Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 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 redirect to Frimley#Education. The report produced by the one keep !voter is a report produced for every school in England. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Primary School, Frimley

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

Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports. Suggest Delete although willing to accept Merge and Redirect to Frimley#Education. Fmph (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fmph (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frimley#Education where it is already listed, per standard procedure based on clear precedent for an acceptable solution to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frimley#Education. Without wishing to offend anyone who goes there or whose children do or have gone there (and I don't think I will), it's just another fairly standard state primary school. The only notable thing I can think of is that it's next door to Frimley Park Hospital, but that's not notability by WP's standards anyway. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERNOM. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. It is an essay. Of the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. I think it is a silly one, and am always amused by those who cite it as if to say "per the essay pernom".--Epeefleche (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct, it's an essay. But far from being silly, it is one that instead of expressing an opinion, simply documents precedents that have been established, and that can legitimately be used per 'common law'. It dispenses with the need for listing 100s (pererhaps 1,000s) of diffs on every school AfD that can be closed as 'redirect'. Wikipedia is not necessarily inclusionist per se, but the general recommendations are that all other solutions should be examined, with deletion being a last resort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kud. Perhaps we are discussing different things. I wrote "per nom". Our friend Ritchie apparently disliked the brevity of that response, and basically said "per essay pernom". As even that essay -- which as we agree is simply an expression of opinion of one or more editors -- says, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom"." That's what we are discussing above, not relates to school AFDs and which should be kept -- that is not the focus of what he and I were discussing. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me completely. I wish I'd just said "Could you expand a bit more on your rationale for a delete", but thought a simple link to WP:PERNOM would give more clout and save a few paragraphs of disagreement. I don't think the page should stay either, by the way. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" in this case means, as the rationale set forth by nom indicates, "Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports." Even if one is in support of the essay, that falls within what the essay has in mind, IMHO, when it says "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of ... deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". Best, and happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination includes none of these things. It makes no reference to policy and makes an improper reference to a guideline contrary to WP:HONEST (WP:N makes no references to generic or statutory as exclusions and so suggesting otherwise is misleading). The nomination makes no specific recommendation but instead havers about deletion or redirection or merger in an indecisive way. As this is not a vote and your per-nom shows no independent appreciation of these factors, it should be dismissed. Warden (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination states the view that this school "Appears to be a non-notable primary school with minimal refs outside of generic and statutory Ofsted reports." I agree. I am of the view that where we have a primary school that has minimal RS refs outside of such reports, per our precedent and the apparent consensus reflected at this and other school AfDs, a delete or redirect would be appropriate, and I'm in favor of a delete for the aforesaid reasons. I understand that Warden disagrees, and respect his opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I don't respect user:Warden's opinion that those that disagree with him are somehow dishonest. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as non-notable. The reason why this primary school is notable is not stated. Couldn't find anything on search beyond the routine Ofsted inspection reports and DfE league tables (along with sites that recycle the league table data) produced for all schools to establish notability or significant coverage. Pit-yacker (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school is notable per our guideline as it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as this detailed report of 15 pages. Our editing policy is to avoid deleting material which is so notable. Warden (talk) 23:19, 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. Aside from an "incubate" recommendation, there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Ass (film)

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

Per WP:FUTURE this article was created in response to a trailer that was released. Other than that, there is no coverage on anything else. Truthsort (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'l be back after I expand and source the aticle. I think it will be easy to find stuff on a completed film due out in 4 months that stars Danny Trejo, Charles S. Dutton, Ron Perlman and Jillian Murray. We'll see. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just a quick search is bringing up sources, some of which are debating whether or not the film is real or is an elaborate April Fool's prank. (Since it releases in April.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep per improvements and sourcing provided by Tokyogirl79 and myself and the nearness of release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. The Mail Online source is reasonable, but the rest that have been added are no substitute for reliable sources. Not enough significant coverage to merit an article yet. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the expansion done by Tokoyogirl and Michael. Lugnuts (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy too with the rescue effort by Tokyogirl79 and Michael, which strongly suggests the article meets WP:GNG. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources used only mention the trailer. There is no further coverage on the production or any other aspect of this film. The release date is an estimate. This is not sufficient enough for an article. Truthsort (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: While certainly there is a lot of recent coverage because of the trailer, the VERY first souce in the artricle is from JoBlo from May 2011,[1] speaking about Danny Trejo's involvement in the film and it having back then wrapped production... and is not about the trailer. Just sayin'. And while the film's title makes searches problematic because many un-related articles about Trejo refer to him AS a "bad ass". we persevere, look deeper, and use some of the other actor's names in our seraces. For instance, "Shalim Ortiz" +"Bad Ass" brings us articles not trailer-related... such as Fox News June 2011, (picked up by a host of others) speaking about Shalim Ortiz being in Bad Ass and mentioning (then) plans for the film to screen at the Toronto International Film Festival in September. It didn't, but the news report is not about the trailer. And AOL Latino of March 31, 2011, is also not about the tailer. I think it is reasonable to expect even more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 31 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 userfy to User:Sosothe76/Absinthe (film). – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM absent coverage in reliable sources; reviews are from blogs, user-generated content, and the like, and in some cases are trivial anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm in the process of trying to find sources, but I think that you're right in that this won't have enough sources to prove notability. I did remove some of the more unreliable sources, such as the forum link and the link to the film festival signup page. Those aren't reliable sources and one of them didn't even mention the film. If all else fails, I do think that this should be userfied/incubated until if/when it gets more coverage at its showing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete or userfy. There's no sources out there except for trivial sources and press releases. The sources on the article were predominantly to non-reliable sources such as non-notable blogs and forums. While this does look like an interesting film, we can't keep things because they're interesting and we can't even guarantee that there'll be more coverage down the line. Sending your trailer to multiple horror sites doesn't mean it'll become notable because there's a lot of films both mainstream and indie that have faded into the background after just one announcement.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. Just in case the initial editor is one of the crewmembers or is otherwise associated with the people who made the movie (since additions like this are almost always done by someone associated with the film and their only edits were to add the movie to various pages), I did leave a conflict of interest notice on their page just in case they weren't aware of that stuff.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. Indpendent film, slated for upcoming festival release. Is verifiable through Dread Central [2] Bloody Disgusting [3] and less-than-preferred Anything Horror Horror Cult Films and the article does assert it will debut at the next Fantastique Semaine du Cinéma (October 2012)... so we can put it in limbo until it screens and gets wider coverage and commentary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 31 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) 02:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadi Boix Camps

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

While this person exists, I cannot find substantial RS coverage of him. Tagged for notability for over a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from having zero independent coverage, I vaguely recall that WP policy forbids articles about persons or organizations that participate in "World Smell Day." EEng (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further recommendation: Merge to Arcadia Boys Camp.

Delete, refs do not establish notability, tagged for more than a year. Hairhorn (talk) 21:45, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly P Joy

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

This lecturer appears to be non-notable. Also, it was created by an SPA. Article tagged for notability since June. Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any third party reliable sources to indicate some notability. The links currently provided are not sufficient. Tinton5 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in looking at the article's original version, it almost appears as if either one of her students was trying to impress the lecturer, or someone associated with her college was trying to put her Curriculum vitae up on Wikipedia. Though the article author is now blocked for username violation, their choice of the musical artist infobox template was interesting and confusing, and their edits last May show no understanding of Wikiepdia markup or article MOS. And while she being an lecturere and producer of student films can be verified,[4] that is not enough to meet notability crteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 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.

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

The result was speedy deleted as hoax. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic trial

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

Not sure this film actually exists. I couldn't find anything at IMDB, which would be the least I'd expect of a film that allegedly has a "cult following". The creator might have confused this film with M, whose German title is M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder. There are also other parallels to this film, e.g. the director's first sound film, finest work of the director. If it's kept, its capitalisation should be corrected. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly G3 speediable - looks like a hoax. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've marked it for speedy deletion –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Neither for Satanic trial nor for the director Fritz Krueg or Fritz Krüg. Smart Hoax. --Ben Ben (talk) 01:47, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MQS, feel free to userfy this if the creator requests it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember a Day (2000 film)

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

Unsourced article about a straight-to-DVD low-budget film that did not appear to receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Michig (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the article makes a presumption of being notable with a lot of background on the film, it is non-notable. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hard to find any notability (e.g. reviews, comments etc) apart from links/sites posted by Darryl Read (who acted in the film). Given this it would appear to be of no/low intrinsic value. Londonclanger (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've offered to the article author that it might be returned to them for additional work. As the author has invested the time to create the article, he/she may have access to hardcopy sources that we have been unable to find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 5 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vex collection

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

Deprodded by article creator. My concern remains: I can find no independent sources indicating notability for this ladies' wear collection (note that there is an unrelated home furnishing line of the same name). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after searching, I also can find no reliable sources for the Vex Collection clothing line that would demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Sparthorse (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deprodded because the company has historical significance in the Montreal fashion industry and was in no way intended as an advertisement. Multiple web sources exist that mention this company. Jeremy09 16:03, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Simply existing, or being mentioned on the "web" is not enough: we have very specific guidelines on the sort of reliable source needed to establish notability. See: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources are considered reliable. Government sources such as the "Articles of Incorporation" are not self-published. I've added a mention of Vex Collection from a news organization to further increase notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy09 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely after reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (which I hope you have) you can understand that simply being incorporated is not enough? ~~Also, I still don't see any news references establishing notability.~~ I won't go on, here. The decision is now with the community. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I now see your news ref: there is a short mention in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, which I did not find. It's very brief but it's certainly independent. If you can find more of these, it will help your case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In more detail. The Manta reference just confirms the company exists, but does not speak to its notability at all. The government source is the same. The Kim Cloutier blog entry is a blog, so is not reliable and is about Cloutier, not Vex Collection (at most its a passing mention). The Fashion Model directory entry is again about Cloutier and doesn't even mention the Vex Collection. The Star Phoenix article is from a reliable source but is the definition of a passing mention, it is not close to substantial coverage of Vex Collection the company. So none of these demonstrate the notability of Vex Collection. Sparthorse (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the informational Wiki articles that you've sent my way. I will continue to search for more independent mentions. As you can see, I'm new to Wikipedia, if you can help find other sources, please do so. Jeremy09 (talk)16:47, 29 December 2011 (EST)
Delete, doesn't meet any notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 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. A list of non-notable software packages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Card Payment Software Comparison

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

No evidence that the systems listed are notable. List is unreferenced and none of the listed items have articles. Pnm (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As-is this page is useless - of the links that are blue, all but a few go to unrelated pages with the same name (e.g. Cortex). No sourcing or material worth salvaging. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:53, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionizing Events Timeline

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

An attempt to write an original history of the world - not an encyclopedia article.

Should be speediable but couldn't find any applicable guideline. Drdisque (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot believe that WP needs a history of the world in one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Bletchley. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holne Chase Primary School

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

Apparently, non-notable primary school. Article fails to state why the school is notable. There isn't really any coverage of the school, that could be used to establish notability. The only stuff worth mentioning is the routine Ofsted inspection reports and DfE league table data (along with various sites that take dumps of that data and re-publish it) that you would expect all schools to have.

Although the article has previously been tagged for merge, I have brought it here as it appears there is still some disagreement as to whether primary schools are inherently notable Pit-yacker (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Bletchley where it is already listed. There is no policy or guideline that primary schools are inherently notable. Any discussion on this matter has not been resolved, and until it is, non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, according to long established precedent demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is notable as specified by WP:GNG, being covered in detail in independent, reliable sources such as this. Our editing policy is to preserve such notable topics. Warden (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as Kudpung (and precedent) suggests. There are 16,000+ maintained primary schools in England and Wales. They all have Ofsted reports. The report is generated by the existence of the institution and as such is not evidence of notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: Nothing more than routine coverage Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Per nom, tigerboy, and purpleback.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, 31 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) 21:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Capparelli

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

not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor non-notable businessman; minor non-notable sports figure; minor non-notable politician: none of this adds up to any of our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all relevant forms of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor political appointee, also-ran politician, head of two non-notable companies, minor race car driver. —teb728 t c 22:01, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ShowImg

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

No reason stated why this software is notable. Article has been tagged for notability for over 1 year. A Google search doesn't reveal much beyond download sites. Article states there has been no release for over 5 years and the official website appears dead - no response at time of writing and it doesn't appear on Google. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I also did not find anything in the Google results, just the usual download links, all primary sources. Msnicki (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article even claims the subject's non-notability. Tee hee. – Pnm (talk) 04:15, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyantse Guesthouse

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

Hotel, not meeting notability criteria Pseudois (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability in article or web search, and WP is not a WP:TRAVELGUIDE. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Pol430 talk to me 22:32, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pendemonium

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

Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Tagged for notability for nearly 1 year. Epeefleche (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article lacks notability. Web searches return mostly mirrors of this article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find significant coverage of the series in my searching. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hobbes Goodyear's findings. Also Redirect resulting page to Pandemonium as a plausible mispelling.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Pandemonium as a plausible mispelling. I can't find any significant coverage for this, though I did learn a lot about an antique fountain pen shop in Iowa named "Pendemonium" that may have the sources for an article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:03, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRNOG

