Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 1

< 30 November	2 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 Speedy Delete, A7 by Nyttend. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime time print

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

Promotional material given, with non-reliable sources. Article fails WP:GNG criteria. Tinton5 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it's been A7'ed. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:32, 2 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) 00:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah

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

This article was kept after an AfD in early 2009. However, most of the comments in that discussion seem to have been variations on 'she's important' as Captain Okoreeh-Baah was the first woman to fly a new type of military aircraft. The sources attesting to this supposed 'notability' are very limited, however, and the views of several editors in a new discussion at WT:MILHIST#Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah are that Captain Okoreeh-Baah does not meet the notability criteria and this article violates WP:ONEEVENT. I agree, and am re-nominating this article for deletion.

In regards to the sources, the article currently references:

What's claimed to be a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The URL actually points towards a United States Marine Corps website (which won't load for me) and from the title of the story it appears to be about the unit Captain Okoreeh-Baah was a member of, and not her, and so is unlikely to provide in-depth coverage even if this is actually an article from a newspaper independent of the military.
A page in the book We are Marines!. According to its Google Books page, this work was published by the 'Tar Heel Chapter, NC-1, Women Marines Association'. With all respect to the members of this association, they are obviously not a professional publisher of any sort, so this isn't a reliable source.
An article on the US military's DVIDS public relations website. This obviously isn't an independent source, and so isn't useful in establishing notability.
An article in the Marine Corps News - this suffers from the same problems as the DVIDS article
An article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. While this sounds very promising, the article is actually only 3/4 of a page long, and is actually focused on research into the job satisfaction of women in the US military. Captain Okoreeh-Baah is covered in only three paragraphs of this article and a photograph; one of these paragraphs briefly describes her military career and the other two are quotes about her views on the equality of women in the military. Hence, only a paragraph of the article is actually directly useful for writing a biography on Captain Okoreeh-Baah and it's not at all helpful in establishing notability.

The only results of a Google search on 'Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah' are Wikipedia mirrors, old military PR stories about her becoming the first woman to fly a V-22, and short various mentions of her on various websites. As such, it's clear to me that this article violates WP:ONEEVENT and Captain Okoreeh-Baah should not have an article on her. In regards to the previous AfD nomination, I'd also observe that we've taken a much stronger position on BLPs since early 2009 (particularly in relation to strengthening the weight given towards protecting individuals privacy). Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being the first woman to fly with the Marines is notable. Being the first African-American woman to fly with the Marines is notable. Being the first African-American woman to fly a specific type of aircraft with the Marines five years after the second event mentioned above is not notable. She should be admired and her commitment to her country is commendable, but Wikinotable, for better or for worse, she is not. Fails WP:BLP1E for the person, and WP:PERSISTENCE for the event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sucks there aren't more WP:RS because this is an interesting person. The three sources I am able to access fall a bit short of WP:GNG I think, specifically "detail" and "reliable". LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, http://www.blackanthem.com/scitech/military_2006032204.html but again military and not much I can think of adding to the article. Too bad. On a side note, where are all the Keep !votes from the 1st AfD nomination? That was practically a SNOW keeep, while this is the opposite (and again, I agree that deletion at this point seems appropriate). AfD is totally random. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and is of minor interest Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.ALR (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources do not establish notability per the requirements of GNG. That nothing more has been added on her career in the last two years implies this was a single event. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough notability for a page. Vincelord (talk) 17:02, 7 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 Jay Warren. m.o.p 04:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meralda Warren

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

Artist, local politician, nurse, radio operator, cookbook author. However, almost none of this, including "her conspiracy theory", has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Her art means she has been the winner of a minor award, entitling her to "up to £8,000 to spend time living and working in another Commonwealth country", but beyond that there is almost zero coverage. The articles in reliable sources about the sex abuse case on the island, like this one, don't mention her. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only references to her art and life that I can find are minor and local. As you mentioned, she seems to have had nothing to do with the Pitcairn sex abuse case, and the news story linked in the article has only one quote from her. The cookbook has very few mentions outside her own sites, none notable. Being a member of the Island Council also does not seem like enough to qualify her for notability. Graymornings_(talk) 22:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know that I have an actual opinion here yet, but would the Pitcairn Island Council not constitute a "a national, state or provincial legislature" for the purposes of the politician notability guideline? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the British Overseas Territories are not states or provinces by the meaning of that guideline; and also that being an elected politician where the entire electorate is, at most, a few dozen people, cannot confer notability in any case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody above has addressed the sources found by the Google News, Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination. Those links are there to be followed, in order to inform the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is from a reliable source, and quotes her at some length on the Pitcairn sex abuse case. However, apart from her being the sister of Jay Warren, her connection with the case seems to amount to a few quotes like this one. This and her council position would each seem to count for something towards notability but, even together, perhaps not quite enough - and both are already mentioned in Jay Warren. She also seems to have been getting some recent passing mentions, from a geographically wide range of at least arguably reliable sources, for her craft work - again, it seems to count for something but probably still not enough. On current evidence, I think I'd go for a redirect to Jay Warren. PWilkinson (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Jay Warren. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 8 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. Consensus here indicates that there isn't enough backing to the claim that the mention of rainbows in a song is notable. This was not a head count. Thanks to everyone who participated. m.o.p 05:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Rainbows

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

You've got to be kidding. Completely irrelevant, unsourced, redlinky. There is nothing relevant about a song being about a rainbow. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite. She's a Rainbow isn't about a rainbow, it's about she who is like a rainbow... --Richhoncho (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it looks like there are some who think this kind of list is acceptable, a quick read of WP:LISTCRUFT reveals (my emboldening of text), "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books." Now, if the list was merged into Rainbow as suggested above, then it would quickly be marked as trivia and deleted. IMO. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kermit may have wondered why there are so many songs about rainbows, but that doesn't make a list of them notable here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my reasoning, since there are some editors advocating retention. I see two significant problems for this cross-categorization list. First, although lists of songs about rainbows trivially exist, I do not see evidence that this grouping (or many other such groupings, for that matter) are notable. The Green Book, cited below, does indeed include a list of songs about rainbows. It has, however, "almost 1800 logical categories" of songs; for Wikipedia's purposes, those categorizations are therefore unlikely to grant independent notability. Second, from the standpoint of precedent, lists of songs about foo have not historically been well-regarded at AFD (although in fairness, there have been exceptions, especially for songs about places). Deleted topics include: animals, bad girls, basketball, being on fire, blackbirds, body parts, cheerleading, defecation, depression, disability, disasters, drugs, eating disorders, the environment (since recreated, I may send it back here), famous people, fantasy thoughts, fetal expulsion (really?), fictitious bands, firearms, flatulence, friendship, groupies, hair, holidays, homosexuality, laziness, masturbation, mental illness, money, mothers, nudity, old people, places, politicians, romance, the seasons, sex, sleep, suicide, teenage fun, telephones, tequila, unrequited love, violence, war, and the weather omnibus deletion that got a dozen+ similar lists; other successful deletions exist under slightly different title formatting (songs involving..., songs that reference..., etc.). It is my opinion that the surviving lists in this format either have something markedly distinctive about them, or are artifacts that have dodged the weight of precedent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some list of this type have been deleted, others kept. Not really related to this AFD. Dream Focus 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At times like this I wish there was a WP:FACEPALM essay. Pointless list of no real significance that could never realistically be completed. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Research on other "List of songs about X" provided some of the following titles: List of songs about photography, List of train songs, List of car crash songs, List of songs about school... What makes a topic for list notable anyway (Category:Lists of songs and Category:Lists of songs about a topic)? I found limited instructions in the commons for this subject, so I was Bold -- Bill D (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources which talk about songs about rainbows and it wasn't hard to find one which lists them systematically — The Green Book lists 40 songs about rainbows. The topic therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While several of the songs themselves are notable, a list about them is not. Perhaps a category instead of a page? PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to clarify my reasoning. When I read WP:LISTN's line "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources," I base my vote on the word discuss. In order for a list to be notable, the sources need to answer the question (as it were) "Why are there so many songs about rainbows?" The provided sources don't seem to do that. While Green Book, The 10 Greatest Songs About Rainbows, the Statesman article, the Americana song reader, and the Star article all mention that songs about rainbows exist, they don't answer the question of why they exist. PaintedCarpet (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Listing songs by subject is a valid way of indexing them, and it's not meaningful to ask whether a list is notable when we're dealing with an article that is a list (and thus primarily a navigational device, no less than a category) rather than an article about a list. But I'm not convinced this is actually a list of songs by subject, notwithstanding the Green Book noted above. How many of these are actually songs about rainbows, and how many are songs that are about something else for which rainbows are used as metaphors? I imagine most, if not all, fall into the latter category, and "list of songs by shared metaphor" seems rather less useful. postdlf (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - Why rainbows? Why not List of songs about cars, List of songs about trees, List of songs about dogs, List of songs about household appliances, List of songs about food, List of songs about trains, List of songs about beer, List of songs about houses, List of songs about sidewalks, List of songs about airplanes? And so on and so forth... Is there a scholarly reason why songs about rainbows are particularly important? No. Is it something that trivia fans are searching for, are going to find compelling reading? No. In the final analysis: original research involving a non-notable topic. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the connection with International Superstar K. Frog. That answers "Why rainbows?" for me. Delete recommendation stricken. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reasoning and examples provided by users Billdanbury and Colonel Warden above, particularly per "The Green Book lists 40 songs about rainbows." Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not come anywhere near notability. None of the three "keep" editors has provided any reason that stands up to study in line with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. The linking to other list articles by Billdanbury (the author of the article) is irrelevant, both for the reason given at WP:OTHERSTUFF (the other articles may deserve deletion too), and because they may perhaps have features which make them more appropriate than this one: merely pointing to the fact that they exist does not establish that they are on the same level as this article. Colonel Warden suggests that the list satisfies WP:LISTN, but it doesn't. That guideline says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (my emphasis) not "if you can manage to find a catalogue somewhere that gives another mere listing on the same topic". Northamerica1000 does not give any new reason at all, but just refers back to the two other "keeps". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion as well as lists out there, as I indicated. As an example of another source see The Americana song reader. Warden (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication this is a subject discussed as a musical or poeetic theme. this is NOT a list of songs about rainbows. its a list of songs which use the word "rainbow" as a lyrical device or metaphor. Songs about sex, songs about death, songs about high school, etc. could all easily be created, if the list was limited to songs which had some degree of commentary/emotional reflection on those themes. Rainbows are nice symbols, but no one writes songs about them. Trivial list of songs linked by a word.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No actual indication that the theme of rainbows in songs is a notable topic. Yaksar (let's chat) 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't the point of categories to help people find related things they are actually interested in? If you find one song that happens to have rainbow in the title, what are the chances you want to find another? To me it seems comparable to a category "Articles with 7 letters in the title" Millermk90 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you inspect the sources rather than just voting your personal opinion, you will find that rainbows are repeatedly suggested as a theme when teaching young childen - the topic lends itself to colouring activities, simple science and culture with some promotion of diversity too. See, for example, Kid-Tested! Music Play, Living Values Activities for Children Ages 3-7, &c. Warden (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage found in books. You could probably just search through Google News archive results for "songs about rainbows" [1] or the book search for that, and find more. The ever wise legendary folk singer and influential international superstar Kermit the Frog even wrote a song where he wondered "why are there so many songs about rainbows?" Dream Focus 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - after all: "Why are there so many songs about rainbows?" Bearian (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added several citations just now that help to establish notability, in particular news articles from The Press and from the Austin American-Statesman. Admittedly the "interview" with "Kermit" from the Toronto Star is a bit whimsical, but doesn't hurt... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability of the rainbow symbol appears in many aspects of world culture, with the art of music being just one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Culture | Bill D (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To paraphrase your comment, "rainbows are used as symbols," Nobody is disputing that rainbows are used as symbol in many aspects of world culture, including songs - or that there might be a good article in that, whether specifically for songs or culture in general and would most certainly be encyclopedic. What is being contested is that most, if not all, of the songs listed in this article use rainbow as a metaphor, an allegory, a simile or other literary device. Therefore the article name "Songs about rainbows" is so wrong on so many levels and misleading. This is the core point that nobody supporting a keep have managed to address, let alone rebut yet. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol, shmymbol. You can't take the word "about" so literally. Certainly, our core readership will not do so. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the "core readership" I know you are wrong!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, both The Press and the American-Statesman articles refer to "songs about rainbows" even though some of the songs they list clearly use rainbows as metaphors. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is a discernible topic, with at least a few Wikipedia articles for notable embers of the class, such an article is justified. Of Carrite's suggestions above, I think some of them are very plausible and should be written. Of the list of ones deleted, I think some merit restoration. that we've made bad decisions, doesn't justify continuing to do so. The decision in a particular case goes as much by the people who happen to appear as the merits, but that some such articles have been deleted, it does not follow that all should be. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or convert to a category and redirect to Rainbows in mythology Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely random, unencyclopedic topic. --Kyknos (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if individual songs are notable, as songs or symbols, the list itself is both non-notable and original research. --DGaw (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. The intersection of music and rainbows has not been shown to be a culturally significant phenomenon, or anything more profound than a simple coincidence that in all of the billions of songs ever written, some of them happen to mention rainbows. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 22:41, 9 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. The consensus below is that there are sufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Rietzel

