artifex Software's lawsuit and just mention very briefly what MuPDF is. This lawsuit is just a news event and Wikipedia is not the news. Any balanced article written from these sources would not be about MuPDF but would be a coatrack for the lawsuit. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any spam.--Oneiros (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You disagree with one word in my nomination, how about the rest? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alessandra's sources. The article has some WP:V problems on account of its dependence on unreliable sources. The Palm lawsuit is probably what this article should be primarily about. – Pnm (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: apart from multiple references (including those by Alessandra Napolitano), this is one of only four FLOSS PDF libraries out there. This would be enough on its own. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being one of four FLOSS PDF libraries does not make something notable, WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because we do have enough sources for confirmation. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is more than just existance. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inferred keep, being a contributor to MuPDF I believe that it may make sense to describe the open source library which SumatraPDF is based upon. SumatraPDF itself is not proposed for deletion so by inference I feel that MuPDF should not be either. More over the library has been ported, as described in the article, to a lot of devices and linux distributions so from that perspective there may also be incentive to keep it. Finally I did find a reference through duffbeerformes scholarly links that may at least increase the notability of the page: [32] I have refrained from editing informational content of the page, though I did add the logo and the reference to the XPS software category, and so I leave it up to you guys to hash out whether MuPDF is notable enough and to include that link. Sebras (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because MuPDF is relevant enough to be in package systems of Ubuntu, gentoo, and Arch Linux (to name only three). It is also offered for Windows by various Freeware websites and mentioned in the free PDF reader campaign of the Free Software Foundation. I think interested users should find a Wikipedia page about this. --G8w (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. MuPDF has been gaining popularity in recent months on various mobile OS platforms (Android, iOS and Windows Phone) due to its lightweight, yet powerful nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.145.144.134 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Black (author)

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

Previously PROD deleted, but recently undeleted via REFUND. Same reason as in the PROD. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It'd be lovely if we could keep every struggling author, but Black simply doesn't pass notability guidelines per WP:AUTHOR. One of his writings did get made into a play, but I can't find anything to suggest that the play itself became notable or even went beyond its initial showing. There's just no information out there that would be considered reliable, unless I missed something.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete without prejudice, per ~~WP:NOTYET~~WP:TOOSOON, and with a gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not for the "up-and-coming", but for those already notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although like the others above I agree that he could become notable enough eventually. Just not yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. I'm a bit confused by the WP:TOOSOON comments. He's 77 years old and his last book was published 16 years ago. Anything's possible, but if there's not substantial coverage by now it's unlikely there will be more later. Pburka (talk) 02:18, 21 December 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) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo (graphics program)

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

I found zero significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is unsourced and not entirely notable in my opinion. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an interesting little program, but I couldn't easily google any reliable sources. Probably has a core of faithful users, but not really suitable for an encyclopaedia, I'm afraid. --Ritchie333 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there is next to zero coverage on the web and news sources. A search on Google Scholar for something like Mongo Tonry (the author) or Mongo graphics reveals quite a lot of references in academic literature. It also reveals that the lack of coverage on the web could be reflective of the program's age - it seems to date to 1987. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you located academic sources which you think are adequate to establish notability, would you post them here? – Pnm (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried following Pit-yacker's advice, and I found quite a few papers noting Mongo as the plotting software the authors used or are thankful for. This doesn't look like what I would consider as a proof of notability. Not that I want this article deleted, but I fail to find anything to argue for keeping. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

the entry on "Julia Compton Moore" lacks "notability": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Compton_Moore

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Raiders

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. Very little sourcing, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Potential violation of WP:ADV and WP:NPOV. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You see this search article for them in their local paper? 2,405 mentions (I don't think they archive). Most minor league football teams on this level don't get significant local coverage, but the Raiders do. Tom Danson (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like most of those articles have the words "Racine" and "raiders" in the article but clearly are not about the "Racine Raiders." --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This organization does appear to get a fair amount of coverage, more than enough to meet WP:GNG,[33][34][35][36][37][38]- I could cite many many more if I kept looking. Let this one rest, Paul.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the first reference in the article and references I added to it:
The Milwaukee Sentinel - Google News Archive Search
JSOnline.com News Archives (subscription required)
Men young and old chase football dreams at Racine Raiders tryout
Raiders leave NAFL for MidStates Football League
Racine Raiders don't find the answer

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn sources look good now. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Wikipedia:Notability

[1] Wikipedia:Notability

[1]