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

Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Tagged for notability for over 1 year. Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in news or books. Notability not even asserted, never mind established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, my searching did not turn up 3rd-party sources discussing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have found no sources that offer notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnesons Ointment

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

Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Tagged for notability for over 1 year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no coverage found at Google News or Google Scholar (which finds one reference about a different compound). Google search finds only Wikipedia article and mirrors, so I can't even confirm that this ointment exists. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG. Searching about on the Intertubes leads me to believe that the eponym here is a misspelling of Tunnessen's, referring to a Dr. Walter W. Tunnessen, who seems to be a pediatric dermatologist and who may have formulated such a prescription. I am, however, also unable to find any treatment at all in secondary sources. Deor (talk) 22:04, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTaxi

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

Little press coverage and such; most information on WT is on blogs, the creator's site, and unreliable sources. No indication that the subject meets WP:NWEB. HurricaneFan 25 — 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or Move~~ I don't see any reason to delete this,or move to Wikipedia:Wikitaxi.Night ^{Of Darkness} 16:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this any different from any other Wikipedia-reading application? HurricaneFan 25 — 16:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,difference is there.Example- Twinkle, a automated software to edit Wikipedia.WikiTaxi- The Whole Wikipedia collected in a software to view offline.Night ^{Of Darkness} 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep Although only sourced from from one primary source, and a handful of secondary sources, they appear to verify the content of the article—which is little more than that fact this piece of software exists. As for notability, I think its tenuous, but the fact that it has been featured in three different websites shows sufficient to survive deletion IMO. I have cleared up the article and removed some superfluous information. Pol430 talk to me 11:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Pol430 talk to me 12:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I made the comments above it was based on my impression that the sources were editorials, not blogs. On closer inspection they do indeed appear to be blogs. Therefore unreliable sources, so I move my position to delete. Pol430 talk to me 12:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pol430. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 12:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issue solved.4 out of 5 references are not Blogs.Night ^{Of Darkness} 05:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced (blog, download site, Q&A site, etc), no coverage in mainstream press to establish notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 03:21, 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. WP:V problems in a WP:BLP are a particularly severe problem, and the "keep" opinions do not go in as nearly as much detail in addressing it as the "delete" opinions. Sandstein 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V. David Sánchez A.

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

Content not of general interest. Some content on the page is debatable, much of the content is not verifiable. (see discussion page) Ericbodden (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "not of general interest" is not a good deletion rationale. With the awards and journals, there appears to be plenty evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This guy was editor-in-chief for Neurocomputing (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/neurocomputing/) for volumes 1–55. It's indeed a bit odd that he isn't listed as an IEEE Fellow here, but that could be because this list only claims to include "active" members. Would need a good bit of copyeditting at least, as he seems to be suffering from a bad case of unwarranted self-importance: [5]

Prof. Dr. V. David Sánchez A., Ph.D., is a Fellow of the IEEE with the following citation: "For leadership in neural and parallel computation, and pioneering contributions to autonomous space robots". David is the youngest IEEEFellow in history worldwide. The IEEE Fellow is the world most prestigious award in Engineering, i.e., the "Nobel Prize" in Engineering.
David's research and development topics and activities are well ahead of anything being done at the national lab level, academia, or industry worldwide. David always hands-on leads and works with the absolute best of any discipline in the most challenging technological, scientific, and engineering endeavors. In the high-tech industries, he is currently working on several U.S.$ 1+ billion breakthrough technologies. Market segments that apply include aerospace, defense, telecom, multimedia, biomed, ASICs, software, science.

—Ruud 02:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph about him on this teacher's handbook published by the Peruvian government, on the subject "Space travel and the new image of the universe. Peruvian contributions to the knowledge of interstellar space". It states that he took part of a NASA project on the development of a mechanical arm to assist the shuttle during the voyage, and that he is a fellow of the IEEE of Germany. The content is sourced to a previous fascicle for teachers also published by the government, but it doesn't say which number. The text, though, has an addendum at the bottom saying that they received a letter of clarification, and in response to it they added a translation of this page to the information. If we don't consider the IEEE fellowship, the mention seems enough to me to push the subject over the notability bar because of it's national scope, but the correction is very concerning — Frankie (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of the total lack of second-party sources, WP:BLP, and the controversy over whether parts of the article are a hoax or not. If he really were an IEEE Fellow, then he would clearly pass WP:PROF, but our only evidence for that is an uploaded image of a certificate that could easily have been doctored, and the evidence against (lack of mention on IEEE web site, lack of many IEEE publications, especially recent IEEE journal publications that would list the fellow status in the author byline) is strong. We can argue about whether editing Neurocomputing (which does seem to be verifiable) is enough for notability after we have sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are substantial biographical details at the end (p169-170) of one of his articles here: Neurocomputing 42 (2002) 147–170 - But this is in an article by him the journal he edited. There is also some additional evidence here: Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS) Past seminars (You might find the appropriate bit searching for Sanchez (Msrasnw (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The way I see it, this article should either be fully backed by reliable sources (or cut down to information that can be backed by such sources) or should be deleted. The former will be very hard to do given the little factual information available online about this person. In addition, if not deleted, the article should be freed of any overstatements. Nobody I know would call an IEEE fellowship the "Nobel Price of Engineering", this is just plainly inappropriate. But considering all that has been said above I still don't see a good reason for keeping the article at all.Ericbodden (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass of WP:Prof via his having been editor-in-chief/founder of Neurocomputing (journal) and biog details in that journal and on Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (which might count as second-party sources) page indicated above. I too think the article could benefit from tidying up the overstatement of the case. Perhaps I should start this now! (Msrasnw (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- How difficult is it to start an Elsevier journal? For example, they have published a bogus journal (Chaos, Solitons & Fractals) in the past. I'm in no way claiming that Neurocomputing is such a journal, just that being founding editor-in-chief might not establish notability on its own. —Ruud 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not demonstrated; editorship of a journal notwithstanding. Note: I declined to delete this under WP:CSD#A3 (hoax) because it wasn't obviously a hoax, and further investigation seemed to point toward it being more or less genuine. But I still don't think the subject is notable. See the article's talk page for one or two minor details. Frank | talk 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question WP:Prof says the Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.. Why is this chap's IEEE Fellowship and his founding and chief editorship of Neurocomputing (journal) enough for notability? Both seem to have been established by reliable sources. Elsevier is a respecatable publisher and the journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Indices and it includes info on this fellow (See P169–170). This would seem to me reliable. Is there some info about that Hoax accusation and denying his IEEE fellowship that I am missing as he seems to me to clearly pass WP:prof via these?

Wp:prof #3 The person ...has been an elected ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

WP:prof #7 The person .. has been the .. chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

(Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Too many WP:V and WP:BLP problems here. The claim to being an IEEE Fellow is almost certainly either false or misleading. Being an elected IEEE Fellow is a permanent designation (basically until the person dies). The fact that, as Ruud notes, Sanchez' name does not appear in the list of IEEE Fellows at the IEEE website [6] indicates that the claim is likely false. Moreover the wording used in the article - "He was awarded the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Fellow Award in 1995" - suggests that it may have been a grant (research or travel fellowship rather than being elected an IEEE Fellow), which is not what WP:PROF#C3 has in mind. The article also says that "In 1997, Sánchez was invited to become a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). " Being a member of AAAS is no honor at all - anybody can join AAAS by filling out an application form and paying a fee; being an elected Fellow of AAAS is a significant honor but Sanchez is not an AAAS Fellow. The only serious claim to fame here is having been the editor-in-chief of Neurocomputing. I checked the JCR and this journal is listed there under the category "computer science, artificial intelligence". In 2010 it has the impact factor of 1.442, which ranks it no. 50 among the journals in that category. Moreover, looking up the impact factor for the journal for the previous years shows that in 2006 it had the impact factor of 0.86 and in 2007 of 0.85, considerably less than the current impact factor. The article says that Sanchez was editing the journal for the first 15 years of its existence, that is, presumably from 1989 to around 2005. It appears that during that time the journal had much more marginal standing than even its current modest no 50 ranking in the "computer science, artificial intelligence" category. I do not think that this satisfies WP:PROF#C8. There are quite a few other red flags here. The citation record for his work in GoogleScholar, and the WebofScience is minimal, almost non-existent. Also, even for the run-of-the mill researchers in any given field, a plain google search for their name usually produces a large number of hits giving links to conference and seminar talks by these researchers. Googling gives almost nothing of the sort here. All in all, too fishy, too self-promotional, and has too many WP:V and WP:BLP issues. Nsk92 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak academic track record (DBLP, most articles were published in the journal where he was founding editor-in-chief). He seems to have worked mostly in the aerospace industry, but the details are all completely unverifiable. I'd be surprised if the IEEE Fellow certificate was faked, but this seems again not possible to verify. He carries the title of Professor, but I could not find any universities with which he is supposed to be affiliated. This presumed autobiography is too suspicious and promotional to let it stand. —Ruud 18:50, 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.

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

The result was delete. This was clearly contested, and I've taken several reads through it, but ultimately, even the "keep" arguments seem to agree that there is not sourcing that specifically addresses Krakatoa as a notable topic in popular culture, and arguments based upon sources or the lack thereof are generally definitive when deletion is being considered. If anyone's interested in merging, I would be happy to help make arrangements to comply with attribution for the merged material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krakatoa in media and popular culture