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

This article is about a 19 year old that died in 1882. A notability tag was removed because of the sources. Out of the four sources, the last three are obviously only about the death while I am unable to read the first one. He was a musician and people that saw him play praised him, but he didn't make an impact because he drowned when he was 19. "According to an official of Steinway and Sons, Rafael Joseffy spoke highly of Rietzel's promise." Exactly, they thought that he could be famous, but he never got a chance to. I cannot find anything that was not written just because of his death. WP:BIO1E. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. – Voceditenore (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There really doesn't seem to be enough here to merit a stand-alone article. George Conly, who drowned in the same accident is much more notable. Alas, Rietzel's life (what little we know of it) is destined to be a very obscure footnote in musical history. I'd suggest that if/when an article on Conley is created, the small amount of information about Rietzel that is available could be added there and then a re-direct made to it from Herman Rietzel. Voceditenore (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — in most afds like this one notability can be established (or not), and we can come to a decision without too much trouble. This is one of those rarer cases where it is more difficult. Clearly Rietzel was a public figure, and the subject of media attention, however brief. For that reason I think the article should be kept, though I don't feel strongly about this. --Klein zach 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Providing supporting material for obscure footnotes: that's what encyclopedias do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article:

"George Conly's Sad Fate: Drowned in a New Hampshire Lake with Young Herman Rietzel, the Pianist," The New York Times, May 28, 1882.
"Herman Rietzel's Body Found," The New York Times, June 8, 1882.
"The Conly Benefit Concert," The New York Times, June 11, 1882.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Kleinzach that this is a truly borderline case. If this were a 19 year old pianist who had drowned last year at the same stage in his career and had the same amount of coverage (really very little, if you read the sources), I suspect it might have been more clear-cut. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google stopped working on their news archiving. Most old articles aren't archive so you can't tell how much coverage they got. Dream Focus 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a biography that is properly sourced. Obituaries or news articles concerning the death of a person are not disqualified by the notability guidelines. (A birth or death announcement inserted by friends or family would be.) Nor is it a news story about a boating accident, so why should it be merged with another person's biography (which has not even been written), just because that person happened to die in the same accident? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They wouldn't speak of the person in their death in such a way, if they hadn't been a notable figure. Since we can't search every single newspaper published at that time, we can only assume from what we can find, that this person had ample coverage back in their day. Dream Focus 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with New York Philharmonic Society. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 8 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 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drake–Dayton football rivalry

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

Has only one source, and no independent sources. Furthermore, doesn't really attest to why it is a rivalry game per se. The schools have only met 28 times (relatively low for a "rivalry"), and the vast majority of those were in Pioneer Football League play. Until I see an independent source that says that these two are rivals, I will recommend that this article be deleted Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Northern Iowa–Southern Illinois rivalry for deletion. Same rationale applies, except replace "Pioneer Football League" with Missouri Valley Football Conference. Just because two teams are in the same conference and one of them often wins the conference doesn't necessarily make it a rivalry game Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Drake–Iowa rivalry as it appears to be partially a copy of Drake-Dayton rivalry, isn't independently sourced, and because it's only been played once in the last 60 years, and only ~~a handful of times~~twice since Drake and Iowa were MVIAA mates a century ago. (Back then, UCLA was playing Whittier College; we don't have a UCLA-Whittier College rivalry) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rivalry articles are okay, but they should provide more than just the win-loss records. Try another wiki--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A quick google search reveals Dayton doesn't seem to consider Drake anything more than a fellow member of the PFL. As far as I know, the only true rivalry in that conference is the Butler-Valparaiso game, the winner of which is awarded the Hoosier Helmet. City boy77 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL. Technically, the number of meetings in CFB rivalry series has nothing to do with its notability per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The rivalry itself, separate and apart from routine coverage of the individual games, must have received significant and meaningful coverage in verifiable, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. That's a much tougher standard than we have been enforcing in the past regarding these rivalry articles. For purposes of establishing notability, that means mainstream published sources, and probably excludes team media guides, school newspapers and yearbooks as "self-published" by the subject. This AfD should just be the first of twenty or more CFB rivarly articles that get purged through the AfD process for failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first two...feel free to nominate a few more Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment I'm all in favor of more nominations, but I'd like to keep it down to a few at a time, rather than to blast a bunch all at once. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside. Agreed, Paul. I have a list of 20+ CFB rivalry articles that I plan to introduce for discussion at the CFB talk page, gain a consensus there, and then send them over here to AfD as a done deal. I plan to submit 4 or 5 at a time, if that doesn't seem like too many to you. Purplebackpack jumped in and volunteered to lead the charge on this one, but there are more coming. BTW, I would be happy to share the AfD target list with you off-wiki. You no doubt will have suggestions of your own for AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. The spawning of "rivalry" articles has gotten out of control. In order to satisfy WP:GNG, such articles should be limited to true rivalries that receive significant and sustained coverage, with the coverage being focused on the rivalry. Separate rivalry articles aren't warranted just because two teams play each other every year and the local newspapers print articles about those games. I agree with Dirtlawyer that there are a number of similar rivalry articles that are appropriate for deletion. In order to permit careful consideration, limiting them to a few at a time is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: As Paul mentions, many "rivalry" articles do nothing more than recite the results of games year by year. Those sorts of listings are readily available in each college's football media guides (usually available on-line) and statistics databases. See, e.g. College Football Data Warehouse listings that provide the exact same data (without the eye-wearying colors in the Wikipedia versions): Drake-Iowa, Drake-Dayton. No good reason to duplicate these lists on Wikipedia with dayglow rainbow coloring. Cbl62 (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has anyone tried to ask the person who created the article what they think is significant about it? I agree that there has to be a limit to rivalry articles otherwise inter-office softball teams will begin to get articles. However, rivalries- especially in college sports are important to the people involved and of little concern to outsiders. Drake/Dayton is no Michigan/Ohio State but without clearly defined criteria it seems hard to limit this particular kind of thing. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EMOP, there is already a standard provided by WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. It's just not been enforced with regard to these CFB rivalry articles, and the WP:CFB project editors are now taking steps to correct that. Before we are done, all 200+ CFB rivalry articles will be evaluated. As for the article creator's subjective opinion, it really doesn't matter unless he can provide evidence of significant coverage of these rivalry series, separate and apart from routine coverage of the games in the series, in verifiable, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. If you are unfamiliar with the notability standards as applied to athletes and sporting events, you should familiarize yourself. Unlike certain classes of professional athletes, there is no presumption of notability; as WP:NSPORTS expressly states: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this "Rivalries- Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees – Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline, and additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources." That is pretty clearly to me therefore I have to vote to delete. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being covered in detail by multiple independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 8 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 Student Radio Association. I think this is the consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student Radio Awards

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

Articles fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. TM 13:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but maybe mention it in Student Radio Association. The lengthy list of not-yet-notable winners is already available at the awards website. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The awards themselves meet WP:GNG with sufficent references available for a reasonable sized article on the subject. The laundry list of winners should be removed and replaced with a section on notable past winners, if there are any. RadioFan (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do they meet GNG? Can you show sources? Right now, there are no sources and just claiming it passes a guideline is not sufficient.--TM 12:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article definitely need sources and I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the article and starting over but the topic is notable. I'm not going to clutter te AFD with links, click on the "news" link above and you'll find a reasonable amount of coverage on the awards or search on the article title on the BBC website and you'll find a good number of articles.--RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In between keep and delete is merge to Student Radio Association. There are so many reliable hits, and not all of them to the BBC, that there is little doubt that the awards are notable, though they are not so huge that they deserve their own article. The content should be merged and then trimmed, with a redirect left for this notable search term. I'd do, but I just merged a bunch of stuff and it's tedious, so I'm leaving this for the next ~~schmuck~~ admin. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to be admins to merge content, or to be schmucks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'll take that as a compliment. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Radio Association.--TM 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is organized as a split of The UK Student Radio Association. I'm not sure that we need the list of winners, so one option is to unsplit the article and stop trying to maintain the list of winners. Keep would also be ok, the topic is covered in Google books, but not as much as Student Radio Association. Another possibility is a resplit, with the previously mentioned Merge along with a separate article List of Student Radio Awards just for the list of winners. Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh? I thought your !vote was merge but it appears to be merge, keep and delete, all at once.--RadioFan (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the tentative consensus to merge the prose material in this article into Student Radio Association and reduce the amount of material dedicated to listing winners, material that I find to be insignificant but not objectionable. I think it is also an acceptable outcome of the AfD discussion to keep the article unchanged. I also support the idea of preserving the material in this article by merging the prose material to Student Radio Association and splitting the list of award winners to a new article. The idea that I have said something that would support a delete result does not reflect my position. I hope that clarifies my position. r/ Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the student radio association, as suggested above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as not being covered in detail by multiple independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 8 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personyze