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

Nothing but a list of unsourced trivia. Deprodded by a staunch defender of in popular culture articles with "not uncontroversial deletion; most such articles are nowadays kept at AfD ; the present material is neither OR nor SYN, but the collection of information abotu notable works". I fail to see how this is not WP:OR or WP:SYN, since it's a very loose connection at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom. This is dismal stuff, almost entirely unsourced speculation. I could probably go in there and suggest, because maybe I think it's true, that Hershey's Krackel bar is a Krakatoa reference because, you know, it has that "Krak" thing at the beginning, right guys? This is plainly WP:OR material, at least as I understand it. Maybe WP:NOTDIR as well. I like how the lede almost cedes this point, saying "many examples are based in the culture of expression and have no connection in any way with the explosion at all." I will say that much of this is rather amusing/interesting content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bit too much OR for my tastes. Drjames1 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Krakatoa is notable, IPC content is verifiable, the current article is just kind of a mess. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I've added a number of RS barelinks, removed some of the sillier instances, and cleaned up the language a bit. There's plenty here than can be rewritten per WP:IPC, and since this is a WP:SS breakout from Krakatoa, the resultant cleanup would need to be upmerged, rather than deleted, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Krakatoa in public culture is a valid subject - in the misuse of the original subject - and it is the format rather than the subject that seems to offend - prodded by a staunch defender of public culture deletion - it requires some simple cleanup, and in worst case scenario - I concur with Jclemens that it (the valid remains) needs to be merged Satu Suro 22:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 22:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see here, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That link would support the notability of volcanoes in media and popular culture, not Krakatoa in media and popular culture. Krakatoa gets a brief mention on that page, not the type of significant coverage of its presence in media and popular culture that would justify this article. That's a significant distinction, as I don't think there's any question of notability around media and pop culture presenting volcanoes in general, which is what your link covers. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Colonel. Article is full of trivia and needs work, but the topic itself seems viable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see no listed reference covering this subject - "Krakatoa in Popular Culture". Rather, it's just a list of unrelated primary sources. Banal. --Merbabu (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The topic itself is notable, considering the explosion itself is still talked about today. If necessary, and the article has been cleaned up, it could be merged at worst. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a la Colonel. The Steve 06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. This is just a collection of trivia on a myriad of unrelated subjects. The topic of how Krakatoa has been discussed in fiction isn't notable, so the only way to create an article is through an OR-list of unrelated facts and tidbits. Them From Space 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - further to my comments above, people should remember that the topic of this article is not Krakatoa and the discussion is not on the (obvious) notability of that subject. Rather, the topic of this article and AFD is Krakatoa in media and popular culture. We are judging this specific topic and its notability. Again I point out that there is not a single reference here on that topic. It's just a list of trivia - best, there is a primary reference to a video game, or book, etc, etc. We are not discussing the notability of Krakatoa. --Merbabu (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree (obviously :) ). If someone can come up with a reliable source about Krakatoa in popular culture, and not volcanoes in popular culture (or similar), I'll very happily change my vote to Keep this rather amusing article. But I haven't seen a single reference in support of this topic's notability, and WP:GNG is pretty clear about, you know, needing references that address a subject "directly and in significant detail." Otherwise, this is all as the nominator says: original research and synthesis. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, if "Krakatoa" has 2+ non-trivial references in popular culture, then a "Krakatoa in popular culture" article meets the GNG. And, if the consensus here is that a separate article is not warranted, then per WP:ATD, the requirement is that sourced information be merged appropriately back into whatever article in which they best fit. The split/merge/split/merge cycle is what WP:IPC urges us to avoid. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if "Krakatoa" has 2+ non-trivial references in popular culture, then a "Krakatoa in popular culture" article meets the GNG. That's not correct. Each Wikipedia article has a unique subject, which needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject of this article is Krakatoa in media and popular culture. It isn't Krakatoa. Information on Krakatoa, including relevant popular-culture mentions, belongs at the Krakatoa article. Split-out articles such as this aren't appropriate unless the child article's subject also meets the GNG. Them From Space 03:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of the subject, thank you. I almost voted Merge but the Krakatoa article itself is long enough AND well known enough to have this breakout. My vote stands. The Steve 06:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Krakatoa as an 'icon' used in unrelated manner for sometimes quite disparate motivations is a separate subject - and if you look at the history Merbabu and I worked on the article in December 2006 - (how time flies) - it was to try to separate out articles from the then very (and still) messy Krakatoa articles and related subjects - interestingly [7] was created in the same year and hasnt been touched by the afd enthusiasts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa,_East_of_Java - is a blatant usage as I have previously mentioned above - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa:_The_Last_Days is an excellent example as well - if anyone was the slightest bit literate or book oriented - the literature is vast and sprawling across a number of languages - Simkins', Winchester's and earlier writers bibliographies are quite justifiably filled with various earlier works trying to explain and dwell on the events of the big bang. However if the closing result is to delete the current article - the general intent of this article - deserves to be re-inserted in the mess that makes the krakatoa collection articles something that requires cleanup - over four years later Satu Suro 03:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Krakatoa. I just trimmed some trivial mentions (of the nature of "In work X, character Y says "this reminds me of Krakatoa!") and apparently non-notable examples, but some substantive cultural depictions remain. Deletion simply is not an option per WP:ATD because even if further trimmed down (by normal editing) to a mere few works, this information at a minimum belongs in the parent article. Whether there is enough for a standalone split-off article is a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve. If there are enough notable works, then it also functions as an index of notable works by shared subject in addition to being a subtopic of Krakatoa.
The claims that this is WP:SYNTH are difficult to understand, because this does not combine material from different sources to make a conclusion or statement of fact that those sources do not support. And for the claim that this is garden-variety WP:OR, it seems that this claim was made on the incorrect belief that mere reliance on a primary source constitutes OR. Whether a work is about, or substantively depicts Krakatoa is verifiable, even if from the work itself. Listing such works together does not inherently constitute SYNTH even if you are the first to do so, no more than it is to be the first to combine information from two particular biographies about a "George Washington" without having a third book telling you that the biographies are indeed about the same man. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - so no-one can produce a single reference on Krakatoa in Popular Culture, let alone secondary sources. Significant coverage across reliable sources is the most basic of all criteria for notability. It's no good just to say "it's viable". Please explain how Krakatoa in Popular Culture can be supported with specific reference to WP:N. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [8] which seems to address the topic. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with Krakatoa in Media and Pop Culture. That's a google books link to a book which already has an article. At best, this article is just a list of different, and otherwise unrelated items. Their only link is that they happen to be about Krakatoa. Again, we are discussing a topic for which no references have been provided. --Merbabu (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor has anyone tried, since the GNG doesn't require it. The subject is "Krakatoa", which is unquestionably notable. This is a breakout article covering certain references to Krakatoa, as listed in the rest of the title. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have no requirement that individual article sections be independently notable, nor that such article sections can't be split off into separate articles or lists for size concerns. Re: Merbabu's comment that "Their only link is that they happen to be about Krakatoa." Well, yes, that's the whole point of this list article, and that one shared fact is sufficient. We combine items in lists, categories, or navigational templates because they have a shared encyclopedic fact in common, and indexing works by a shared subject is a pretty obvious method. The only thing that people who died in 2011 have in common is that they are notable people who died in 2011, or that people from Idaho have in common is that they are notable people from Idaho. People need to stop reading guidelines and policies in isolation without consideration for how that would actually apply across the board to content. If it's verifiable that there are multiple notable works about Krakatoa, itself a notable subject, then we don't also need a single reference also listing all of these works as being about Krakatoa. Reminds me of a dear departed editor who thought that we could not create or expand lists by compiling sources, only by copying them verbatim from already published lists. postdlf (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no requirement that individual article sections be independently notable, nor that such article sections can't be split off into separate articles or lists for size concerns. Yes we do; its the GNG, which applies to all articles, even if they were created as spinouts. Creating a spinout article creates a new article with a new subject, which must satisfy the GNG (or another notability guideline). We cannot spin out subtopics that do not, themselves, satisfy our notability guidelines. Doing so would allow for thousands of nonnotable articles, since any nonnotable subject that is mentioned in a parent subject's article could be spunout.

And yes, I agree about Deaths in 2011 and List of people from Idaho. Those are also not appropriate for articles; categories work for them, but not articles. Them From Space 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in practice and as demonstrated repeatedly in AFDs there is not any rule as strict as the one you would like, perhaps in part because the anarchy hors GNG you fear in which "any nonnotable subject that is [merely] mentioned...could be spunout" is actually a straw man—the spinouts I was talking about and that we are dealing with here are from article sections, not merely from anything mentioned within an article. If an article section is appropriate for that topic and there is sufficient verifiable encyclopedic information such that its size would make it unwieldy to remain within that article, then it is spun out (and if the spin out is then opposed, it is merged back, not simply deleted). It also helps that it's fairly standard to list notable works that are about an article's topic, such that it requires no special pleading to also do so here (or within the Krakatoa article). Particularly since, had anyone !voting "delete" bothered to look, there are even multiple reliable sources that list or discuss such works about Krakatoa together.[9],[10],[11] As for your last comment about preferring categories, it's contrary to WP:CLN in addition to being irrelevant here, though it's nice of you to express your view so clearly far outside of consensus regarding what lists you feel are not "appropriate", as that helps to contextualize the rest of your comments. postdlf (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Merbabu's rationale. Deor (talk) 22:19, 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 keep. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shina Rambo

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

The article lacked objectivity and was biased in favor of the person before I modified it*Lack of reputable sources available for article*Article is on subject not significant enough for Wikipedia Egret Of Regret (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appear to be several potential sources via a Google search. Definitely agree with removing the interview that was previously there, as that seemed like blatant WP:COPYVIO material, but would support keeping, stubifying, and such. Suspect that given the nature of the subject, sourcing from unquestionably reliable sources may be somewhat difficult, but I tend to extend a bit more flexibility in cases such as this (where traditionally reliable sourcing might be more difficult to find not because of lack of notability but because of lack of a stable media in the region at issue). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like he has received more coverage than a run-of-the-mill thief, [12][13][14]. There may be more paywalled coverage on Google News too. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Ginsengbomb. Has enough sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep We aren't running out of bits and you deletionists are nuts. If the article lacks objectivity, fix it.--stufff (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The discussion was apparently about [15]], not about the present minute stub left before COPY-VIO material was removed. The problem with the article is that after the deletion of that virtally nothing is left. Can some one create a reasonable text by summarising the content of the externally-lined source? In that way there will be something whose merits can be discussed; at present there is none. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant, but COPYVIO material was not present in the article when this discussion began. It was in its current stub state when the AfD commenced, per nominator's comments and my own. Definitely agree that the article needs to be improved, but that's not a relevant consideration here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard T Griffiths

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

Orphaned article which does not meet WP:BIO, provided sources are either primary ones (books authored by this person) or mention him only in passing. Lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Deprod'd and tagged for months with reference concerns without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator forgot to mention that this is the product of a Single-Purpose Account. The footnotes seem to indicate creation either by the subject or someone extremely close to him. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness at this time. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I agree with the nominator that there are significant problems with the article, the subject does appear to meet inclusion criteria - most notably WP:PROF #5 as Professor of Social and Economic History at Leiden University ([16]) and #4 as his works are cited as textbooks at Queen's University Belfast ([17]) and, via the Europaeum, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne and University of Oxford ([18]) . Therefore we need to improve the article, not delete it. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced this topic rises to the levels described in WP:PROF. The title of "Professor" is not sufficient to meet WP:PROF #5 and there is no indication on the bio page at Leiden University that he holds a named chair as described in #5. The Queen's University list is a further reading list among several other books, not a textbook citation. The Sorbonne and Oxford link is not really clear what Griffith's contribution here is. Is this a seminar he taught there? Acknowledging students from his class? And we are still missing the kind of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources demanded by WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --The subject would appear to be notable, but I agree that it is a horrible article, and quite possibly autobiography. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are given to establish notability of this historian, however, this page needs a huge clean up. Tinton5 (talk) 03:09, 31 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 Windows Server 8. There is clear consensus the a separate article isn't warranted and per WP:ATD merging is the better option. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ReFS

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

Based entirely on published rumors with scant details. References aren't even agreed on the name. Might be notable once sufficient information is available to produce a reasonable article but today it's WP:CRYSTAL BALL gazing. Contested prod with no improvement since then. RadioFan (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. Not enough sources. Drjames1 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL based purely on rumors. Notability requires reliable sources. This isn't even close. If this filesystem does get released, it's the sort of thing that will instantly get covered (thanks to Microsoft's helpful PR folks) by lots of reliable sources. When that happens, we can (and I'm sure, will) have the article. But this is WP:TOOSOON. Msnicki (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Windows Server 8. I think this is worth one sentence as "Pre-beta builds included a new version of NTFS" or something.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Windows Server 8#New file system. The Mary-Jo Foley article would probably pass as a reliable source. No need to have separate articles on all new features (yet). —Ruud 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Windows 8 or Features new to Windows 8. We've seen it in Windows 8, not Server, and the Server-only rumor is unverifiable. As for the name, ~~Protogon is reliable because we've actually seen it in builds.~~ - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, we have no knowledge of either Windows 8 or Windows 8 Server having it. Protogon? I never saw Protogon in any screenshots besides really really early ones, only that it was mentioned in the text besides them. I would still merge it to Windows Server 8 because that's where it is important, but I would support merging to both Windows 8 and Windows Server 8 if I'm convinced that "server-only" is not verifiable.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, the new name is also backed up by screenshots. Our source for it being server-only is WinRumors. We normally reject information from rumor sites. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:37, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spamusement!

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

Non-notable. Previously deleted and recreated, but still not notable: links are the official site, one review from an anyone-can edit site and a two-dozen word directory entry. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The webcomic has been the subject of newspaper and magazine articles. It was described in T. Campbell's book, The History of WebComics: The Golden Age: 1993–2005. Notable enough for me. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I added nine references to what was a completely unreferenced article. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was going to go with "keep" after 9 references were added, but looking at the nine references in the article to see whether they meet our notability standard of multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources, I see that the references come up far short:

1. "Web Life" is only 3 sentences on this topic. That is not significant coverage.

2. "Strip down and enjoy a good funny page or graphic novel" is only a single sentence on this topic. That is not significant coverage.

3. "The History of WebComics" seemed promising but it is a small press book that has no index or page numbers (!?) and after way too much time going through this mess all I can find are about 6 rambling sentences on this topic. That is not significant coverage (and this book is so bad I don't think it's even a reliable source).

4. "For Your Spamusement" I can't find anything other than a google preview of this[19], so I'll leave it to others to provide details on why they may believe this is significant coverage. However, we need multiple examples of significant coverage, and I haven't found any.

5. "Webcomics! Taking the 'paper' out of the funny papers" is five sentences in a monthly student publication.

6."Online Diary: Art From Junk (Mail)" is a brief 11 sentences. The actual title of this is "Online Diary" and "Art From Junk (Mail)" is one of three sub heads -- don't be confused (as I initially was) into thinking that this topic was in the headline of the article.

7. "Spam's role as muse" is again not the headline of this, the actual headline is "Site seeing," so don't be fooled into thinking this topic is in the headline of an article. This is only 4 sentences, and it's just an edited version of #5, so don't be confused and think these are two different sources. Compare "Deleting spam is a nuisance, but to Steven Frank, the inevitable daily chore doubles as a muse. He draws on the subject lines -- literally." from #5 to this source's "Deleting spam is a pain, but to software developer Steven Frank of Portland, Ore., the inevitable daily chore doubles as a muse. He draws on the subject lines – literally ..." These are the same source. I'm not sure why they are both listed.

8. "Email Tyranny, HP's Q2, Outlook Tips, and more..." is 3 sentences. One of those sentences is one word.

9. "Spam-Based Webcomic" is only a 5 sentence blog post.

So, looking at the available sources, I only see one that is over a half dozen sentences, and it is only 11 sentences. This means we have trivial coverage but we do not have the detailed significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required to meet our notability standard. I considered Steven Frank (developer) as a potential merge target, but that article looks even more problematic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call 11 sentences "brief" in referring to "Online Diary: Art From Junk (Mail)", the article in The New York Times? That much coverage is significant, as is the How magazine article called "For Your Spamusement". Two significant sources satisfies WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is called a brief because it is short. It looks like it is under 250 words; brief writing is generally under 300 words. 2) Have you read the How piece? If so, can you, as I asked above, provide more detail on the contents and an explanation of why you believe it provides significant coverage? Simply linking to a three sentences in a google search preview does not show any significance to this source. 3) At least we can agree that the other 7 references do not meet our notability standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT 11-sentence section is significant coverage in that it focuses on Spamusement alone. The How magazine piece also focuses on Spamusement alone, and it covers the page. That piece includes a Spamusement drawing: Stop the pain indefinitely. It discusses the hardware and software used by Frank: a Wacom tablet and Photoshop Elements. So to sum up, we have the significant NYT piece and the significant How piece; both national sources. WP:GNG is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that brief is not significant coverage. And no, you have not provided any information that would show that "For Your Spamusement" is significant coverage either. The way you have cited that source (providing no publication month, providing no author name, and listing a range of three different issue numbers?!), along with the way you have similarly mischaracterized and misused several other citations, makes me strongly doubt your ability to assess these sources. I'm not even sure you are actually looking at them. For example, what passage from "The History of WebComics" (you got the title wrong, by the way) are you using as a source? Rangoondispenser (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no page numbers in the Campbell book The History of Webcomics (no, really!), but one whole page is devoted to Spamusement, including one of Steven Frank's cartoons: "Too many decisions". Regarding the section of The New York Times article called "Online Diary", the section titled "Art From Junk (Mail)", you and I clearly have different ideas about what is significant. The NYT piece is about 1300 characters of text exclusive to Spamusement. By itself, that is significant. Add to that the fact that the piece was syndicated nationally, appearing in total or in modified form in other papers such as The San Diego Union-Tribune (which you removed), The Toledo Blade, and the The Detroit Free Press. The syndication increases the coverage beyond the NYT which is already adequate alone. In February 2005, The Times Herald featured Spamusement as their "Wacky Web site of the Week", saying that Spamusement had a kind of "Far Side style of humor". I have added another source from PC Magazine, an article dedicated to Spamusement and a similar web site called Innocent Spam. So to sum up again, we have enough good sources to satisfy GNG. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet is wildly misrepresenting these sources. I'm not sure why. I found the cartoon Binksternet is referring to on page 107 of that book. That is not "one whole page devoted to Spamusement;" There's maybe two sentences about this topic there. Half the page is instead about Jeph Jacques. If any other editor wants to see what this page really looks like, let me know. Rangoondispenser (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoondispenser, by your actions I must assume you are a member of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. <g> Continuing with establishing notability: I added a PC Magazine piece called "Turning Spam Into Entertainment" which devotes half of the focus to Spamusement. The webcomics book, the NYT article, the How magazine piece, the PC Mag piece, a shout out on Wired... these are not insignificant in their coverage, and satisfy WP:GNG. On the original research side, I have never seen such a heavy amount of archiving on the Wayback Machine as there is for Spamusement in late 2004 and all of 2005. Wow! If we were to look Alexa ratings from 2005 Spamusement would be off the hook. Unfortunately, the current ratings are very low, but on Wikipedia, notability is not lost once it's established. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added a paragraph about some repeating characters in the cartoon, including one character that inspired a humorous song by Worm Quartet, the song featured on the Dr. Demento radio show. The paragraph has various supporting references. I also uploaded a non-free image of the same cartoon which inspired the song. Binksternet (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Rangoondispenser is right that some of the sources are weak, I think Binkersternet has shown enough coverage to demonstrate notability - NYT, PC Mag etc.--Kubigula (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough material has been added to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love at the Bottom of the Sea

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

contested prod. Unreleased album, all listed references are press release reprints. Checked a handful of random google hits, they were also all Pr reprints. Fails WP:NALBUM Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 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) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50/50 on this. The album will certainly be relevant upon it's release as reviews and articles will post worldwide. Since magnetic Fields the band is absolutely relevant, I guess let it stay with updates upon release. (Marc61 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep — According to WP:HAMMER, since it's a decently major band, and it has a confirmed track listing and title, it's a keep. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least Incubate. Album by notable band released in about 9 weeks that will get plenty of coverage nearer to its release. For now, moving to the article incubator and leaving a redirect to the band's article might be favourite. --Michig (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New studio album by significant band(reason #1) confirmed to be released(#2) by two significant indie labels(#3) in only 9 weeks' time (not long in record industry) with track listing and other details(#4), confirmed by three external, reliable sources(#5)? Super-strong keep. tomasz. 18:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the keep votes are not following the very clear WP:NALBUM policy. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article, the rules about track listing etc, are only that a page cannot be written before such information is available, not that it is sufficient. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM is not a policy and there are no 'rules' about tracklistings. WP:NALBUM is a guideline, and guidelines reflect consensus, they do not override them, and there is a clear consensus forming here that this should not be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 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 delete. The keep votes do not sway the discussion.The existance of an IMDB pages does not fufill the GNG. Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Abbott (director)

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

Unremarkable director. Declined speedy. This should probably be a semi-protected redirect to the other director of the same name. Would someone mind blocking the latest socks involved with this article (User:Abdulazizs , User:Knowonelikeme, User:Authorland , and User:Nobelone)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's fairly difficult searching, but one thing I can say for certain: the film festival award doesn't seem to be notable, as every official page for Heart of England FF is either years out of date or gone from the internet entirely. Since that's the only big claim she has, I'm thinking that this is going to be a delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I did a search and unless this is the wrong Las Vegas film festival, I don't see where her film won an award for the year of 2009 [20] In any case, none of the awards seem especially notable for the most part and there's zero coverage of her out there. (Although there's plenty for the other Jennifer Abbott.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are provided to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there is confusion since there are two directors with this name, but this one does exist though not famous as other, but I referenced and cited the correct data found- heres the last film on imdb (trailer) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258812/combined, thanks abdul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulazizs (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Abdulazizs (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with a lot of the sources is that they aren't considered to be reliable sources that show notability. IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source because anyone can add and edit it. For example, I could edit Iron Man and say that Robert Downey Jr ate 5,000 Big Macs while filming the movie. Besides, here's my problem with the sources in the article:

This source doesn't actually go to a real page and just seems to prove that the director exists by going to a copyright page. Doesn't prove notability.
This is a link to one of the film companies she runs. Since it is put out by her, it cannot be used as a source at all unless you have reliable secondary sources backing up the claims in the site.
This is another link to the copyright page that merely shows the movie exists. Existing does not give the movie (or by extension the director) notability.
This is a link to IMDb. As said above, IMDb does not show notability.
This is a link to a photobucket image. That is not usable as a reliable source.
Another copyright link. Just proves it exists, doesn't show notability.
This is a link to the director interviewing Ron Jeremy. This does not show that she is notable. It just shows that she interviewed Ron Jeremy while making the film. Notability is not inherited by her interviewing him. There are many journalists who have interviewed former Presidents, Emperors, and business moguls, but that didn't give them notability either.
Another IMDb link, can't be used as a reliable source.
Another photobucket image, can't be used as a reliable source. Again, notability is not inherited by her being affiliated with or directing a film starring notable people.
Another link to a copyright page.
Another link to an IMDb page.
Linking to the page stating she won an award is good, but now you have to prove that the award is actually notable. Not every film festival award is notable. Unfortunately this looks like it is a very small film festival and not something that would be considered notable as far as awards go, especially since it's only been running since 2009. The Swansea one is good but there's no proof outside of the director's various websites and postings.

So basically the only semi-reliable source you have is a link to an award for a small film festival of dubious notability. I've removed all but the last one since that's the only one that is remotely usable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Is this real? She claims to be producing a movie with these various famous actors. I don't think this film [21] is really going to have any real actors in it. This seems like a hoax. The IMDB entry [22] for her was submitted by someone, who has never submitted anything but that one entry. Dream Focus 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that she's made these films, but they're just not notable and there's absolutely no reliable sources out there about her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

That film was eventually made, but did not have any of the famous actors mentioned in it. If anyone has an IMDB account, you might want to go and erase the false information. Dream Focus 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, the "United States Copyright Office" as a reference, especially in a biography, is a blinking red light that says "there are serious notablity problems here". RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 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 Deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) under CSD G11. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master Instruments

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

No reliable sources; can't find any Kgeee65 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article with no RS to establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plain WP:ADVERT LibStar (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is an advertisement. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 16:56, 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. Michig (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwood Kent Lordship of The Manor

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

I found no sources for this title. At first I thought that it referred to Saltwood Castle, but there is no mention of King Cnut and David Charles Deal. SL93 (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is not inherently notable, for reasons explained in the WP article on the subject. So an article could only be justified under WP:GNG, a highly exceptional circumstance and not one that applies here so far as I can determine. The article is, I might add, somewhat misleading in its reference to the deed of 1036, which appears to merely be a transfer of the ownership on the manor to the church and is quite different from the grant of title in relation to a hereditary peerage. --AJHingston (talk) 14:38, 22 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) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article was created by User:Lord Saltwood, who has done nothing else on WP than write a single line. The creator is likely to be a person who has bought the lordship of the manor, which is an empty tite and does not confer the right on the owner to call himslef "Lord Foo". If the article had any substanive content, I might have suggsted merging with Saltwood or possibly Saltwood Castle, but it does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to recreation if backed up by reliable sources. This could be anything from a real title of nobility to a made-up vanity title. Speaking as someone who use to deal with this sort of thing at work, I can tell you that the lengths that both buyers and sellers of titles go to in order to justify the latter kind quite astonishing. My experience is that titles trade is a nasty piece of vanity business that preys of people's insecurities with promises of importance and self-worth, and I am strongly of the opinion that NO-ONE should feed this business. Yes, there might be more to this that a fabricated title, but until we get evidence to the contrary, this should be deleted as unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that theme, I am not convinced that the mere existence of reliable sources would be enough. Even in the medieval period lords of the manor were only of local importance and not separable from the manor in question. I would want to see real assertion of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, for example because the administration of a particular manor had been the subject of a detailed academic study. To use an analogy, we do not have articles about mayoralties except in the case of the most important cities and towns, yet there is no dispute that they exist. If there is anything interesting to say on the subject they would be covered under the place to which they belonged, properly sourced. --AJHingston (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of the descent of the manor might be an appropriate addition to Saltwood or (if it was the manor house) Saltwood Castle. Certainly not a stand-alone article. (voted above). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if there is a reliable source it might merit a sentence in the Saltwood article, but no indication that this is notable enough to merit a WP article. PamD 18:04, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awni Al-Otoom

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

While this person certainly exists, I cannot myself find sufficient indicia of notability for his academic career (assistant professor) or more recent career as an inspector. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Article created by user "Awniotoom", suggesting a possible autobiography. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astute observation. Furthermore, the creator is an SPA.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 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) 10:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 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) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources provided do not establish notability, and a Google search turned up nothing promising. Looks like self promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:56, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starwolf (Edmond Hamilton)

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

Fails WP:BOOK. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd love to be able to keep this up on the mainspace but I just can't find anything to show that this is notable. Just to note, if this is deleted then we need to change the info about this on the Starwolf disambiguation page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Undecided. It did spawn Star Wolf (TV series) and two feature films. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to undecided/weak keep. That it spawned that many versions of the series does show that it passes WP:NBOOK, although the article is in dire need of sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 15 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) 10:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Edmond Hamilton as a section for a while, then bring it back as a book trilogy. Article or section, it needs considerable expansion; it's been too long since I've read it for me to help. htom (talk) 17:47, 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, BusterD (talk) 13:49, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Sánchez Rull

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

Non notable. Tagged since May. Created by SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no article on this subject on Spanish Wikipedia. asnac (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a good number of notes regarding activities he's taken part in, mainly government-sponsored, for example [23], but they are mostly press releases with little to no modification to the original text. The reference used in the article is a copy of this note, which is a reliable source. It talks about a particular exposition, and Sánchez Rull is quoted at two points giving his opinion on the importance of drawings in culture, and here he gets a very passing mention regarding another exposition. This two articles [24] [25] do talk about his work, but again surrounding a particular event. I wasn't able to find one item that simply discussed Sánchez Rull or his work, and the only results from GBooks are a couple of gallery listings. Finally, he took part with a large number of artists in a project for the bicentennial [26], and he is sorted under Young trajectory, which I think pretty much reflects what the other sources show — Frankie (talk) 00:34, 16 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) 09:55, 22 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) 13:48, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Marakou

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

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability of this poet and translator. Tagged for notability for over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is going to be hard for non-readers of White Russian (is that 'Belarussian' with two 's'es?), and I suspect most material will be on paper, and Samizdat at that. However, I have added a book on Marakou to the Bibliography, so there is a decent printed source, as well as a list of 7 of Marakou's own works - 6 books of poetry, and one of collected writings. Other sources: BelarusDigest (bit bloggy). There is no doubt of Marakou's existence, nor of his poetry; I guess the website and book together establish that he was persecuted and reprieved. We need a Belarus(s)ian reader really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source provides further confirmation of the subject's execution, and these Google Scholar hits appear, from the snippets provided, to include some substantive coverage (I can read Russian, but don't have access to the full text of those sources). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we have enough evidence of notability now; the books can be studied by our Russian speakers in "slower time", but it seems clear we have a worthy poet well noted in Belarus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 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) 09:43, 22 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) 13:48, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Tour

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

Non-notable concert tour. –anemone projectors– 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not notable, yet. However, I will begin it making notable. I will begin this as soon as possible. --ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍº ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 13:58, 16 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) 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any notable content can be included in the individual's page. Not every concert tour is notable. Moreover, the article is just a listing of concert dates right now. We're not an almanac. Shadowjams (talk) 04:06, 23 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) 13:47, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Happens Like That

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

Not notable (?) novel, PROD was two times removed, the second time with adding shop links. "The book has sold more than 7000 copies and still continues to do so." - seems not notable for me. Through the generic book title I couldn't find any press coverage. mabdul 15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references make this notable, they just show that it exists. No independent reviews. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:12, 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) 09:25, 22 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) 13:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he's gotten quite a few blog reviews, none of them are notable enough to count as reliable sources that would enable this to pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 29 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 delete. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infosurv Concept Exchange

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User talk:71.56.36.153. On the merits, I have no comment. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment, from the article's talk page, reads thus:

This article was written by owner of said company and is essentially link spam and an advertising piece, unless it can ever be rewritten as NPOV. I'm not even sure it's notable enough otherwise. The deletion discussion for their other page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infosurv ended this way too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.36.153 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sales brochure for a business to business service of some kind; its actual operation is unsurprisingly not explained, only how it can help you make money fast on the Internet. "References" are to unpublished or self-published sources, and to patent applications and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 15 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) 09:20, 22 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) 13:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure marketing with zero encyclopedic value. No third-party references to establish notability, and a Google search turned up nothing promising. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Promotional article. The usable sources are from the organisation itself.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:56, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QualityMetric Incorporated

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

no indication of notability. Sources given are either not independent or not mentioning the company. noq (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another health outcomes measurement company advertising on Wikipedia. Reads like PR, vague and self-important; not written as an encyclopedia article. Description of their actual activities is vague and misleading, but this business apparently surveys medical patients about their conditions.[27] The general concept may be worth an article, but not individual firms. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a bunch of company profiles and press releases, but that does not show any notability. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 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. The discussion referred to in the "keep" opinion has not resulted in a "keep" consensus, so that argument appears to be moot. Sandstein 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Kültürpark Cup

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

This is a small $25000 ITF tournament, so doesn't meet the tournament notability guidelines used by Wikiproject Tennis, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines.