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

Looks like an advertisement due to the extensive media coverage section. Especially the copying of page titles into the text gives a strong feeling of promotion. For instance: On July 25, TheNextWeb reported that Personyze offers insanely targeted personalization with Rapleaf integration compared with this. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I cleaned up the article, removed many peacock terms, uploaded the logo, trimmed it down to a stub. But this company is def. notable. mabdul 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! You have removed my worries about the promotional side of the article. But the worry of Wikidemon about the notability seems also correct. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG / WP:CORP. WP:HEY. Nice work by Mabdul. Chzz ► 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issues has been adressed by Mabdul--Hallows AG (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe it squeaks past WP:CORP and WP:WEB by a hair. There are lots of minor mentions in major sources (the company itself seems to have found all of them).[2] And there are a few substantial mentions, indicating that the tech press (and tech coverage in broader mainstream press like Reuters) believes the company is worth noting. In substance, it is believable that an 18-person company working in behavioral analytics / ad networks / or whatever it is they do (it would be nice if the article said what they actually do) is notable. Such a company, if it were in the U.S., would be the subject of lots of tech press. Perhaps there is foreign language press for this one. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since when is it "evil" to collect and "present" the media coverage about the own company on the own homepage. I know many examples from bigger companies do that (e.g. Opera Software). mabdul 11:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The media coverage has been shortened but if we will further not mention anything about it (Like what media think about it), then it will become a sort of vague article not referencing any thing. Usmanwardag (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having a claim of notability. If such a claim is found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi editor, can you give me sometime to edit the article? Usmanwardag (talk) 17:44, 8 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. While technically this is the wrong venue for discussion of a redirect, we've had the discussion and a consensus has been reached. Therefore per WP:NOT#BURO and WP:IAR I am implementing the consensus rather than referring for a new discussion at RfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3571 (number)

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

I am proposing to delete this page because it just redirects to a different number page, which isn't the same number. The number 3000 has nothing to do with 3521, and the content for 3521 was already removed because it's an unremarkable number. There's no reason to have a number page that redirects to another number page, that just doesn't make sense. Time to delete it. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 1. Snotbot t • c » 20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a pointless redirect. Edison (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect. To avoid proliferation of number articles, "round" numbers include minimal information about others in their "range", with redirects as appropriate. Thus, 422 (number) redirects to 400 (number), and what content there is for 422 appears in a list on that page. Similarly, that 3571 is the "500th prime, Cuban prime of the form x = y + 1, 17th Lucas number, 4th balanced prime of order 4" already appears in the list at 3000 (number) and this should (once again) redirect there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue – this should be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Lambiam 03:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is content about the number 3571 at 3000 (number), so it is useful and perfectly reasonable to redirect there. Peacock (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as has been pointed out, there is actual content about 3571 in the 3000 article; therefore, this is an appropriate redirect. LadyofShalott 18:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number significant in several respects. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Valid redirect. James500 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 8 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) 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WatchSite Nation

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

Doesn't seem to me as notable, but it might be notable so let an administrator choose. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like promotion to me, since Jacob Deschene is the founder and Deschenej is the article's creator. PaintedCarpet (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable promotional article. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being covered in detail by multiple independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 8 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) 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Selena songs

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

If you removed the unverifiable unreleased material, live covers, etc. and all the crap sourced to YouTube videos or OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES (seriously, I will never understand a logic fail that big), this would be redundant to the discography. Delete as a perfect storm of unverifiable and redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nom: delete, use a flamethrower, and salt (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the discography -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the nominator has summed up the situation; the article is redundant to the discography. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see a bright future for this article if it were to be kept. Redundant page. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being covered in detail by multiple independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 8 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. In closing, I'd like to remind everyone that worries of synthesis is not a valid reason to call for an article's deletion, since we can always edit an article to remove irrelevant or unsourced sections. m.o.p 04:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archdiocese of the Goths

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

At a first glance this is an article about an Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Church but it actually seems to be a non-notable offshoot of the Russian True Orthodox Church, which is itself a smallish schismatic offshoot group. The organisation was apparently established (allegedly re-established) in 1994. There is no evidence of organisational continuity with, or affiliation to, the Russian Orthodox Church, which would confer notability. In fact, I see no evidence for the claimed historic Archdiocese going back to 1283 under this name. Notability can not be established by Googling the name in either English, Swedish or Russian (See links above). I would expect to see it in both Books and Scholar if it was notable. If the historic organisation claimed did exist, possibly under a different name, then it would seem to belong in Gothic Christianity. DanielRigal (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see the article's talk page where the author has given his comments on my concerns. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Question to nominator: how do you explain the 42 references in the article? Do these 42 sources satisfy our notability guidelines? Why, given our WP:ATD policy on alternatives to deletion, should all of this material, and the topic itself, be hidden from public view? Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I do not have access to all the books but in so far as I could access the references I did not see them has having any bearing on the notability of the current organisation, which seemed to me to be the primary subject of the article at the time of nomination. You will notice that a Google Books search on the subject of the article (in all three languages) comes up blank. Possibly the article is misnamed and I am failing to grasp what the subject really is but I have done my best not to fall into that trap. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an English translation of www.gotark.org. Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article seems to mix up the historic entity (which is no doubt notable, although some very dubious statements are being backed up by poor references, but which may belong in Gothic Christianity) and the modern entity (which may or may not be notable, depending on whether reliable references can be found for it). The relationship between the two entities is presumably controversial, as the nom notes. -- 202.124.72.140 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep or merge with Gothic Christianity-- The article seems to have been purged of the 1994 reincarnation. I am not qualified to speak to the accuracy of the material, but I cannot see much that is obviously wrong. Language might be calmed down, for example by changing a reference to "Muslim barbarians" to something else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep or merge with Gothic Christianity-- I agree--C. Nüssli (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article has quite a few sources, but some seem a little dubious. There is a great deal of WP:SYNTH from primary sources, and a rather unencyclopedic tone. Any merge should be done with caution, and it might be better just to delete. -- 202.124.75.50 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real Orthodox church in Sweden should be mentioned: http://sweden.orthodoxy.ru/old/ --C. Nüssli (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--ThomasSutter (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)The Archdiocese of Goths is also known as the Metropolitanate of Gothia and Kaphas, and Kaphas have different spelling in all western languages (Kafa/Kafe/Kaphas a.s.o), with late medieval jurisdiction in the Principate of Theodoro - also known as Gothia. That this parish existed in the late 18th century is supported by the Ukaz of Catherine the Great, incorporating the diocese into the historical Russian Orthodox Church. Soon after the remaining Goths vanished. The 1994 organisation is not a continual entity from the 1779 Archdiocese and hasn't been claimed by me nor the 1994 organization. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is something entirely different though, and the canonical church with apostolic succession and continual traditional existence can appoint bishops to vacant seats, that is dioceses which aren't abolished, whenever they want. In no Ecclesiastical verdict of the Russian Orthodox Church have the Archdiocese / Metropolitanate been abolished, only vacant and de facto evaporated. Regarding canonicity I cannot see why a reference to the 'official' Russian Orthodox Church (established by the Soviets in 1946) would matter, when the True Orthodox have apostolic succession unbroken to the pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox Church, just as the now defunct Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The subject of the Archdiocese is mostly unnoticed historically, which is not the same as non-existing, and because of the Soviet period it has been locked in the peculiar history of Eastern Europe. There's much research to be made, and new primary sources to be published. The Ukaz of Catherine the Great on gotark.org is actual proof of the existence of the Church of the Goths in post-Tatar Russian Crimea, for instance. If the issue is too vague for the English-speaking world, I suggest it should be merged with Gothic Christianity to counter-balance the historically vague and generally unsubstantiated Arianism of the historical Gothic peoples. The source links can also be deleted or edited for better perception. An almost identical article exist on Swedish Wikipedia.[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is somewhat difficult to follow. It may be better to strip down the article to make it clearer for readers who may be unfamiliar with the topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion analysis with only the four words "fails notability for GNG" doesn't make sense, at least to me, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. For example, what evidence is provided that would separate this !vote from a WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion? WP:N notability only has one requirement, that the topic be "worthy of notice". For this topic we'd want to see either WP:GNG or WP:ORG satisfied, or the failure of both. Even given a viewpoint that a topic is non-notable, such does not equate to a delete conclusion; which would also require an argument that all of the reliable material in the article, if any, is objectionable; and that using the title of the article as a redirect is objectionable. Regarding the WP:ATD-policy alternatives to deletion, in this case there have been several editors weighing in regarding the possibility of merging some or all of the material, and these arguments have not been weighed. Then, this is a particularly difficult article to digest, and given the extensive number of references, I'd expect a delete !vote that has worked through and rejected all of those references has done a fair amount of work, work that should be mentioned in the analysis. Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contribution history, Cox wasan, and then your AfD history. Using User:Snottywong's tool, you have !voted delete in 97 out of 100 AfD discussions. I also spot checked some of your AfD contributions, and found multiple cases like the current one that provide no supporting evidence. Do you have any explanation? `Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the objection seems to be that it's a splinter church, but I don't see how that matters.Some of the long comments here about details should be incorporated into the appropriate articles. There are clearly enough references to support the content DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

I don't think that is the real substance of the objection to the modern "splinter church". The objection is that the current organisation is not notable and seems not to be directly connected (even by splintering) with the older organisation, which also may also not be notable, at least not under this name. Splinter groups certainly can be notable in their own right but they can't inherit notability from something else, even less so when it is not clear if they have any real connection to it beyond adopting a defunct name. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'm confused and I think the author is considerate of the problems and is willing to improve the encyclopedia. The discussion on the talk page has several useful points, including the connection to (http://www.katakomb.ru/), and "There's a Diocese of Goths within official Orthodoxy of Ukraine, with a Metropolit Damian II. Maybe the article should only reflect the historical Archdiocese, not the different organisations claiming to represent it today." The material has multiple possible merge targets, renaming, and reorganization to consider. My main reason for Userfy rather than keep is that I'm not convinced, as per the objection on the Talk page, that there is any such thing in the English language as the title of the article, about which I could easily be wrong. So I think the redirect should be deleted after preserving the article somewhere. Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge It should be kept because it's about the historical Gothic people which there is alot of mystery shrouding about. Some information should be weeded out because it's not notable, but it's important because it has links to Arianism, maybe not notable at the present time, just a brief mention about Gothic people, possibly merge with Gothic Christianity or Goths in general. Apparently at the start we are seeing two different views among post-polytheist goths , saying Goths were Arianists or Trinitarian Orthodox Christians. The article sais Trinitarian Orthodoxy overruled Arianism and became the official faith (yet we can see Visigoths were Arians), but the author tends to be biased and support Orthodoxy creating a non-neutral point of view and ridicules Islam in the latter part of the Article saying Crimean Tatars enslaved Crimean Goths. In can be clear that in the latter, this article could mainly deal with Crimean goths. The references i found from Gotark.org out are written Swedish, dont know any significant minority of Swedish Orthodox people except Serbs who migrated to Sweden, and possibly East Slavic people, (remember when Russia had Finland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.2.59 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been worrying me through most of the AfD period. While the quality of information in the article is widely variable, some of it does seem to be well-sourced and not otherwise covered on Wikipedia. However, I am not convinced that the article avoids synthesis - it reads too much to me like an article on Burgundy where the article creator has assumed that all the historic states of that name are the same. Which leaves me feeling that none of the possible conclusions to this AfD are going to be really satisfactory. PWilkinson (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify It seems to me that there are sources and there are editors willing to work on the topic. The current article, however, is worrying because it's unclear that all the institutions are what they appear. The article as it stands may be actively misleading. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 8 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. Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion. (Non-admin closure) Till I Go Home (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clementi Mall