I am also nominating the following related pages because [content forks of the main article]:

2011 Kültürpark Cup – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 13:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These tournaments are subject to a discussion and therefore we should await the consensus reached there. (Gabinho^>:) 22:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - agreed. A tiny ITF tourney that is not notable as decided by consensus long ago. It takes a long time to get to all the non-notable articles in wikipedia but we have finally got to this one. No real discussion is taking place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#notability. Consensus was made before and not likely to change. Bgwhite (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a contested ProD. Just one of the 40+ such articles I prodded recently. Clearly fails NTENNIS guidelines. I am willing to change my mind if anybody can bring independent reliable 3rd party sources that show this event qualifies via WP:GNG. The mentioned discussion on WP:TENNIS is one I have started to address the problem of these sprawling $25k ITF tournament articles (which always come with two content forks for the singles and doubles draws). There is no discussion about changing the guidelines, so it is not a reason to wait and keep these articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:03, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:TENNIS guidelines for inclusion of ITF events. Krakatoa Katie 09:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis

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

This is a small $25000 ITF tournament, so doesn't meet the tournament notability guidelines used by Wikiproject Tennis, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines.

I am also nominating the following related pages because [content forks of the main article]:

2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 12:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. A tiny ITF tourney that is not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the $35,000 threshold in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a contested ProD. Just one of the 40+ such articles I prodded recently. Clearly fails NTENNIS guidelines. I am willing to change my mind if anybody can bring independent reliable 3rd party sources that show this event qualifies via WP:GNG. The mentioned discussion on WP:TENNIS is one I have started to address the problem of these sprawling $25k ITF tournament articles (which always come with two content forks for the singles and doubles draws). There is no discussion about changing the guidelines, so it is not a reason to wait and keep these articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:04, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press for Peace

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been through AfD and deleted several other times, but I think it has changed enough to not be a G4. However, there's still no evidence that it's actually a notable organization. GHits are mostly social media or primary sources and I'm unable to find evidence of its notability or even information on what it does that would be considered notable. StarM 04:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does little to establish notability and there are not enough reliable sources to do so either. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:24, 31 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. Guerillero | My Talk 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Enka Cup

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

This is a small $25000 ITF tournament, so doesn't meet the tournament notability guidelines used by Wikiproject Tennis, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines.

I am also nominating the following related pages because [content forks of the main article]:

2011 Enka Cup – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. A tiny ITF tourney that is not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a contested ProD. Just one of the 40+ such articles I prodded recently. Clearly fails NTENNIS guidelines. I am willing to change my mind if anybody can bring independent reliable 3rd party sources that show this event qualifies via WP:GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:06, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 23:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Enterprises

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

Non-notable consulting firm in Toledo. —Chowbok ☠ 06:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the organization lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:57, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valdis & Miracue

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

Zero refs. No gnews hits. No gbooks hits. Contains "rumors". Tagged for absences of refs and for being an orphan well over 2 years ago. Created by an SPA. Yeesh. Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this article, a Facebook reprint of this article, and a book reprint of this article. No sources. No notability. SL93 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:Sources - there aren't any. WP:CORPDEPTH not established beyond local area. Mariepr (talk) 15:38, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Racing Product Supplies

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

Zero refs. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Tagged for zero refs for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In searches, I only found this article and Facebook. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, no coverage in reliable third party source and extremely limited coverage in first party sources. This article fails to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:59, 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 as a copyright infringement of http://www.finmeccanicausa.com/About/S_Bemporad.aspx The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bemporad

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:BASIC so far as I can tell - none of the references that are still available provide significant coverage of the subject and from the titles it seems unlikely that the others do either. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 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) 08:54, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Good catch. Appears to be a straight cut-&-paste job of his company bio from his company webpage here. I've flagged it for speedy deletion on coypvio and promo grounds. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:08, 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 redirect to Institute of technology#South Africa. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technikon

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

Redundant; duplicates existing topic NereusAJ (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC) To elaborate further, the South Africa section of the Institute of technology article already covers this topic and does so more thoroughly and considerably better than does this page. NereusAJ (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Technikon to Institute_of_technology#South_Africa--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institute_of_technology#South_Africa. This stub article duplicates an existing article which contains quite a bit more information. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:01, 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. L Faraone 23:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Saleem

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

Appears non-notable. Tagged for over 2 years. Created by 1-edit-ever-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 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) 09:57, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. On top of that, the article is poorly written. I went in and removed a large amount of promotional spam. The article is still full of uncited statements in an article on a biography of a living person. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An American, Briton, Canadian or Australian with the same biography would be a no-brainer keep (pro race-car driver and a TV host). The article certainly needs improvement, but a delete would be a clear example of systemic bias. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary. An American, Briton, Canadian or Australian with the same biography -- similarly lacking substantial RS coverage -- would be a delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone search for that in whatever language they speak in Pakistan? If he had the most profitable show in that entire nation, thus I assume the most popular, then obviously he is notable for that. Surely a lot of coverage about such a person would exist, if the information in the article is real. Dream Focus 00:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that would be Pubjabi language, Sindhi language, Balochi language, or dozens of others. English is widely used in the media however.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as is the sources do not point to what they claim to cite, not even mentioning the name of the subject in the ones I checked, YouTube is a poor source. No prejudice to change to keep if any sources come out from the media stating he is a professional racecar drive, does exist, and his name is Omar Saleem, then I would say Keep even if only one or two sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:27, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High fibre composting

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

Zero gnews hits. Zero refs in article. Tagged for notability for well over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it wasn't developed by a university, I would suggest G11. It seems to be trying to give advice "CAT provides a detailed factsheet... for home gardeners." No indication of mentions outside of the wikipedia article. maybe it could get a mention in the main composting article. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 07:16, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The composting of paper and cardboard is a notable topic. See here for example. Warden (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, if you read the article it's about a specific technique invented in Wales not the general topic of paper composting.. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete could not find any sources on the specific technique referred to in this article. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Gleffe

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

This article is about one of the many hundreds of people that participated in rescuing youth from Utøya during 22/7, which he was awarded the Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. He was also awarded "Årets Nordmann 2011" (Norwegian of the year) by the magazine Ny Tid, but in my opinion neither makes him notable for an article at wikipedia. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator fails to mention the German awards. On the face of it Marcel Gleffe satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and I think that the grounds for challenge could only be that none of the awards are significant, or that he played only an incidental part in one event. I might be persuaded on that, but only by Norwegian and German residents with intimate knowledge of the media coverage and the significance of the awards in question. I understand that he has an entry in both the Norwegian and German WPs though, so it points to a clear keep. --AJHingston (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the tip. Fixed it so that the German award also is mentioned. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is one of 10 nominees for Dagbladet's "Norwegian of the Year" award, [28]. And he is the only nominee who is currently on the main page, of the Dagbladet website [29]. "... it points to a clear keep", said AJHingston — and I concur. (Somewhat interestingly, the Norwegian wikipedia article has failed to be nominated by the allegedly Norwegian nominator — or anyone else. Good to know that our wikipedia is more important to Norwegians, than Wikipedia in Norwegian.) One of the arguments for keep, in the now closed discussion [30] on German wikipedia, was that it would be inappropriate to keep the article about Anders Behring Breivik, while deleting the article about Gleffe.--Riambrid (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a sockpuppet of a prolific IP editor, who is blocked, on the Marcel Gleffe article. The edit to this AFD is Riambrid's fourth overall edit. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sock, so Riambrid is blocked and comment struck. Geschichte (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though there may be other concerns, I don't think notability should be in question, given the extent and nature of worldwide media coverage that he got. I have listed some more sources on the article's talk page. Being named "Norwegian of the year", though he is a German national, also makes him quite notable. In addition, he received the Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. This is two levels up from the ordinary medal, so it's not something you get free with a packet of cornflakes. He also received a number of lesser awards.--Boson (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I refrained from voting initially in order to allow some opportunity for the nominator or others to explain further in the light of the WP guidelines why the article should not be kept, but in the absence of that this has to be a clear keep. Mr Gleffe plainly meets WP:GNG, and although it can be argued that his presence close to the scene of the shootings initially was mere chance and others acted in a similar way, his actions on the day have been picked out internationally as exceptional. When judging notability Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether other people better deserved to be US president, have a music hit, make a sports team, etc, it records those who did make it. And Marcel Gleffe has attained the ranks of those who have become notable through showing exceptional courage in the service of others. --AJHingston (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marcel Gleffe was one of many, maybe hundreds, people saving youth in boats on 22/7. But because he is a German, he received the Order of Merit, (which is given to 3000 and 5000 Germans every year). Ny Tid is a magazine with very few readers on the left side of the political specter, and the person who receive their award "Norwegian of the year" is usually not very known in Norway, (last years winner Maria Amelie got known after the award, when the police realized that she wasn't allowed to be in Norway) and this year Marcel Gleffe was one of three non-notable people that received the award. But the coverage after 22/7 have been huge in Norway, and it might be that Marcel Gleffe is notable through WP:GNG, but that would make a lot of the other minor actors in the 2011 Norway attacks notable (This should be reverted). I read a lot of newspaper in Norway, and when my first "meeting" with a guy is an article on wikipedia, then it's a clear delete for me, especially when a blocked user have made the article and another blocked user is the main contributor. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:21, 27 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) 12:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: If somebody is trying to say that national newspapers in Norway were not writing about Gleffe, before the wikipedia articles were made, then that somebody is wrong. (This artile in the Guardian about Gleffe, already on July 24 was referring to Dagbladet's article about Gleffe..

"3000 and 5000 Germans every year" getting the Officer's Cross (or higher), is nowhere near correct (so please stop using numbers that include recipients of the lower "rungs" of the award). Do you have a relevant number — such as how many received the Officers Cross (and above) in 2011.

The guy was the first on the scene, he saw the perpetrator, his boat was shot at, later he was not invited to the ceremony in Oslo Spektrum for the rescuers because authorities "could not find his address".

But maybe we should delete this article, and replace it with an article about stars and starlets from Norwegian reality TV.--Aksstar (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The edit to this AFD is Aksstar's seventh overall edit. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The award ceremonies for the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany May to December 2011 are listed here]. The number of awards for the Officer's Cross (Verdienstkreuz 1. Klasse) were:

May: 25
June: 2
July: 1
August: 4
September: 11
October: 15 (including Gleffe)
November: 6
December: 13

--Boson (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National award, many news stories in multiple languages. Meets the GNG. The Steve 06:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This link [31] explores my claims of non-disruptive edits vs. sockpuppetry issues related to myself.--Aksstar (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thesteve & AJHingston.°°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 07:14, 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 delete. Tone 22:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the Jupiler Pro League 2010–11

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and orphaned article Cloudz 679 12:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent article should be created instead. Giant Snowman 09:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with GiantSnowman. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:34, 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 delete. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the Greek Superleague 2010–11

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and article with only one incoming link from article space Cloudz 679 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent article should be created instead. Giant Snowman 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of foreign football players in Super League Greece. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Same actually applies to List of foreign football players in Super League Greece. – Kosm1 fent 08:23, 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. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the Swiss Super League 2010–11

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and orphaned article Cloudz 679 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent article should be created instead. Giant Snowman 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with GiantSnowman. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:36, 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 delete. Tone 22:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the Ukrainian Premier League 2010–11

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

Delete as unreferenced article based on original research Cloudz 679 11:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - parent article exists, no need for this in my eyes. Giant Snowman 09:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of foreign Ukrainian Premier League players. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:38, 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 delete. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the 2009–10 Nemzeti Bajnokság I

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

Delete as unreferenced article based on original research Cloudz 679 11:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent article should be created instead. Giant Snowman 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with GiantSnowman. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:40, 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 delete. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in Allsvenskan 2009

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and orphaned article Cloudz 679 11:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - parent article exists, no need for this in my eyes. Giant Snowman 09:41, 31 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. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in Liga I 2009–10

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

Delete as unreferenced derived from original research Cloudz 679 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - parent article exists, no need for this in my eyes. Giant Snowman 09:42, 31 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. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in Liga I 2007–2008

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and orphaned article Cloudz 679 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - parent article exists, no need for this in my eyes. Giant Snowman 09:42, 31 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. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the Moldovan National Division 2011–12

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and orphaned article Cloudz 679 11:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent article should be created instead. Giant Snowman 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with GiantSnowman. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:41, 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 delete. Tone 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in the Eredivisie 2010–11

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

Delete as unreferenced, original research and orphaned article despite having existed nearly a whole calendar year Cloudz 679 11:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent article should be created instead. Giant Snowman 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of foreign football players in the Netherlands. Mentoz86 (talk) 00:42, 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 delete. Tone 22:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Bathurst

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

Non-notable shopping centre with no availability of reliable sources to prove otherwise. [32] [33] [34] Till I Go Home (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major shopping centre in large regional centre, plenty of reliable sources available should someone choose to expand. Rebecca (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. This isn't a major shopping centre, it's a local shopping mall with 45 stores. I have already pointed out with the links above that the centre has no reliable sources available — did you even read my rationale for deletion? Till I Go Home (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Seems just a vote. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent coverage in independent sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources are included in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Sturgess

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

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

Kylie Sturgess has been an author of some blog articles and journal articles but has not been the subject of any published articles...therefore does not fill the criteria of "notable".

This was nominated incompletely by User:Sydney59. I hope I have now got the nomination correct. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to fix this nomination as this article was on my watch list. At this stage I merely note that this nomination is the sum total of the contributions by User:Sydney59. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable. I'm a bit suspicious of someone whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion.Sgerbic (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Silly nomination. Check User:Sidney59's contributions. No, check how many sources are on Kylie Strugess's page. Tinton5 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether this is my first or 100th post is irrelevant to this discussion. The notability of the person is the focus. The number of sources in the article is also irrelevant as none of the sources quoted in this article are "about" Kylie Sturgess. ..."the person is notable if they are the subject of multiple published secondary sources". If Wikipedia is simply going to become a homepage for anyone who has a blog or who publishes an article online then it will simply become a source for self promotion. My apologies for not nominating this deletion properly. Comment added by Sydney59 (talk)

Sydney59 has me looking at the page in more detail. I think it needs a re-write and in-line citations. I have included a few more citations that might be used to improve the page. I don't have the time right now to review all of the citations and get the page up to par. But I have left the citations on the Talk page for another editor to follow. Sgerbic (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These citations do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability either. The issue here is whether there are any published secondary sources about this person...let alone multiple published secondary sources that are "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." None of these citations demonstrate notability.

Comment added by Sydney59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 5 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relaxation labelling

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

This page has been an orphan since November 2006. Also, this page never cited any references. Also, the page may have been copied from this page. In addition, the user who made the article made only one contribution to Wikipedia. The possible intention of the user was to probably make this article, which there is no need. —JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page is an absolute mess but the topic seems notable from even a cursory glance at the google or scholar search results. The problem is it's a fairly obscure topic, certainly one I know nothing of, so needs some specialist attention.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a good example of a page that should be improved rather than deleted as there are a ton of hits for this in Google Books and it is a complicated topic. I stubbed the article, added some sources to further reading, and flagged it for rescue. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books results prove it is a real thing, and that it gets coverage. Most of the article was removed. [35] Someone familiar with this topic could perhaps determine what should be in it. Dream Focus 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed most of the content as a copyright violation, but that was after the Afd had started. I'd try to build it back up with the sources, but this is a bit outside my area of expertise. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nomination doesn't advance any specific rationale for deletion based upon a lack of available reliable sources to disqualify topic notability. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not they're present in articles. Copy violations were removed per User:Mark Arsten's comment above. Orphan status does not equate as a valid reason to delete. The number of edits a user made, or a single-purpose type account aren't reasons to delete. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added an academic reference to the article:

Kuner, Peter; Ueberreiter, Birgit (1988). "Pattern Recognition by Graph Matching – Combinatorial Versus Continuous Optimization". International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence (IJPRAI). pp. 527–542. Retrieved January 3, 2012. (Full text: [36])

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination, as per discussion. I agree with the fact that the page was a copyright violation, but I haven't taken into consideration of searching up this article. —JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 01:24, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SharpChess

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

This software does not seem notable. A Google search did not find any reliable secondary sources. No references are given in the article. The author has not edited anywhere else than this article, except to place "SharpChess" in various other articles. SyG (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability stated. Little coverage in other sources beyond download sites and spamming to Internet Chess forums. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

Note The author of the article made some comments on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SharpChess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 29 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) 19:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 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 keep. Much improved since the nomination Tone 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waris (drama)

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

No Reference, Tagged since March 2008 -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 08:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Television series broadcast by national networks are generally considered notable. The references here are weak, but they're enough to convince me that this series existed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few sources that happen to be in English; the web is full of copies of this hugely popular Pakistan TV video series, all 66 parts of it. Among the more obviously convincing citations the Karachi Literature Festival 2012 has "Amjad Islam Amjad has written over 40 books, many drama series for PTV ... Among his most famous dramas are Waris, ..." There is no doubt that the TV series existed, was produced by PTV, was written by Amjad, and was and remains among the most popular series ever broadcast on PTV. I think that is clearly notable. I am sure Urdu speakers will be able to add many more citations with no difficulty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have been a fairly important program in terms of its effects on Pakistani television, as stated here and here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:52, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Black Sheep

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

Non notable organization. Notability isn't inherited from bassist. Not finding independent verification. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) Delete -- I am far from sure if this is supposed to be a church or a music group. In either case it seems NN. Conceivably a short summary might be merged to Chesterfield. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The Order has been covered by nationally and internationally, gaining discussion from interested parties. http://www.mauce.nl/site/uncategorized/the-gates-the-order-of-the-black-sheep, http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/10/18/wave-spirit/, http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/11951-a-wave-of-the-spirit-fresh-expressions-of-church-taking-root-in-the-uk.html and http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=016368. It seems clear to me that a reading of the article clearly shows that the order is a "New Monastic", faith based order, commissioned as a Fresh Expression within the Church of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.169.220 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but forums, blogs and unreliable sources don't demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:50, 23 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, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:SELFPUB. Most citations are the group's own website, two are from music websites, and another requires a subscription to view the article. Mariepr (talk) 15:28, 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 keep. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyclones

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BAND. —Dark 08:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the criteria for musicians and ensembles, #7 "most prominent of a local scene or city",(Jim DeRogatis is a nationally known critic and his comments on the Cyclones can be verified. Record World was nationally recognized(ala Billboard) when their first record came out and it was recognized as a pick along with to all time bands such as Marshall Tucker etc. A search for the Cyclones "You're So Cool" will bring up numerous independent references and playlists. It can be verified that at least one record has been played on radio(as seen in the DeRogatis reference) for over 30 years. {Marc61 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc61 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note changes and added references (Marc61 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm aware that when an internet search is done for "The Cyclones" is done numerous sports teams and the weather system will come up. Try (Find sources: "The Cyclones" You're So Cool – news · books · scholar · free images) (Marc61 (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was surprised how little I found online, but I think the band would very likely have received enough coverage in its day to be considered notable. The Journal News described the band as "a moderately successful New York City band that produced a regional hit titled "You're So Cool."".[37] Singer Donna Esposito is also verging on individual notability having been part of a duo with Frank Bednash, recording as Mas Rapido! (3 albums on Parasol), Cowboy and Spingirl (who released 3 albums on Parasol/Subway in the 1990s), and Toothpaste 2000 (six albums).--Michig (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please note this update

Being that the band existed prior to the internet age (and I believe to Michig's point above), it's difficult to source online references. That said, I've updated our references and sources to show more national and international press. These are 100% solid as they are all taken from original hard copy articles that I possess. Of note , having an indie single selected by Kal Rudman on The Friday Morning Quarterback as a pick in 1981 was a HUGE deal. I've also placed the references in places where I thought they make the most sense. eg: showing evidence that top critics of the day had musch respect for the band. (Marc61 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep based on the sources listed on their page. The Steve 06:42, 31 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. Tone 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Goodwin

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete, per previous nomination. The references used are not reliable, and it is difficult to establish notability. There is no real indication of why this article is really needed. Cloudbound (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously? Just a month later for another AfD? From reviewing the 2011 googles news hits, she seems to satisfy the GNG due to coverage from multiple language news sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deadly serious. Cloudbound (talk) 13:20, 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, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 08:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As said by Morbidthoughts, there's a lot of coverage from multiple language news sources. - Cavarrone (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:36, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray (comic)

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

Under the "Marketing" section, There is none. Non-notable, admitted by the creator. →Σ τ c. 07:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE BOOKS STILL HAVEN'T BEEN PUBLISHED BUT THEY WILL BE SO PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdatcc321 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 29 December 2011‎
Delete No indication of notability. The article creator might be interested in reading wp:MADEUP for a better understanding why we can't accept the article. Yoenit (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the books haven't been published yet, there is no way for editors for fact check claims about the contents of the books, and no significant, reliable third-party sources to indicate notability. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:05, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean-nee bombs

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

Contested prod. Unremarkable cocktail. Obviously something made up one day. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am all in favor of improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable cocktails. A notable cocktail, not surprisingly for experienced editors, is one that has received significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. Google searches show that this cocktail fails that simple test. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What this article lacks in sources, it doesn't make up for in anything else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Cullen. Pilif 12p 22:49, 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. Tone 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChhagolNayanaHarini

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted page of a supposed neologism. Contested PROD. Unreferenced. No reliable sources found. Does not meet the general notability guidelines. CharlieDelta (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term does exist, but is usually termed by most non Bengalis as Kajal Nayana Harini. There exists a song by Hemanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay about it, but nothing to suggest that this was one of his particularly famous works (so as to suggest that the song or the term might be notable). The term seems largely unused in any sort of literature, and hence should be deleted as per WP:GNG. Lynch 7 08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is mostly a collection of trivial facts and the creator/major contributor's own view. The mention of Hemanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay was out of context. Not notable to have a article. trunks_ishida (talk) 16:28, 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.

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketful of Mint

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

No references or sources to establish notability of this particular travel book. Kelly ^hi! 06:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Travel books are wonderful. Folks from western countries should travel throughout the Middle East. A Palestinian man offered me and my bride a gift of mint in Jerusalem 30 years ago. Alas, Google searching reveals that this particular travel book is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be a copyright violation of the book's jacket copy. [38] At any rate, no independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that the book satisfies any of the notability criteria for books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 129001–130000#201. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

129234 Silly

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

This is a procedural nomination. The article was tagged for notability concerns by this nominator. It was immediately PROD'd, then changed to a redirect. The redirect was reverted back to the original form with no tags with the statement "notability disputes about named asteroids are SO 2008". More Wikipedia goofiness to be sure. I've attempted to find sufficient sources but concluded that this asteroid does not currently satisfy the notability recommendations listed at WP:NASTRO. Hence, my preference is a redirect. I'm posting here for discussion because of the removal of the PROD and the notability tags. If somebody wanted to write an article about the French optician and amateur astronomer Didier Silly,[39] it could be mentioned there. But I suspect he would be just as non-notable. RJH (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. "Notability disputes about named asteroids..." are referred to WP:NASTRO, which clearly says this object is utterly non-notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Made a good-faith effort to find supporting material, and came up empty handed regarding the kind of sourcing required by WP:NASTRO. AstroCog (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 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 merge to Valley of the Wolves. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of the Wolves: Karabakh

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

Filming has not started and is not expected to until some indeterminate time in 2012. Coverage has not been significant and therefore should not have a standalone article. BOVINEBOY2008 05:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Valley of the Wolves. A sub-section in the "Production history" section will be fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. No telling if the film is actually going to happen yet. But if and when filming finishes it may well be notable later. —Ed!^(talk) 00:30, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keynesian endpoint

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

The term was recently coined by PIMCO's Tony Crescenzi. The term seems to be mostly used by Crescenzi and in Crescenzi-related articles. The term does not have widespread usage or acceptance. It is a neologism. Bkwillwm (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a clever catch phrase used by an investment advisor in emails to his clients and in his non-notable books. We would need significant coverage of the phrase and the underlying concept in several independent reliable sources. I don't see that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 00:17, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Schulman

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

This isn't the subject of significant coverage by multiple independent third party sources. Sometimes he's mentioned in coverage, but in-depth coverage by multiple sources indicating some modicum of encyclopedic notability is lacking (it looks like WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). I tried looking into this subject elsewhere but haven't been able to find much at all. Lots of press releases indicating things that don't seem to pass either WP:GNG or even WP:CREATIVE, which seems to be the basis of the article as it stands. JFHJr (㊟) 01:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object to proposed deletion. Wiki asked for more notability references and those were recently provided: 1) being named as the first Executive in Residence at the University of the Pacific, in the school's 160-year history. This is referenced by an article from the university itself. 2) being elected to the board of trustees of the Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, part of the Direct Marketing Association, the large marketing association in the nation