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

How does a shopping mall meet notability guidelines? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of articles on shopping malls. If it meets WP:GNG, that's typically enough.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default Keep - Is there a rational to go along with this nomination. while not a great Article, there are WP:RS's present. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to upcoming SG Lifestyle Wikia if anything wrong with this article. So far it will merge Lifestyle Wiki (Singapore) that one got useless information and then trying to remove. SG Lifestyle Wikia will have: Cinemas, movies, shopping malls, etc. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". The nomination takes the form of a question, which has been answered. No argument for deletion has been offered. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. The nominator can't be serious. Snowball keep this, per WP:SNOW. Tinton5 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence at all presented for notability of this quite small food-oriented shopping mall. The only notable parts of it already have articles, Clementi Bus Interchange and Clementi MRT Station. It's just a small mall at a transportation center. I think the original nom didn't specify further because he thought it obvious. I consider both references to be essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a "quite small food-oriented shopping mall." It houses 135 retail outlets, only 16 of which are restaurants and cafes. See the new info I have added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage about this relatively new shopping mall. Despite the nominator's not knowing them, I HAVE seen criteria cited here at AfD for shopping malls, which include square footage as well as news coverage; this is a five-story mall with almost 300,000 square feet of retail space. The article as written did not include any of this information; I have added it. I also think we should delete all the detailed charts about how to get there, so that the article can focus on the mall itself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 1 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has secondary sources. Anymore, it seems that malls are notable more often than not. Also, the nominator hasn't really presented a rationale. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and now close, and drinks all around.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources currently in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page should follow Nex example. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 10:44, 4 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) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Holiday

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

This article is about a defunct group which only ever recorded one EP (which I am also nominating for deletion if this article goes). There is no evidence from the article that the band has any notability and my reading of WP:BAND does not suggest that it meets any of the criteria listed there. The closest is the unreferenced statement that its EP was issued "to much critical acclaim" (From who? Where? Why?) It should be noted that the article was created, and most of it written by an editor called Counterfeitholiday, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia, made over two days in September 2006 are to this article and to the band's EP Take Two and Call Us in the Morning . However, this is not within my area of expertise or knowledge - and I would not be confident of finding reliable sources - so I invite others to either attest to notability and oppose deletion or to find a lack of notability and delete. Emeraude (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page :

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any references to the band or the album anywhere except on the band's self-created web pages. All of the news refs that I'm finding have to do with counterfeit Christmas lights. The only source of notability seems to be the Emergenza Festival performance in 2007, which by itself doesn't seem like enough to convey notability. Graymornings_(talk) 22:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Even the status of the Emergenza link is dubious - the webpage invites you to "INSERT YOUR BAND INFO"!! E;sewhere, it says that "All groups, of any kind or origin, can participate", which hardly, to me, constitutes being "asked" to perform. Emeraude (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being covered in detail by multiple independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 8 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 13:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politic Pop

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

Social Networking site that has yet to be released. Current references include exactly one reliable source, which to the editor's credit, does provide in-depth coverage of the plan behind the website. However, the source is a local newspaper covering the Saratoga Springs region of New York. Other sources do not speak to the notability of the website, which include a Facebook page, a ___domain registration website, and the primary website itself. The creator of the page has repeatedly taken down tags about issues of heavy reliance on primary sources and not meeting the notability for web content without actually addressing these issues. The editor's edit summary during a removal was the following:

The refrences to the news is a perfect 3rd party reference by another author, and there [are] many references given for the minimal amount of information on this page.

Finally, the page assumes notability of the website before it has actually launched, which in the lack of reliable third-party coverage, I'd argue is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable. We appear to have sockpuppet/SPAs on the article now as well, trying to remove the AfD notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One single local article is insufficient to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation if it gets more coverage after its launch. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable --DGaw (talk) 22:03, 9 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) HurricaneFan 25 00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Ali

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

No real claim to fame. Just another Afghani "warlord". Most of the references are completely irrelevant and don't even mention him. Wasell^(T) 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- He is not "just another Afghani "warlord"' He is one of the most important militia leaders. He is the militia leader routinely blamed for allowing, or being bribed, to let Osama bin Laden sneak out of Tora Bora. He is featured in the 60 minutes segment on Dalton Fury's book. FWIW I think any Afghan militia leader with significant press coverage establishing their notability merits their own article. But Ali, as one of the leaders of the short-term breakaway Eastern Shura would also merit an article under WP:POLITICIAN, as, prior to agreeing to be part of the Afghan Transitional Authority the Eastern Shura was nominally independent. Geo Swan (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Due to being elected to Afghanistan's Wolesi Jirga -- its national assembly -- in 2005, Ali merits an article as per WP:POLITICIAN. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I just removed 1/3 of the article because it is blatant WP:OR and violation of WP:BLP. Birdmight (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable military commander/warlord and politician. Should we not have articles on all Afghan warlords? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent military commander and politician. I agree we should probably have articles on all Afghan warlords, since they're all effectively generals (whether they hold a formal rank or not) and rulers in their own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Agreed per all of the above. Article looks good in shape. --Katarighe (talk) 22:54, 7 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) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Nelson

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

Contested PROD fro IP user, reason being;"Mitchell Nelson is a professional footballer as he is under a professional contract at AFC Bournemouth hence he is professional". However, he fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not actually played at a fully-professional level yet. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he has played professionally for Lincoln City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.231.28 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.....however, Lincoln do not play in a fully professional league, as required by WP:NFOOTY. They play in the Conference National, which has somewhere in the region of half a dozen semi-pro teams in it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he may be a professional, but his league is not, and consequently he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson has just returned to Dean Court (AFC Bournemouth). They play in a fully professional league! - http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=264792 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.231.28 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.......and as and when he plays for them, he will then be eligible for an article. As it stands, though, he has still not played in a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully pro league, fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 8 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) HurricaneFan 25 00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OneSavings Bank

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

Non-notable bank, fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has significant coverage [3] [4] [5]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per sources above posted by User:Alessandra Napolitano. Topic passes the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant and notable bank with much coverage, as mentioned. Also the Kent Reliance Building Society, from which the bank was formed, has long had its own article. Buybooks Marius (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage referenced in article is fine. Dream Focus 01:06, 8 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) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MobiAccess

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

Promotional article on something (I honestly have no idea what a "mobile development framework focusing on platform independence" is) that fails notability criteria. A search for sources turned up no reliable sources that were independent of the subject. G11 tag was removed by an IP that is not the article creator, but geolocates to Budapest, which is where the parent company of MobiAccess is located (and which I suspect is affiliated with that company given the use of "we" in this edit). If this article is deleted, it should be protected from re-creation, as it has already been speedied twice. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be just another back office software product, having something to do with programming mobile telephones and touchscreen gadgets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. This product could become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Smerdis notes, a non-notable software product. When a press release is the closest thing to a reliable source, we should say no. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see how a developement environment that allows cross platorm applications could be significant, but it is definitely WP:TOSOON, or possibly it will just never pass WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millermk90 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chips-funga

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

as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY author wants to create multiple pages on Kenyan slang. Not sure if this belongs on Wikipedia. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis not only that Wikipedia is not a dicitonary, but also that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Emeraude (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I found it to be an interesting read, it's still entirely unsourced, and wikipedia's not a slang dictionary, so I don't think it belongs here... Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entertaining, but no. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete on the basis that Wikipedia on multiple other cases does work as a type of dicitonary, for both standard language and slang.For example, look up the American slang word "hook up" on wikipedia. If chips-funga must be taken off, so must all other descriptive words.Slang is an oral language that evolves among the commons, and therefore you can't expect the same type of citations as with academic works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie.imbuchi (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple reason: not every swahili slang word needs its own article in Wikipedia. People with such an interest can post this up on a swahili slang version of Wiktionary. (Mtotowajirani (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete As per reasons mention by Mtotowajirani Bentogoa (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO WP:NOTDIC etc. Chzz ► 09:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY It is an interesting read and informative but Wikipedia being an encyclopedia this swahili slang should be in Wiktionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pato Mkenya (talk • contribs) 11:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a DICDEF with little hope of becoming anything else; the concept is covered elsewhere (One-night stand, Casual sex). While a glossary of Kenyan slang may be interesting, it is better included at Wiktionary or perhaps Urban Dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 8 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Machine (band)

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

This article is about a band that has insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion of bands. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine McElroy Whpq (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only released one album. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not a notable band per WP:BAND and WP:GNG.Mattg82 (talk) 16:43, 10 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) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Cavanaugh

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

I found the following articles about members of a Chicago's mafia clan nominated in the CAT:CSD as hoaxes. I have to admit that I agree with the objections raised at the talk pages of the articles, but I think that proper discussion is more appropriate than speedy deletion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Moderately well-crafted and very long-standing, but hoaxes. Two of the books cited in these articles are real. Chicago's Most Wanted: The Top Ten Book of Murderous Mobsters, Midway Monsters, and Windy City Oddities exists. It does not, however, contain anything resembling the content claimed to be sourced to it. The name "Cavanaugh" appears no where in the book and the content at the page numbers cited in no way resembles what is claimed to be there. The Gold Coast and the Slum: Sociological Study of Chicago's Near North Side is also a real book, and also does not include the claimed material (again, no mention of "Cavanaugh" whatsoever). The remaining books (A Day in my Life, Life at War: The Cavanaugh Family, and Criminal Minds) are entirely fabrications, complete with false ISBN numbers for the latter two. I considered the possibility that the ISBN numbers may have been miscopied. Searches for any of these titles by name or by author is nevertheless fruitless. In the case of Life at War, the most-cited supposed source, the purported publisher has a comprehensive list of their works available online, with the claimed work conspicuously absent. Google news searches for Cavanaugh produce nothing remotely applicable. And, historically, Moran was the last head of the North Side Gang; it ceased to exist as an entity following his exit from the Chicago underworld (as our article on the gang correctly states). It is unfortunate that these articles have survived as long as they have (since 2008); additionally, this editor was at times a fairly prolific contributor to other underworld and sports articles. The depth and complexity of this hoax mean that anything added by Hdxstunts1 should be carefully evaluated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles created by Hdxstunts1 look OK (or at least they don't seem to be hoaxes). The only strange thing is this Cavanaugh intermezzo (creations from December 2007‎ to January 2008). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we've been here before. See the first AFD, in 2007. After a pleading on the talk page of the deleting admin (currently archived here), they were restored, sourced with fraudulent citations, and have lived happily in the encyclopedia ever since. I'm boldly starting the process of cleaning up the breadcrumbs left in other articles to connect this material with legitimate content. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd agree with restoring the {{db-hoax}} tags. Thanks for your careful and competent investigation, Squeamish Ossifrage. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Delete is clearly in order based on the findings above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to help chase this sort of thing down. I believe I got all the Cavanaugh stuff that had been inserted into legitimate articles. His college sports contributions are fine as best as I can tell, and his music articles are at least not fraudulent. I haven't had the time to go through them for potential copyright issues (which he has apparently also engaged in, cf. James Litherland). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax, with appropriate sanctions against the perpetrator. There was a film 'Criminal Minds', while actors Ben JOHNSON; TERRY O'Quinn played in Stranger on My Land ... supporting the complete fabrication theory with a means of fabrication, I guess. As usual, Squeamish Ossifrage is far ahead of me. The ISBNs are indeed fakes, and the last 2 books also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax as demonstrated by the careful research of Squeamish Ossifrage. - DonCalo (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a hoax. --Vic49 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is clearly a hoax. Vincelord (talk) 17:05, 7 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 Houston Voice. m.o.p 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Progressive Voice

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

Non-notable, does not meet WP:NMEDIA, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Spammy. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though not directly relevant, also see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Montrose_Star and related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montrose Star. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before Deleting, please consider this paper is revived version on the Houston Voice Formally owned by Window Media. This too has a long history dating to 1978 and was a major GLBT newspaper in the 1980s and 1990s. — ShreveNewsMan ^♫ 10:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.16.162 (talk) [reply]
Hi ShreveNewsMan, could you clarify one point for me? If both The Houston Progressive Voice and the Montrose Star are derived from the Houston Voice of the 1980s and 1990s, then how exactly does the history of splits/mergers/takeovers work? Is this newspaper a split from the modern Montrose Star, a remnant from the old Houston Voice, or is there a more complicated history involved here? I think this would be useful for both this discussion, and for writing the actual encyclopaedia content. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Houston Voice which is referenced in several article on Wikipedia should be redirected to The Houston Progressive Voice Both Montrose Star should remain (even as stubs) since they are the only 2 GLBT Newspapers to have ever existed in Houston, TX. — ShreveNewsMan unsigned comment added by 74.213.16.162 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't found any coverage of this new paper at all, and the "under construction" condition of its website suggests that it may not even be publishing yet. I also don't see any basis for treating this as an actual continuation of the Houston Voice, which had different ownership, although it's possible that a mention of this paper as a quasi-successor could be justified in the Montrose Star article (if it is kept). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The same argument can be said about the Montrose Star as well. The original Montrose Star changed its name in 1978 to the Houston Voice, the Houston Voice ran until 2009. The Montrose Star was revived by Henry McClurg in April of 2009, and that was actually a name change from the Montrose G.E.M. It went through 2 ownerships before even getting to the current owner GLYP Media/Laura Villagran. So this to is a "quasi-successor" of the original Montrose Star in 1974. Teh 2009 Montrose Star was a few months before the Houston Voice officially went out of business. --ShreveNewsMan (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.16.162 (talk) [reply]
Keep, noteworthy publication due to its history, coverage in secondary sources, research value, encyclopedic nature, and educational and societal value. — Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cirt, could you clarify which coverage in secondary sources you are referring to? It seems that from your comment you are considering this newspaper as part of the Montrose Star–Houston Voice progression, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence that we shouldn't consider it a totally separate newspaper, and it appears that this particular newspaper team hasn't even started publishing yet. Moreover, if it is a part of this progression but not a notable paper in its own right, then the appropriate thing to do would seem to be merging with (or redirecting to) Montrose Star/Houston Voice. Your comments would be much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging them all, then changing the main article to the Houston Voice the Houston Voice is main most notable paper here. It was around for over 20 years, the Montrose Star was only from 1974 to 1978 then 2009 to present. Montrose Ste should redirect to Houston Voice, and just redirect The Houston Progressive Voice to Houston Voice as well.

'FYI The US Library of Congress just assigned the The Houston Progressive Voice the ISSN's (Print) ISSN 2164-9243 and (Online) ISSN 2164-9251. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.63.94 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Voice where the historical progression of names is captured already. Redirect The Houston Progressive Voice to Houston Voice as the most known name. Keep Houston Voice. I do think that the pub is notable, but separate articles are not needed. If we conclude that the present version of the Montrose Star is a separate newspaper, I do not think that it is independently notable, Library of Congress recognition or not. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Voice, per Xymmax's reasoning. --DGaw (talk) 01:37, 11 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 Houston Voice. The consensus here is that the publication is notable but should exist under the title of Houston Voice. I have performed a history merge to repair the cut-paste creation of Houston Voice. Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Star

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

Non-notable, does not meet WP:NMEDIA, Google News and Books hits are just mentions in passing. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though not directly relevant, also see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Montrose_Star and related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Houston Progressive Voice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of substantial mentions on Google News or Google Books. I note, however, that this publication has an apparently long history - since the 1970s - and I will be happy to change my recommendation if earlier sources can be found which haven't yet made their way online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my !vote to keep, per the sources Arxiloxos found for the publication when it was the Houston Voice. I would also agree to have Houston Voice as the name of the article, as that seems to be the most common name for it in the sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Save, Houston Voice which is referenced in several article on Wikipedia should be redirected to The Houston Progressive Voice Both Montrose Star should remain (even as stubs) since they are the only 2 GLBT Newspapers to have ever existed in Houston, Tx. — ShreveNewsMan unsigned comment added by

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically significant as an early gay-oriented paper, as confirmed here and here. Many more references to it under its later name Houston Voice[6][7], including examples of it serving as a source for other notable publications as well as coverage of the paper's closing in 2009 as part of the failure of Window Media. Thus, passes WP:NMEDIA under "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". Possibly, Houston Voice should be the primary title of the article with Montrose Star as a redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy publication with coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator on condition that article is moved to "Houston Voice", for reasons stated by Arxiloxos. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging them all, then changing the main article to the Houston Voice the Houston Voice is main most notable paper here. It was around for over 20 years, the Montrose Star was only from 1974 to 1978 then 2009 to present. Montrose Ste should redirect to Houston Voice, and just redirect The Houston Progressive Voice to Houston Voice as well.

'FYI The US Library of Congress just assigned the The Houston Progressive Voice the ISSN's (Print) ISSN 2164-9243 and (Online) ISSN 2164-9251. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.63.94 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As reliable sources have been found which establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Laura Villagran, Lvillagrantx the owner of the Montrose Star keeps making all these changes. She needs to be blocked from making changes on this page. ShreveNewsMan (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that someone created Houston Voice a few days ago and copied and pasted the content of this article into it, modifying it slightly. So, when this AfD closes, something needs to be done with one of the identical articles. A history merge might be required. Also, note that there is an AfD tag on both articles pointing to this AfD. —SW— ^prattle 15:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Voice where the historical progression of names is captured already. Redirect The Houston Progressive Voice to Houston Voice as the most known name. Keep Houston Voice. I do think that the pub is notable, but separate articles are not needed. If we conclude that the present version of the Montrose Star is a separate newspaper, I do not think that it is independently notable, Library of Congress recognition or not. Identical entry made to other AfdXymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Voice, Redirect The Houston Progressive Voice to Houston Voice, and Keep Houston Voice, per Xymmax's reasoning. --DGaw (talk) 01:34, 11 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) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Zindagi

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

No evidence of notability. No sources cited.Searching produces YouTube, download sites, facebook, etc etc, but no coverage in reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything about it online from WP:Reliable sources, but even if good references were found there's no assertion of notability in the article per WP:NFILMS. Filing Flunky (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The closest thing this movie comes to meeting WP:NFILMS is that it was "screened at a festival;" however, it didn't win any awards. I also haven't been able to find good reliable sources, and agree with nom, there is no evidence of notability in the article itself. PaintedCarpet (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Like the nominator, I could not find sources. Article asserts the film screened November 30, 2011.... just a few days ago. I am okay with returning it to its author through userfication. And if it gets coverage to meet WP:GNG it would be welcomed back. But for now.... too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:45, 2 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 National University of Ireland, Galway#Student activities. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cumann Staire

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

No evidence of notability. The references all suffer from one or more of the following problems: page on Cumann Staire's own website or another source which is not independent of Cumann Staire; dead link; page which does not mention Cumann Staire; page which barely mentions Cumann Staire in passing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I reviewed the version of the article that was nominated, it was a big "WTF?" for me. It seems some vandalism has taken place; I've restored the lede paragraph an infobox which provides some context. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National University of Ireland, Galway#Student activities. I can find no significant coverage that would establish independent notability for this university club, but there is some information in the student activities section of the university article so a redirect would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Whpq. No evidence of notability; virtually all the links provided are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 9 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) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driving etiquette