In addition, Rand: 3) is one of the first practitioners of SaaS-based web analytics, having founded Keylime Software, as referenced in the third-party article 4) is one of the founding members of the Web Analytics Association, the most influential web analytics organization in the country, as referenced by the history section of the group's web site 5) was named one of the top 100 B2B marketers by BtoB Magazine, as referenced by the magazine itself

All the references above come from independent, third-party articles. I believe these accomplishments, including his founding role in creation of the web analytics industry, along with his executive leadership at emerging technology companies, warrant keeping this profile. Please tell us if there are any other specific changes need. Thank you. Erikbratt (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 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, –MuZemike 22:28, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even with the sources added by Erikbratt above, still falls far short of the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 20:46, 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. While the tool looks nifty, lacks suitable coverage. L Faraone 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Es shell

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, as it applies to products. Googling suggests the sources simply don't exist. While the term "ES shell" does turn up in the literature, it's usually a reference to an "expert system shell", not this software. All the sources I was able to find discussing this software were either primary or trivial. Msnicki (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This source has a one paragraph description. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 14 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, Courcelles 21:56, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not contain the references to substantial reliable third party coverage required for inclusion. Sandstein 11:41, 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Mehta

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

The article seems more geared toward providing a business profile for Mr. Mehta, but with the sources provided, I am unable to discern any notability. Moreover, notability of a company does not carry with it the notability of its chairman. Accordingly, I'm bringing it up for discussion here. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His profiles on company websites are not independent. He is briefly quoted in several stories about his company, but that doesn't make him notable. Notability is not inherited from his company. Lagrange 613 17:34, 27 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) 03:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 20:45, 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. Tone 22:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Booky Oren

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first ref (EL) is an interview, (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE), the second third and last refs are trivial mentions as a speaker for an event (WP:ROUTINE), and the fourth ref is a blog. v/r - T P 21:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotional article for a businessman with no particular notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:58, 22 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) 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little to no independent sourcing available for the subject. —Ed!^(talk) 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I believe that an interview is not a primary source if the interview is not published by the interviewee, there is no notability. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 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 keep. Tone 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uplifting Athletes

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

Non-notable charity supported by college football players. I'm sure they do good work, but that doesn't make them notable. No third party references to support notability, as required by WP:N. Does not satisfy any WP:ORG criteria either. (n.b. the "National Institute of Health Office of Rare Diseases" reference is about the disease, not this charity GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know anything about the criterion for keeping articles, and I don't really understand what constitutes notability, but Uplifting Athletes is recognized all over the country, and is mentioned in many places, including USA Today [40][41][42], the Los Angeles Times[43][44], the St. Petersburg Times [45], The New York Daily News [46], the Washington Post [47], the Philadelphia Inquirer [48], and even the Wall Street Journal [49]. If you read these, you'll see that Uplifting Athletes is no longer a Penn State operation, but rather, has events held at schools all across the country. I myself have no connection with UA, and only have learned about them in the past few months from my reading here on Wikipedia (Jerry Kill), but it seems to me we have articles on less significant things here, so we should keep this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 13:09, 16 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, Courcelles 21:30, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per research above by user HuskyHuskie, topic meets WP:GNG. Here's a few references I added to the article:

Armas, Genaro C. (July 10, 2009). "Penn State charity gets lift from Buckeyes, others". USA Today. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Whiteside, Kelly (September 25, 2009). "Pooch kicks & pancakes: Penn State aiming to bind, blind Iowa". USA Today. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Golen, Jimmy (January 21, 2010). "BC linebacker Herzlich back after cancer recovery". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. The article can be expanded. —Ed!^(talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw this article a few months ago while browsing and thought it was notable. The sources I have seen are definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:08, 31 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 all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limp Bizkit demos

AfDs for this article:

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

These articles aren't given enough coverage in reliable, third-party sources and can be described adequately in the band's biography and articles about the making of their albums (in one-line spurts). WTF (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a bootleg and it is not covered by reliable sources:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 15 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, Courcelles 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, alternatively, direct to discography page). Neutrality^talk 21:08, 22 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) 02:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I concur that they don't really need articles of their own, given the current lack of coverage. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 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 keep. Tone 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Bhatt

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

Subject is an Indian policeman who has recently been arrested in connection with allegations going back to the Gujat riots in 2002. Otherwise wholly non-notable. One event and recent news, but not otherwise encyclopedic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For me personally WP:RS has more importance than WP:GNG because WP:GNG is completely based on the former.Undoubtedly this article has many reliable sources from newspapers.It does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS because the guideline says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and the news regarding this person is being constantly covered in reliable sources. e.g

Sanjiv Bhatt likely to be charged with murder on 10 dec 2011.
High Court reserves order on Sanjiv Bhatt plea on 14 dec 2011. Now WP:1E says--"the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified".The notability of this person is justified by a simple example that the person's name is written in the heading of the news article, which says that the person notable enough to warrant a full fledged newspaper report.Thus I believe this article should be kept.Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:38, 15 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, Courcelles 21:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, per the availability of reliable sources that address the topic in detail. Additionally, this topic has received ongoing coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 22 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) 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sanjeev Bhatt is now an important person in the long standing Gujarat riots case. Please note that though his arrest may be one event, his involvement in the case is likely not to be 1E, as the media says that he is a key figure in the whole case. The riots and the following case is not 1E, and this should be kept per WP:GNG. Lynch 7 17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —Ed!^(talk) 20:38, 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.

Keep [[Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]][reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshree Nath

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

Voice actress who dubs voices in foreign films for India market. Found nothing at Google less Wikipedia, at Google Books or Google new archive to support WP:BIO. Maybe someone can find non-English reliable sources. Edison (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She might be able to bypass WP:N by a shortcut written into WP:BIO for entertainers: having provided the dubbing voicing for major roles in major pictures, regardless of the existence of nonexistence of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 20:57, 13 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, –MuZemike 21:24, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:57, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Fernandes Jr.

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

While I do not question that this person existed, I can't find sufficient evidence of notability per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability -- and for lack of any refs -- for well over two years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Union leader of a large union which lead a major strike might just be notable enough, but like you, I am struggling to find credible stuff that backs that up. The current UNITE union page relates a union formed in 1995, so clearly not the same union at all. Struggling to find support for him from reliable 3rd party sources. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the book Portuguese Spinner: an American story : stories of history, culture, and life from Portuguese Americans in southeastern New England (p. 242) covers the story from 1955. However, it is the only mention of the subject in the independent sources I found. I'm not sure. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 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, Courcelles 21:24, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 20:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He sounds like a thoroughly decent chap, but I can't see this as viable. Even if everything mentioned in the article were meticulously sourced, I don't see how it would be notable. Would be happy to be proved wrong.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:03, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Loux

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability re this songwriter-poet. Zero refs in this bio. Tagged for notability and lack of references for well over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. Not a hopeless case, but not sufficient publications to meet the criteria in WP:CREATIVE. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 15 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, Courcelles 21:22, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, I don't see anything that could save the article as far as WP:N. —Ed!^(talk) 20:31, 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. 7 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Fitaihi

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

Subject appears to be a reasonably accomplished but otherwise non-notable endocrinologist. Won a single award for something whilst doing residency, but nothing notable since. Not much on Google except that he had to apologise to the Jewish community in Boston for some remarks made in 2007. Nothing to really set him aside from thousands of other endocrinologists worldwide. Uncategorized. Looks like some minor COI issues creeping in as well. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding me? Article appears to have been written as a joke, probably by the subject's daughter. "Dr. Walid Fitaihi, in 1995 fathered a beautiful girl called mariam fitaihi, who is currently in Gerard Murphy's Chemistry & english class in school, this could be quite a PROBLEM for Dr.Fitaihi." He has a few publications at Google Scholar, but nowhere near enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC. He was in the local news briefly in 2004, again not enough for notability. The article is lacking in basic biographical detail but is not worth fixing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 15 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, Courcelles 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on, folks, let's get rid of this unserious article, which was apparently written by the subject's daughter. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that the majority of the content was written by the subject himself or at least someone using his name as a user name. On the other hand, he apparently didn't create the article. The part about the daughter, which I have removed as vandalism, was added by yet another user, probably one of the daughter's high school classmates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The person who added Fitaihi also added International Medical Center, if anyone is curious.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I am finding some sources that show that Fitaihi is somewhat notable over in Saudi Arabia, but I'm unsure as to the reliability of the sources since I'm not familiar with the papers and sites over there. Here's what I found: [50], [51], [52] (this link had a youtube video that had Fitaihi being interviewed on a news channel, but I'm unfamiliar with the channel. Probably not a notable channel or interview and I know that the page I posted isn't, but thought I'd list it in case the interview is notable.), [53] (this one shows where he refused someone treatment, unsure of reliability of source, but is sorta interesting), [54] (I hate linking to youtube videos and especially hate linking to two of them, but here's an interview he did with CSNBC Arabia.). There's also a few stories in English that talks about him in reference to articles, although I'm having trouble finding those articles due to language barriers and such. [55], [56], [57], [58], I'm not entirely sure of his notability but he does seem to be more notable than I initially thought he was. Evidently while he was in Boston (if I'm correct in presuming that this is the same guy), he made some not so nice comments about people of the Jewish religion that got a flurry of media coverage. That's sort of "one person one event", so I'm not sure if that'd count towards his notability. [59] I was initially going to vote delete, but I'm honestly not sure on this one. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Very weak keep. I did a major cleanup and I think that he just barely squeaks by general notability standards, but I'm still pretty unsure as to how notable he truly is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. The only thing I am certain of is that Fitaihi (or potentially someone who knows him) did edit this account. I noticed that at one point edits were made that were identical to a biography that Fitaihi had posted on his youtube account.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment Thanks for the cleanup, Tokyogirl; much improved. However, I still find him lacking in notability per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Being director of a hospital does not amount to notability. BTW the hospital, International Medical Center, should also be considered for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator please note: there is a redirect to this page from Waleed Fitihi, an alternate spelling of his name. If the result is "delete", the redirect page should also be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good enough rationale for me. I'm striking my weak keep since I wasn't really feeling all that confident about the keep to begin with.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete regardless of the sources, I don't think the article will ever acquire many more reliable sources than it has. —Ed!^(talk) 20:27, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yujuan

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

Does not appear to be particularly notable, is fairly promotional, and has a single reference to some sort of amazonesque site. This is the 4th pretty much indentical creation of this article by the same user, it has already been speedied twice and prodded Jac16888 ^Talk 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep After a quick search in Chinese, there's a lot of RS to establish her notability(e.g. people.com has a full report about her here [60], also see this news search result[61]), albeit in Chinese. And after an English search, I can't seem to find any RS. ~~I am not familiar with our policies on this kind of situation so I'm not going to take a position on this. (Though I guess it's probably a Delete) Zlqchn (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)~~ Scratch that, per WP:GNG, sources in other languages are OK as long as they are reliable, independent, etc...Zlqchn (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Cloveapple (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found giving significant coverage. Dream Focus 08:45, 16 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, Courcelles 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Yu Juan. She is called a famous breast cancer awareness campaigner in the news[62][63].--Skyfiler (talk) 20:44, 22 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) 02:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've searched for the book under its Chinese title and have been able to add two more sources (one primary) that show the book was reviewed by the China Daily and the People's Daily which are major Chinese newspapers. It was also reviewed in several regional papers. Pol430 talk to me 22:17, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Max (chess engine)

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

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator seems to be right. (And except for one very minor edit, the editor that created the article is a single-purpose editor.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:31, 23 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) 02:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage. The sole claim to importance, being the shortest source code for a non-trivial chess engine, lacks verification. Furthermore, chess engines are of interest for their strength, not the shortness of the source code, so even if the record is true, the record is of dubious significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 17:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Minimalism in chess programming (including but not limited to shortness of source code) is an interesting and important research problem in engineering and computer science. The work of Harm Geert Muller (including the Micro-Max engine) should be considered a notable contribution to such research. A better alternative to deletion would be to expand or merge this article to widen the scope of discussion - see Wikipedia article Toledo Nanochess. Oldsalo (talk) 11:36, 31 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) 01:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Latif Lilak

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

Article on this film composer and music director has been tagged for zero references for close to two years, and as an orphan for over a year. I am having trouble finding substantial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 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) 02:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources, either. —Ed!^(talk) 17:56, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Gulam Sadiq

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

This article on a singer has been tagged for zero refs for nearly a year. I cannot find substantial RS coverage of the person; others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Drjames1 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 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) 02:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything leading me to believe reliable sources exist for this one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:55, 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. Sandstein 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan International School Al-Hasa

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

Tagged for zero refs, and lack of notability, for well over a year. Lacks substantive RS coverage. Created by a one-edit-ever-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 17:53, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alqadeer magazine

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

Student magazine, which lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for zero refs for three years now. Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, long term unsourced and student magazine with no significant proof of notability, Sadads (talk) 13:46, 22 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) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 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 keep. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family and Parenting Institute

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

The article describes an organization who seem to be dedicating to setting troubled families on the right track, which is admirable, but not necessarily notable. Of the references provided, only one would be qualified as a reliable source - the remainder are either the organization's web page, or a document about lobbyists. However, the article in question is not an article about FPI, it's an article in which FPI are quoted. See also WP:NOBLECAUSE. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organisation does have significant press coverage, partly illustrated by the references in the article and also by the likes of this 2009 Guardian column discussing them, this Simon Hoggart sketch of a positioning speech by David Cameron. Their proximity to the UK govt (see this for example) in mediating of project financing makes them worthy of coverage. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I see opportunities to source the article in reliable sources. —Ed!^(talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A report commissioned by this organisation just got approx 5 mins coverage on the main BBC News tonight, including an interview with its head: see BBC article; also Guardian. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshasa Highway