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

I created this stub a few days ago. It was promptly "deleted".. well... it was redirected to traffic, but the content essentially was deleted. Andyjsmith's rationale was that: "The material is fully covered elsewhere in wikipedia. I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as "driving etiquette" but if you think there is and you can prove it from reliable sourced then you should look at adding it to an existing article such as Traffic" My counter argument was: "I do feel that your rash deletion was unjustified. You do have a point, [that the info might already be in other articles on Wikipedia] but there is no mention of driving etiquette in the article Traffic, and although it was a quick stub that I wrote in a little while, I do think that the subject has a lot of potential and a lot of importance in it's own right. Take a peek at Driving etiquette at Google Books - the first source specifically. It seems like a well-documented concept. Also I think if it were an article, it would be a very useful article. I would imagine many people would find it useful to find a concise article on driving etiquette without having to fish out the info from various other parts of the internet. I personally think that it was a rash deletion. I'm up for a second opinion though - if it fails at Articles for Deletion page, so be it". So, here I am.--Coin945 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At maximum, Merge and Redirect to Traffic. There is ample coverage of this topic already on the mainspace. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (which is what I originally did with the article). This is a pointless article - anything of note is adequately covered elsewhere. And on what planet is "Not cleaning your car in the winter" part of "driving etiquette" which "minimises collisions and anxiety"? andy (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not cleaning your car in the winter - never heard of it before either. The picture says it all.--Coin945 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the record, I did say (or at least imply) that it was a badly written, first draft, stub article :D. I do think that the concept is notable in its own right however. It seems to me (personally) that the traffic article has taken upon itself to talk about topics it shouldn't really be taking about, for instance, it seems to talk a lot about Traffic code such a turning, overtaking etc. even though there is another (albeit terrible) article for that. My suggestion is that, yes, even if the content is already included in the traffic article, perhaps it doesn't really belong there and there should be another article strictly devoted to that content. Not even giving the article a chance seems like a bad decision imo. This could be a very important article in the future if it is nurtured by many editors. P.S in case anyone here gets the wrong idea, no, I am not (I forgot the Wiki term) putting forward the exact same argument in different forums in the hopes that I can force it to pass in a different context. I simply wanted a second opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Driving etiquette is the subject of many articles and books and may be worthy of an article on its own. It's distinct from rules of the road in that many techniques are suggested but not legally required to drive (such as use of turn signals/slowly passing another vehicle/etc). Traffic does not contain the same information as the etiquette article. That said, the etiquette article requires some substantial rewriting. It is not encyclopedic as it currently stands, I'll see if I can reword some of it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples in the article show that there's no single thing that can be called "driving etiquette" beyond the basic rules of the road. What counts as politeness, for example, is often culture specific e.g. double parking and driving below posted speed limits (which in most countries are a maximum limit not a minimum one!). In some countries you are expected to move over for an emergency vehicle but in others you're simply expected to stop dead. In the UK flashing your headlights can say "thank you" but in Italy it's aggressive. And so on. Even in any one country people have different ways of doing things, e..g. in the UK Yorkshiremen, who are by and large a polite bunch of people, drive like maniacs and see nothing wrong with it! I fail to see how this dogs breakfast of an article can be salvaged into anything worth while. andy (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once a bit of lovin' has been given to the article (with the many different available sources in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar being consulted), I would imagine there being different sections on the general curtesy rules in the different cultures. Also, as well as documenting the things that are considered bad etiquette due to being dangerous, the article would also document the many pet-peeves that drivers have (e.g hating slow drivers is more of a pet-peeve than an actual danger, and it was described in this way in the source I got it from). It's early days. I don't think you can dismiss an article because of its ambiguity. There are many other articles which have been written on ambiguous topics. They merely have to clearly document all the different interpretations of the concept.--Coin945 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the north of England many people think it's polite to wear a hat when driving; in the south it's often derided. Will you be documenting this sort of thing too? andy (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If its a widely documented cultural pet peeve, then yes. P.S the article could also discuss the changed in driving etiquette throughout history. For instance (i'm sure there are sources to back me up on this), i'm pretty sure that when cars were first invented, driver were expected to take their hat off to passing drivers, as a friendly hello. That sort of thing. But only if it is a cultural phenomenon. A cultural pet peeve.--Coin945 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You bet: try googling "wearing a hat while driving". Also "wearing shoes while driving" and "laughing while driving". But on the other hand wearing white gloves while driving seems nowadays to be a matter of etiquette in Korea and nowhere else. andy (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point exactly? Are you just giving examples of how subjective the topic might be? The thing is... well, obviously not to that degree, but there can be some degree of objectively in coverage. Take a look at this: [8]. Question 7. Obviously where it was written makes a different but this is info. Good info that we can use. Here too: [9]--Coin945 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the article and updated it with several book/magazine references regarding driving etiquette. It is a term that reaches back to at least the early 1900s and is the subject matter of many books. I think that (along with the sheer number of easy to find sources) would make it notable enough for a separate article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a substantial and notable topic. Merger to traffic seems inappropriate and, in any case, would not be deletion. Warden (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per numerous tertiary book sources that cover this topic in detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is plenty of content. I regard the practice of some admins deleting articles no sooner than the first stub has been created as reprehensible. When I had this done to me some years ago, I was advised to put up an "underconstruction" or "in use" template to show that what the admin was looking at was not the final thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks fine. Too big to stick all valid content in another article. Has references. Driving etiquette is obviously covered in places. They have educational videos for it. I remember seeing a Disney cartoon explaining it in detail when I was a kid. Dream Focus 17:05, 6 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Cornerstone Community Center Development Project

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

Non-notable project with a smell of advertisement and violation of the copyright policy Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per section G11 of CSD. It seems to be blatant advertising and contains copyvios as well. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notable and WP:TOOSOON. This community center hasn't been built yet; the only news coverage I could find was a few routine stories about its groundbreaking. Even the eventual name of the center has not been decided. Maybe it will gain at least regional notability after it opens, and an article can then be written and titled with whatever its name turns out to be. In any case this article is not worth saving; it is so incoherently written that it's difficult even to tell the project is and where it is. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 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 (CSD G7 author requested deletion on this page). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majstor series

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

This appears to be WP:MADEUP. I could find no references to "Majstor series" on Google scholar, Google books, or Google itself (besides Wikipedia mirrors). The content itself seems a bit questionable: it looks like a trivial application of the triangular number formula (which doesn't seem to have a name, and I believe is very ancient). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I personally wrote the article about Majstor series yesterday (11.30.2010). I understand how it looks WP:MADEUP, since it isn't anywhere on the web. I wanted to find a simple way for doing summation from any number to any number in the Z set of numbers, and with that expression that is 100% possible. I didn't know about the existence of the triangular number, I only checked all the types of summation and mathematical series and I didn't find such an approach to the subject, so I thought I could post it since it was very simple and reliable. If it goes against Wikipedia's rules I think it would be correct to delete it, since it's an idea not yet verified from any valid source other than me. Thank you Slawomir for checking it out. User:Alansfault —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:57, 1 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) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin House

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

A Chinese company providing language training. Speedy deletion was contested on the dubious grounds that it is a school. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, and little chance that any will ever be found. It's just another WP:Run of the mill private language school, and fails the notability guidelines set out in WP:ORG, or any other guideline, for that matter. It cannot be considered equivalent to a seconday or tertiary school. The grounds for contesting the speedy deletion were not dubious, but spurious. And ridiculous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhat less notable than the Mandarin House restaurant in Evanston. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Saga Of Josh Scragg

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

Article about a series of novels. No sources because it isn't published yet, so fails all criterias on WP:NBOOK. A PROD was declined by the author without giving a reason. Ben Ben (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK by a mile. A quick search brought this page up as the sole mention of this series. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete, fails GNG, NFT, etc. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing every possible inclusion criteria -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam suttie

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

Short article about a Junior Tennis Player with no sources. Google research gives Under 12s Nationals [10], fails WP:TENNIS/N. A speedy was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why don't you just wait until the BLPPROD finishes? If he's not notable, as is likely, there won't be any reliable sources to add to the article. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Practical reasons: BLP 10 days vs. AfD 7 days. And you don't have to guard the article for 10 days if an IP deletes the BLP. Kids often do that and I'm pretty sure this article about a kid is from a kid.--Ben Ben (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to guard a BLP-prodded article any more than you do an article that's at AFD: neither template may be removed. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a PROD is removed, it stays removed. A removed AfD tag would be reverted by every patroller. Reason 2: I hope that a few editors would recommend Speedy delete --Ben Ben (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, including you, is allowed to remove a BLPPROD without adding sources: that's why the page is still marked with one, even though you removed it. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, I think we should cool this down. I don't wanna any kind of stress about this. Let me explain... First, I used a script called Twinkle to place my AfD tag in the article. I thought it would place it on top of the PROD, but instead it replaced it. Didn't know that, didn't intend that, sorry. Second, please could you link your statement Nobody is allowed to remove a BLPPROD without adding sources to the corresponding part in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion? Can't find it there.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down at the bottom, in the Sticky prod section (or in more detail at their policy page). Despite the similar name, BLPPRODs and PRODs have substantively different processes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week Keep - It took about thirty seconds to find this link, and perhaps others can be found:

Monroyo, Roselyn (July 29, 2010). "Cajigan in semis; 3 others enter quarters". Saipan Tribune. Retrieved December 02, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Also, the nomination's rationale as having no sources has been nullified, despite the fact that this source only mentions the person, it remains a source, albeit a weak one. Perhaps consider further qualifying the topic, and if the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, then delete it.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under 12s in any sport need significant coverage, unless they are competiting in open competition. He isn't, and only has minor coverage. The-Pope (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole result in Google News Archive is a passing mention. The subject fails WP:BIO. Goodvac (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to show notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 09:42, 3 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) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Knott

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

Lack RS and despite 2 year old tagging no efforts to improve have occurred. Dubious notability. S. Rich (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was indeed a sad sight. However, Knott certainly is a long-serving staffer on the Washington Times. Search is harder than it could be as 'Tom Knott' is quite a common name: I tried Google search which helped a bit. Knott certainly ruffles feathers: have added a citation or two to prove he's notable among other journalists. Not a man I'd like, I think, but people definitely notice him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap's improvements. It's often hard to come up with direct coverage about journalists but I think there's enough here to pass the test. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article itself may have been lacking reliable sources, but they were available. Topic notability is about the availability of reliable sources, not whether or not they are present in an article. Non-dubious notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With thanks to Chiswick for relisting and improvements. I am happy that my AFD stimulated some interest. --S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: blog posts should not be used on a WP:BLP at all, and in any case do not establish notability. The only remaining sources appears to be Knott's own writings for the Washington Times, which likewise do not establish notability. Therefore no reliable independent coverage has been proffered to establish notability, and we're left with simply the claim that the topic is "a long-serving staffer on the Washington Times" -- which would appear insufficient, on its own, to establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn's observations are, I respectfully observe, simply not true, and risk misrepresenting in good faith what is written in the article.

The citations by Etan Thomas and Dan Steinberg are respectively from the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, the latter I agree a blog-like column but from a staff reporter on the newspaper, writing on the newspaper's website, so these are good strong sources, and exactly the kind of place where journalists do comment publicly, responsibly and accountably on each other's work. ("Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.") These are serious journalists on reliable publications, and they have taken the time to risk their reputations in public to criticise Knott. So, yes, these constitute "reliable independent coverage":

^ Thomas, Etan (November 27, 2006). "Huff Post Politics". Work Ethic? Look At Your Columns, Tom Knott. Huffington Post. Retrieved December 01, 2011.

^ Steinberg, Dan (June 15, 2007). "D.C. Sports Bog". Tom Knott Crushes Gilbert. Washington Post. Retrieved December 01, 2011.

As for listing Knott's own writings, they are not there to establish notability - I've simply provided a means of finding 245 articles via a single link, while the two articles of his that are cited directly are those that the other journalists were discussing, so I have rightly included links to those to make visible what the matter under discussion -specific items of Knott's journalism- was. The claim to notability absolutely does not rest on the true assertion that Knott is a long-standing staffer on the Washington Times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is it who is making "observations [that] are, I respectfully observe, simply not true" here, Chiswick? "The Huffington Post is an American news website and content-aggregating blog..." It is also clear from WP:RSN discussions that this source is not considered particularly reliable. The DCist is likewise a blog. Whilst the Washington Post-parented blog citations may be acceptable under the "some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs" exception, such blog posts add very little to notability in terms of prominence and depth of sourcing. What we have here is four blog posts and the topics own writings -- this is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right about DCIST - I had filtered against blogs but some always get through. Huffington isn't the New York Times but still, it's a site with some standing. The sports blogs of US newspapers are allowed under WP's rules, and they seem especially appropriate in an article on a sports reporter.