AfDs for this article:

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

No such one route, no reference, previously proposed for deletion with no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinshasa Highway), and no renaming nor significant improvement since 2006. See also unanswered questions in the discussion page: Talk:Kinshasa Highway. --Moyogo/ (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a notable and interesting topic: G-Books. In this case, deletion would not be a very constructive and encyclopedic solution. The article is maybe poorly written and unreferenced, but it isn't hopeless and is fixable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what people against deletion said in December of '06 and nothing has been done since, it's rather hopeless. --Moyogo/ (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... nothing has been done since 2006 ... maybe there still could be done something about it? You've already spent some time on it (I read the talk page). Why not to fix/improve/clarify, instead of deleting? It is a notable phenomenon and a widely used term in association with HIV/AIDS. We should properly explain that to the reader, not delete. I'd like to help you with the article, but I'm too busy at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be important road. Dough 48 72 03:33, 22 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) 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's mentioned in several reliable sources, leading me to think it's worth expansion. —Ed!^(talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed. There's several US roads that have articles that are less notable. --Rs chen 7754 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this is not one road, It's a concept to explain how AIDS spread. It's misleading and it's working. --Moyogo/ (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your assertion is true, it would still be notable. --Rs chen 7754 08:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm am saying the information on how AIDS spread thanks to transportation infrastructure in Central Africa should be in an article concerning AIDS, not in an article about a single road that doesn't exist. At most this should be a section in another article, not a proper article categorized as an existing roads going from one place to another. --Moyogo/ (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important topic and interesting article, however I am amused by those !voting keep here who seem to think it refers to an actual road, and quite clearly have not read the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flare (Techno-Cultural Fest)

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

Article does not seem to meet notability criteria quite yet. Seems to be a little too soon at this point for them. I see an image of a single newspaper blurb linked to the article, but little else. Placing here after article's creator removed a PROD.-- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many other awful pages on Wikipedia which does not have single citations and which do not deserve to be here. With all regards, I jsut want to point it out that even if its too early for making a page for this cultural event, its also a important one, and you can't ignore it. It has been taking place for last three years and therefore deserves to be in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.3791 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm in agreement with Dennis about his response to the article creator, but there are a few articles that cover the event in a sufficient level of detail: [64] and [65]. I will add them to the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references or not, the article is about a non-notable school event, and has WP:PEACOCKs all over the page to boot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd favor giving it a chance, and I find the referenced added in to mean it's going to have a minimum level of notability and will probably attract more sources in the future. —Ed!^(talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--looks like it's passed the bar as far as outside sources go. Meelar (talk) 00:34, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konfederat

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

Entire article is uncited, and tagged as such for over 3 years. Also tagged for notability for over 3 years. Reads like classic OR. Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 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, →Σ τ c. 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting that in this edit the original author blanked the page after it was first queried for notability, which was his/her final WP contribution. AllyD (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the claimed achievements of some members such as Friedrich Konfederat (as Bach's manager) and Rudolf Konfederat (military) they might be expected to show in Google Books or the Central European language Wikipedias, but I'm seeing nothing. So no obvious verifications, hence article unsafe. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business Logistics Innovation and Systems research centre

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

This research department of a university is not itself notable -- as measured by the paucity of RS refs, and the fact that there are zero refs in the article -- though the university that it is part of is notable. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability for over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Bolton. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to redirect, unlikely search term (horrible caps, ugh). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 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, BusterD (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more reliable sources are provided quickly to back it up. —Ed!^(talk) 17:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 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. Jujutacular ^talk 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon world:re:digitize

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

Unreferenced article about an upcoming game. WP:TOOSOON and no evidence of (current) notability. Endorsed Prod removed without comment by original author, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Digimon video games for the time being, but if possible this might be worth incubating if I can find enough sources to justify doing so. So far it's pretty slim pickings, especially since the game doesn't even have a release date yet. Most of the sources all focus on the same news tidbits, so I doubt I'll find enough sources to justify this being kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I looked through the Japanese sources (yay for Google translate) and it's pretty hard to find anything beyond teaser information so far. I'm going to stand by my decision to redirect for the time being and userfy/incubate if someone would be interested in doing so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these games are notable but this article needs a ton o work.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:11, 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) 02:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the popularity of the brand I tend to favor keeping this one given independent sources about it do exist. Though, it clearly needs work. —Ed!^(talk) 17:32, 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. Sandstein 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business Center Niederösterreich

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

I cannot find substantial RS coverage of this business center, which has been tagged for notability for over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 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, →Σ τ c. 02:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page has had plenty of time to improve, and I also can't see a lot of independent sourcing that would help it. —Ed!^(talk) 17:28, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edelman

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

No indications that this artists meets the criteria for inclusion of WP:ARTIST or WP:BIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 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, Courcelles 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw his work at "Iron Forged, Tempered, Quenched" last year in Houston Tx, right next to Albert Paley's work. He is also in every modern ironwork book produced in the last few years. I don't think he is as famous as Paley, but in contemporary ironwork, he is very well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer lindenbaum (talk • contribs) 02:31, 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, →Σ τ c. 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His work was at a show in Baltimore I saw a few years ago; I think he does a lot with the contemporary ironwork movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex6692 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — Alex6692 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Don't see a lot of independent sources to back this one up. —Ed!^(talk) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable - per nom 7 08:17, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nassif Zeitoun

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was able to find a few articles covering the music career of the individual as well as coverage of his "Star Academy" achievement in addition to his signing of a music contract following his performance. They are all in Arabic; and the following are automatically translated pages (they keep translating his last name as "olive").

Some of this seems to be some WP:BLP1E action going on here, but I sense from articles like this one suggesting that his victory could mean closer relations between Syrian and Lebanese people, that this goes just beyond WP:ROUTINE routine coverage of a contest winner. I would try to improve the article more than I have already, but it's a little difficult with translation issues. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems minimally notable but it's hard to find sources for the non anglophone world so let's see what comes of this.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:25, 23 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) 02:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would think the language barrier is the main problem with finding sources for the article. But it seems to meet notability in its most minor form. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 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 keep. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fajitagate

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be one of many minor scandals that have occurred in police departments, most of which have no lasting impact at all and don't really belong here. Has a few references, but all are from the local paper and the things that would push this to significance (the scandal and the criminal trial) are completely unreferenced. Appears to lack significant coverage from something that isn't the San Francisco Chronicle Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is determined that the content is significant enough to be placed elsewhere, I would suggest in the article on the department (if they have a scandals section) and in the article on the police chief Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I was the major author of the article). It was regionally notable, and nationally to the extent that the sitting police chief of a major US city and other senior leadership were charged with criminal coverup activity (subsequently dismissed, but the charges were filed...). I leave it to the wisdom of the masses on whether that rises to the level of retention here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addl info (not currently referenced in article):

Jeff Tobin in the New Yorker contemporaneously [66]
Legal cases that reached the federal appeals level [67] [68]
LA Times coverage of the Fagan Jr criminal trial results [69]
Contemporaneous CNN coverage (Anderson Cooper / Jeff Tobin) [70]

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the LA Times citation could be worked into the criminal trial without much trouble Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication WP:EVENT is met, a basic search indicates it was limited in size, time, and region. tedder (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of lasting significance, as would be represented by continued coverage in sources a long time after the fact. --Jayron32 04:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wonder if people proposing or voting for deletion lived in California at the time. This was in the news for some time, and was a clearly notable event.Greg Bard (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not particularly relevant whether we lived in California or not...but for the record, I'm from southern California. And in any case, the article when nominated didn't really reflect it being in the news (apart from the local paper) for some time Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my frustration with deletionism (not you personally). Certainly it doesn't matter where you live insofar as these deletion discussions are concerned. However, I find that there is a lot of deletionism from people who don't necessarily have any idea of whether or not something is notable based on some experience or education in that particular subject area, but rather seem to rely solely on the info in the stub article itself. Greg Bard (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP -- The initial incident in itself was minor, but surrounding circumstances and coverups resulted in a major shakeup in the San Francisco PD, and cut short a number of previously-promising careers, and was a factor in the passing of a ballot measure designed to reform department governance (see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/31/BAGIOC13FU1.DTL ). It also received national media coverage at the time, as documented above... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:EVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me this event warranted enough attention and coverage on its effects. —Ed!^(talk) 16:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge, & Redirect; it is my opinion that although the subject meets WP:GNG it does not meet WP:EFFECT. Therefore the content should be summarized to what can be directly referenced from the reliable sources, the event be listed at List of events in the history of the San Francisco Police Department, and a redirect left in the present article space to the list article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This matter has had enduring effects, per WP:EFFECT, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.". Here's a quote from the CNN transcript source I posted in my !vote below:

"ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Fajita gate. A fight over a fajita. Earlier I said burrito. I misspoke. It was a fajita. Wounded up shaking the entire structure of San Francisco's city government. We're not kidding."

This lead to a federal civil lawsuit against the San Francisco Police Department, which was ultimately dismissed in appeal. From "Court refuses to revive Fajitagate lawsuit against S.F.":

"But the appeals court said the plaintiffs had failed to show that such a practice - if it existed - led to the off-duty incident. The 3-0 ruling upheld U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's 2006 decision to dismiss the suit without a trial. Deputy City Attorney Sean Connolly said the ruling "should finally signal a much-needed end to this sensationalized chapter in Police Department history.""

The incident led to a series of highly-publicized lawsuits (criminal and civil), and then a subsequent civil lawsuit appeal. These types of lawsuits can set and/or contribute to legal precedent for future cases. This is enough to pass WP:EFFECT.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of mentions in news. Seems like a notable incident.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. The incident was a big shake-up in the SFPD. It received some national coverage and mention of it in books suggests lasting interest or significance beyond the immediate news cycle. Still, along the lines of what RightCowLeftCoast has mentioned, I would be OK with a merge and redirect to San Francisco Police Department. Location (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, has received national coverage in reliable sources, including Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker & CNN. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 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. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Warlock (film)

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

Contested prod. Movie with no evidence of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fulfills none of the parameters at WP:Notability (films). Also please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Warlock (Film) created by same user, Fisaa7 within minutes after creating this article. --Shearonink (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, since this project has not been released WP:CRYSTAL would also apparently apply.) --Shearonink (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't pass notability guidelines and the only reference on the page was actually for another movie entirely (SuperBad). While I wish Fisaa7 well with his movie and his future filmmaking career, creating a movie doesn't give it automatic notability. If you visit this discussion, I'd like to point you towards WP:NFILM, which lists what is necessary for a film to be considered notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I originally requested this to be deleted under G3(hoax). Although it was declined, I still feel the reasoning still applies. No sources found, and most importantly the movie has not even been released. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 06:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think G3 applies here. It's not that obvious that there is no such movie in existence. With the stated filming budget (500 rand, that is, about $50 US), one should not be surprised by the lack of sources, reliable or not. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. —Ed!^(talk) 16:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Everthing was filmed in a backyard. The effects are all made by Adobe After Effects." SL93 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —htonl (talk) 01:08, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Hop

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

Article about a neologism created by the author (see [71]) with absolutely no reliable sources provided to show that this is anything beyond something made up one day by the author. Earlier attempts to apply CSD and Prod have been removed without comment. Author keeps copying large chunks/all of the Rapcore article into this one, which muddies the waters somewhat. When you remove the bits from Rapcore - which clearly don't apply to "Folk Hop" - there is nothing left beyond the claim this exists. Sparthorse (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC) The Mexican band "Folk hop" is Ft.[reply]

Delete unless some reliable sources are added quickly to establish it exists. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[72] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.109.218 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, see the list of proposed sources (which include this one) on the article's talk page. I've responded to each one. Unfortunately, I don't think any of them establish notability, but I'd like to hear the opinions of other contributors to this discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it stands I think Sparthorse is right that none of the proposed sources on the talkpage indicate notability. It is possible that such sources can be found, but unless they are this article does not meet the notability guidelines.--SabreBD (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ppl like to put words in front of "-hop" but this isn't a thing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sabrebd, no reliable sources suggest any notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 31 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 redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#Zone 1 (4 digits). Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B1156 road

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

I found nothing that would make this road pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#Zone 1 (4 digits) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#Zone 1 (4 digits). --palmiped | Talk 14:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per above. —Ed!^(talk) 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Very few B-class roads have their own article and I doubt that this one is notable enough to warrant one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Nothing in the article suggests that there is anything distinctive about this particular road, and if something brief is discovered it can go in the notes column in B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:40, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Daddy (TV pilot)

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

Non-notable television pilot which does not need its own page. Despite what is stated in the article, there is no known premiere date (or year). Only real source [73] is a press release which says production of pilot has wrapped, nothing further. This is not a television series, there is always a chance the pilot will never be picked up to series. Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Agreed. Reliable, non-COI sources don't yet exist on the series, and while an article may be warranted in the future, for now there's simply no way to tell if the series is ever going to happen. —Ed!^(talk) 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 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.