I have added some more reliable, independent sources to substantiate the article, including PBS, The LA Times, and Salon.com among others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The well referenced section Reception by other journalists in the article proves this person notable. Dream Focus 00:22, 5 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 Buxton, North Carolina. I see no consensus to delete, but no one argues that it's notable either. I'll try to remember to complete the merge if other editors don't do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatteras Histories and Mysteries Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. small private museum that gets 1 gnews hit [11]. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm not finding significant news coverage or any mentions in any books. Merge to Buxton, North Carolina RadioFan (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. I would say merge, but I don't know if anyone will merge it. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. I cant find any RS.[12] The book Croatoan: Birthplace of America is published by "Infinity Publishing", which could be this self-publisher. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear if it's notable, probably should merge into Buxton. Certainly the one newspaper article cited is ok (but not overwhelming), but more is needed to establish notability. The main thing I was worried about is whether it's a commercial road-side museum. It's website http://www.hatterashistoriesandmysteries.com/about.html shows that it's in a shopping mall, but doesn't charge admission. So who knows? Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SV The Silk Vodka

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

Article seems to be a promotional piece about a vodka that is no longer produced, by a bankrupt Russian company. Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The only WP:RS is the one about the company that produced this product going bankrupt. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find anything that would be considered a reliable source. The product doesn't seem to have passed WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Non-notable product/company. Could not find reliable sources about it (searching in English). Google News finds mostly press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 1 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 sources were offered, the consensus of the discussion is that reliable sources were lacking. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project'Or

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links that may help evaluate Project'Or notability
Independant references :

http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-p=27639490&N-u=1_409152&N-fa=3565938&N-s=1_3568246&N-f=1_3568246

http://www.salto-consulting.com/tag/sonar/

http://wiki.framasoft.info/PropositionNotice/Projectorria

http://wapedia.mobi/fr/Project'Or_RIA

http://www.yakakliker.org/index.php?title=Applications/Gestion_de_projet&bc=0

http://www.barre.fr/blog/index.php?post/2011/06/10/Quelle-solution-pour-g%C3%A9rer-ses-projets

http://yannsymons.com/index.php/mes-favoris/demos-de-logiciels-libres/

http://www.d-a-l.com/help/general-internet-issues-questions/69927-trying-install-open-source-application.html

http://hailp.org/?q=node/39

http://forum.partipirate.org/travaux-technique/gestionnaire-projet-t5969.html

Individual CVs :

http://www.viadeo.com/profile/00284yj00b2p219

http://www.amplement.fr/nathalie-gruillot

http://www.emi.ac.ma/emiste/CVs_Ing_EMI_2011/Informatique/Syst%C3%A8mes%20d'information/Moumin-Cv.pdf

External deployement of tool (not sure what they stand for) :

http://we-interact.com/projectorria/view/main.php

http://stitchmage.com/servers/gold.qmuxs.com/htdocs/view/main.php

http://highautomation.com/pj/projectorria/

Hope it helps. pascal.bernard 16 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 15. Snotbot t • c » 19:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: The sources above do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: Internshit report of product usage, by Simon AUBRY, showing notability : :http://www.deltaprod.free.fr/files/IIE3-STAGE-simon.aubry.pdf

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of these references seem to be from forum posts and non-notable blogs. I don't see any real news mentions. Graymornings_(talk) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: see Internshit report above. In french. Explicit reference similar to book or "non internet" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babynus (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the links at the article or provided here seem to provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The "internshit" (really?) report seems to be simply a consultant report; all it does is confirm that the software exists. None of the other links are from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 9 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. Sources have been found, and the consensus of those who have examined the sources is that they are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dell'arte Opera Ensemble

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

Company of unpaid performers, with no evidence of notability. No independent sources cited. (PROD removed by the author of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and I couldn't find any reliable sources referring to the company.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though, the first editor asserts (on their talk page) that the reviews linked to in here make it notable. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A quick first search revealed a feature article by Associated Press, http://news.yahoo.com/small-opera-group-offers-engaging-ariadne-141045386.html , which itself got widely published, e.g. at ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14301743#.TtToV1b66jM . The group is widely listed on arts directories and in professional artists' résumés. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listings in directories and on resumes are of little, if any relevance: We need significant coverage in third-party, independent sources, with some degree of editorial control. Neutrality^talk 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's one piece of coverage, the AP article, which seems to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:54, 1 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, Sandstein 05:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source with significant coverage is not enough. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "no evidence of notability. No independent sources cited" is relevant here. "Company of unpaid performers" surely isn't. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Actually there are two substantial reviews carried by Associated Press for two separate productions. I've also cleaned up the article which had quite a promotional tone. This is a very borderline case. For previous AfD discussions for similar type companies see Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Repertory Opera (deleted) and Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative (kept). Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from "Weak Keep" to plain old "Keep", following the addition of a reference to a four page article about the ensemble in Classical Singer magazine, a specialist, but very respected print publication. Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore's comments. The Brooklyn Repertory Opera discussion focused on the COI issue and became quite heated around that. That's not the issue this time, and the AP coverage helps with notability. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AP article is sufficient, along with the rest. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 8 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five Year Plan (card game)

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

Contested prod. Card game with no evidence of notability; only primary sources are used in the article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sources are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources anywhere as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only sources are to the website. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources I can find & I can't find it at the geek. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 1 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. The consensus below is that the subject is notable according to the guidelines. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Mendras

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

Article created by user Mmendras and thus seems to violate WP:COI and WP:SPIP. No reliable sources. One reference cited seems to provide nominal coverage of the personality. Doubt whether this is Notable (see WP:N). Veryhuman (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From WP:COI: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article". 100+ Google news hits over a 15 year period suggest WP:GNG is satisfied. Pburka (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is whether she meets the general notability guidelines or the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, rather than whether this is autobiographical. I've added a couple of references into the article itself; in addition one can see her work getting discussed in books such as this. AllyD (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, “Soviet foreign policy in an uncertain world“, currently in more than 500 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:47, 3 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 speedied in two places. The page was moved to a new title after this AFD opened. It was speedied G11 at the new ___location by Fastily (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and the redirect at the title named in this AFD was speedied R1 by Guerillero (Speedy deleted, redirect to nonexistent page.). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SoilCure Microbial Amendment

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

The page promotes a product in the lead, which has no evidence of notability. The bulk of the article replicates other wikipedia pages with regard to the soil science, but the references used are scientific, and confer no specific notability on the Soilcure Amendment Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page has been moved to SoilCure Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting notability guidelines was produced during the discussion. I am happy to provide a copy for someone to work on in their user space if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Society On Da Run

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

Series of ebooks with no evidence of notability. The creator claims it was reviewed by "a popular author" who turns out to be no so popular after all. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the author, Jess C Scott, has been added as the popular author that reviewed the book. If you want her bio on why she is popular, here it is [13] . She runs the popular 10-year-old website dragonsinn, which is first on google searches for Dragon Poetry. Also, author JF Jenkins has also expressed interest in the series via Twitter, if it is required I will post the link to that tweet. The books currently has 29 facebook followers. If I have to, I will post the lnik for that page. Another thing, the ebooks don't have a google entry yet because they are on Smashwords. Keep

29 Facebook followers? If you ask me, if you're going to assert the notability of something based on the number of Facebook followers, any number below 10,000 is a strong assertion that the topic does not meet our inclusion guidelines. Fortunately, we don't base notability on Facebook popularity, we base it on the number of reliable third-party references that exist on the topic. You've supplied one that does meet the third-party requirement although the reliability part is found wanting: if you feel you have to explain why Scott is popular, that the same as asserting that she's not. Indeed Wikipedia doesn't have an article on her yet, and the link you provided is something she posted herself. Fails on all counts. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter how many seemingly notable authors have reviewed the book, notability is not inherited. Unless the authors posted reviews to places other than Goodreads, you can't really count those. Goodreads is considered to be along the lines of IMDb as far as sources go, ie, a trivial source. I did a search for the book and was unable to find anything that would show that this book series passes WP:NBOOK. There aren't any reliable sources to show that this self-published series passes notability guidelines. It might be notable at some point in time, but right now it isn't. Most self-published works will never pass notability guidelines no matter how good they are because they won't have enough reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. It might not always seem fair, but those are the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Can all of you (or the two of you) at least do me a favor before you go about deleting it: can you read it through it and see if it's well written?Sir aaron sama girl (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The series or the article? In either case it doesn't matter how well written the article is or how good the book series is, you still have to provide reliable sources to prove that it passes notability guidelines. Trust me, I know several amazing authors who will probably never make it onto Wikipedia because they don't pass notabiilty guidelines at this time and probably never will. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional: You might want to look into seeing if you can userfy (WP:USERFY) this until you can provide reliable sources per WP:RS. I have no problem with you doing that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Indeed I don't think it matters whether the article is well-written. When the subject doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, even a masterpiece of writing won't survive the deletion process. But in some cases that merely means that right now is not the right time to start an article. See WP:OVERCOME. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the editing has nothing to do with an author's notability, I just want to know if it's easy to read and sounds "encyclopedic."

Sir aaron sama girl (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable series by non-notable author. SL93 (talk) 21:19, 1 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 Jus soli. Sandstein 13:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native-born citizen

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

Not enough of a topic here to merit an encyclopedic article. If there's anything worthwhile to merge it could be merged with jus soli. Mystylplx (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatively obvious Keep Not only is there gobs of material about this topic in reliable sources [14], it may (I'm not joking) be a constitutional requirement for becoming the President of the United States [15]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a Natural born citizen article. Mystylplx (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read the linked law review article, which explores whether "native-born" citizenship is required by the natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution, you would understand the difference. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've also read the Congressional Research Service report which says native born citizenship is not required. The point is the Constitutional requirement is for natural born citizenship, not native born citizenship, and to the extent native born citizenship plays into Presidential eligibility it is covered in the existing article. Mystylplx (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, the linked Yale Law Revue article comes to the same conclusion, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Both the law revue article and the Congressional Research Service say that anyone who is a 'citizen at birth' is eligible for the Presidency, which includes native-born citizens, but is not limited to native-born citizens. Mystylplx (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty" [16], is obviously not describing settled law. The fact that the authors endorse a particular POV on this issue does not eliminate the controversy, which they acknowledge. Moreover, citations such as "the Congressional Research Service report" are so ambiguous as to afford editors no reasonable prospects for locating the document. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited in the lead of the article in question. Second paragraph. Reference #1 for the article. Mystylplx (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated previously, the point is the natural-born citizen article is specifically on the meaning of the phrase in the U.S. Constitution regarding Presidential eligibility. Any possible native-born citizen article would not be on that as the Constitution says nothing about native-born citizens. Any such article would have to be international in scope and would necessarily be a duplicate of jus soli, an article which already exists. Mystylplx (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a reference found in an article which concedes that it is about an uncertain area of law, for which the authors propose a clarification, to argue that the uncertainty does not exist? Did the Congressional Research Service know better than Yale Law Review, before the article was published? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get where you're coming from on this. The CRS report came out after the Law Review article, and even so the fact remains--the Natural born citizen article deals with the question of Presidential eligibility. Any possible native-born citizen article would not and should not as the Constitution says nothing about native-born citizens. It's the native-born citizen article we are discussing here. The fact there is some small amount of confusion regarding the meaning of natural-born citizen is no reason to keep this other, different, article alive. They are two different articles. Mystylplx (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jus soli. Most of this small article merely duplicates material covered much more comprehensively within the Jus soli article. The place where it differs is this paragraph:

Being a native-born citizen is not exactly the same as the principle of jus soli (that is, citizenship due to place of birth). For example, a person born in Japan to Japanese parent(s) is clearly a native-born citizen of Japan. However, such a person became a citizen of Japan due to jus sanguinis (i.e., citizenship through descent) as Japan does not recognize the principle of jus soli. That is, if parent(s) who are not Japanese citizens visit Japan just to give birth to a person, that person will not be entitled to a Japanese citizenship.

It starts with the unsourced claim that "native-born" ≠ "jus soli", but then fails to explain the difference in the example given. There may be scope to improve the Jus soli article as regards the "native-born" term, but not using any content from this article, so I would oppose a merge attempt. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current text is suspiciously similar to equine digestive byproducts. If this is redirected, which doesn't actually require AFD at all, I'd oppose protecting the redirect or other measures that would prevent writing a decent article on this topic. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy the logic in the above paragraph. I don't think it follows that anyone who is native-born and a citizen is necessarily a native-born citizen. Certainly that meaning has even less claim to meriting an encyclopedia article than the stricter meaning of someone who earned citizenship by being native-born. The former meaning certainly doesn't merit an encyclopedia article, and the latter meaning is already covered (better) in the jus soli article. Mystylplx (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to jus soli ~~and establish redirect.~~ This was tagged for merger in 2008, it says... Isn't Wikipedia's consensus decision-making system grand? On the bright side, at least it's marginally less dysfunctional than decision-making in the American Congress... Carrite (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation tweaked per Mystylplx below. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to jus soli. Not that it's for Brits and other non-natives to tell you guys about unwritten constitutions, of course, but a redirect could help this from coming to AfD quite so often. Maybe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Original poster) I don't see there's anything to merge, so I say just redirect to jus soli. Mystylplx (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect to jus soli. Mt king ^(edits) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the redirect should be protected. パンダ (talk) 09:03, 10 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 Army Wives. While not (yet) notable, the redirect-rather-than-delete !votes makes good case which was not rebutted, and policy favors retention of content. The article history remains intact if she should become notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Allen (actress)

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

Fails WP:BIO. TM 02:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources, but have come up empty-handed. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect, per Schmidt. Supporting character on just the first season of the Lifetime show and a guest spot on a Law & Order episode? Seems unlikely to be notable, and web searches seem to confirm--trivial mentions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Army Wives, her latest project. I agree that sources on her are proving difficult to find due to commoness of name (still looking), but she seems to be pushing well at WP:ENT through 6 minor films, and television credits which include 4 episodes of Guiding Light as Lara Fasano, and 10 episodes of Army Wives as Amanda Holden.[17] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you've convinced me--the article does generate a bit of traffic, and and it's a sensible redirect. Smerging so as to provide a capsule bio at Army Wives and/or a link to her imdb page would be fine, too. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:24, 2 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 speedily kept under criterion #1 (nominator withdrew, no dissenting opinions). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaoze Xie

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

non notable artist. 0 gnews hits . Has had quite a few exhibitions and shows, but that is nothing that is particularly notable for an artist. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His oral history was recorded by the Smithsonian Institution's Archives of American Art due to his contributions to American art. If that's not notable, I'm really not sure what is. The federal government funded these interviews with notable artists in order to preserve their knowledge and lives, again, if that's not notable in United States art history, I'm not sure what is. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." WP:ARTIST SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per SarahStierch - clearly passes WP:ARTIST. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick google news/scholar/books searches reveal plenty of hits, including reviews in the New York Times and New York magazine. As well, he's been in museums and there's at least a couple of books out there that mention him beyond the trivial. WP:BEFORE would have been a wise move. freshacconci talktalk 02:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swear i did a gnews search and got 0 hits! But clearly I must have been on crack or something. WP:SNOW Gaijin42 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it happens. Hope I didn't sound too snarky. That wasn't my intent. I shouldn't !vote on AFDs when I'm tired. freshacconci talktalk 02:53, 1 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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 9). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Space Oddity (CSI)

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

Notability not established. No sourced out of universe information JDDJS (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the episode list. Nothing individually notable about this episode. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but don't delete. Spidey 104 15:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list - As others have stated before, the episode itself doesn't meet notability criteria, but if information on it is available, in condensed form, from another article, then a redirect is in order. Chris (talk) 23:40, 5 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 sense of the discussion was that the brief span of coverage after his death was not enough to show notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hickman (newscaster)

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

non notable local TV journalist and failed mayoral candidate, fails WP:GNG. Alternate article was deleted following this discussion Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local newscaster. Recently created article, probably as a memorial page (he died this month). About the only references available are obituaries. Granted, those obits do describe him as "one of the most recognizable people in Springfield", "the Walter Cronkite of central Illinois", etc. But that's eulogizing. IMO there should have been more coverage during his lifetime if he was truly notable. The only in-depth coverage of him I found, aside from obituaries, was this article about the five candidates for mayor in 2003. (He came in fourth.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he does not have the "clout" as a national newscaster, he still reported on various life-changing events. There are many things that he did cover over his entire broadcasting career. Some of which I did point out in the article. There are many accounts of his life which I did not put on to Wikipedia, see this memoir. I do not have the time to write a multi-page document/article about the subject matter either. Since Wikipedia is able to be edited by anyone, others should be able to pickup where others have left off. Also, I do find Wikipedia's policies on "noteworthy" articles rather bias towards people that are well known in the news or items that impact a vast majority of people. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Mr. Xaero. Also, Don Hickman was considered the "Walter Cronkite of Central Illinois" by many who watched, worked at and grew up with WICS. Plenty can be added to this article as Mr. Hickman was apparently very active in the Central Illinois communities with various charitable works and such. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication that this local celebrity meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) in the context of a worldwide encyclopedia. Saying that a 30-year newscaster reported a lot of significant events is not a sign of notability; any competent person, whose main career was news, has the same claim. Local celebrities are often called the somebody-of-somewhere; that the person's fame is explained as the somebody-else-of-somewhere, and that Walter Cronkite was not called "the Don Hickman of America", should put the comparison in perspective. The essay Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance explains why subjects of regional notability often do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. (Yes, Wikipedia has a "bias towards people that are well known in the news or items that impact a vast majority of people", as Mr Xaero put it. That's how it's intended to work.) Wikipedia is not a memorial and inclusion or deletion is not a contest about whether someone personally deserves to be remembered. --Closeapple (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was not intended to be a memorial for Don Hickman as everyone is describing it as being. I have attempted to uncover or find other notable on the subject matter, but it appears that his life was kept private. -- Mr Xaero (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thus the article fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am considered the Walter Cronkite of my lunchbox. Local puffy obituaries do not "significant coverage in reliable sources" make. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:32, 9 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 Soundarya Rajinikanth where sourced information about the film should be included. This will presumably be notable upon release or more sources covering the production can be found. But the consensus below is that in the absence of more sources there is not enough to justify an independent article at the present time. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dheera (film)

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

Sadly, this film is in development hell, meaning production of the film has stopped or is completely unknown. With regards to that, the film has severely lost notability, with no reliable sources pointing to indications of progress in the film's production, no clear information on cast members, or projected release time. With news about Rana and Kochadaiyaan, Dheera does not seem likely to continue work with filming in the near future. I suggest this article be deleted, with its contents userfied until the film is confirmed to be in production again (or release date scheduled). EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to visit. Did so. Looked at the article and researched under its different names. I agree that userfication is sensible. Proposed film has had off and on coverage since 2007, and has gone throgh at least three name changes. As it is still not confirmed as entring priniple filming, it fals WP:NFF. But as the topic has had discussion in sources, we might also consider a redirect of this latest title and the earlier ones to its director at Soundarya Rajinikanth where it might then be spoken of and sourced in context to his career... as a planned film that has had setbacks. The moment it might be confirmed as having begun shooting, the redirect can be reverted and the article then expanded and sourced to reflect this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a redirect to Soundarya Rajinikanth. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (disc: was invited here by nom). has been in "development" for long. At present, there is no indication that this is going to be released. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep it~~ Redirect - I got a source from Oneindia.in, which states "Soundarya restarts Rajinikanth's Dheera." A source from CNN-IBN and another source from The Times of India, both which states that the movie is slated for an August 2012 release. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the links. But a lot can happen in over the next 9 months, including both the beginning of principle filming or the announcement of yet another set-back. These are the sorts of vagaries that WP:NFF addresses. We do have options that will protect the article's history, allow placement of contxtual information in the director's article, and yet still allow the aticle to return when production is much more imminent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "But a lot can happen in over the next 9 months", it sounds speculative. Tough the article can be userified, but please accept what sources say. If the film is back on platform, there is no option to delete or moving it. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN-IBN article says Kochadaiyaan will release in August 2012, not Dheera. In fact, the only thing it says about Dheera is that "it is yet to see the light of day", which indicates the fate of the film is pretty much unknown. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Oh! Thanks for pointing me out. I guess redirecting to Soundarya Rajinikanth will be a better option then as of now. However I m concerned with the Oneindia.in source which states, "Soundarya restarts Rajinikanth's Dheera", and further states that Soundarya Rajinikanth has confirmed the news in Twitter. Thanks and regards. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although finding a reliable source that explicitly states the film is ready to roll would give the article an edge to be kept. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it, even if the film is not getting released, it can be moved to unreleased movies category. Rajeshbieee (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was asked to comment here. Looking at the sources, they only say stuff like the film is "about to start" or "will start soon" without any dates. If we have any sources which say that a part of the film has been shot, or so then we can keep it. X-One ^SOS 10:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Redirect: Sorry for the late change. I feel a redirect would be suitable as the film has been in development hell, not a mere media speculation. X.One ^SOS 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you think a redirect suitable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about redirects, but if it is deleted an option would be redirecting to Rajini or KSR's page. X-One ^SOS 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soundarya Rajinikanth. I agree that the film is yet to commence and totally lacks notability at this point of time, but there is no news like the film being dropped as of now. Unless an official announcement is made that the film is dropped, I don't think it's necessary to delete the article. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it It got reliable sources. --Sistemx (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. Provide those reliable sources that suggest this film really is being filmed at the moment. EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, even if the there are no indications for the film to be dropped, there's virtually no real word about it. Sources provided by Karthikndr do not seem to mention the fact that the film is progressing with confidence (in fact, the CNN-IBN source does not mention anything about Dheera starting, it only says that the film is "yet to see the light of day" which explains nothing). Consider long delayed films like Solli Adippen and Marudhanayagam which went completely lost in the media (of course, Dheera isn't as bad as those films at the moment). EelamStyleZ (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I m also concerned about article history. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soundarya Rajinikanth. Sultan, Hara, Rana, Dheera and now Kochadaiyan - honestly I'm not understanding. This film has been in production since 2007, even Enthiran, which started later, has released by now. There is no news that the team is still working on the project. Let Soundarya at least commence a film first! Johannes003 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soundarya Rajinikanth. Unless this is in the news for some reason, we really should not keep it. Lynch 7 07:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Add relevant information from this article to soundary Raninikanth and Rajinikanth articles and then delete. Redirect is not a good solution, since redirect will simply hide the page from readers.
Anish Viswa 01:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as offered further above. The redirect will take the article out of mainspace and yet protect the hidden-from-readers history for whatever time this finaly breaks out of production hell... and if or when it does, the redirect can be reverted and the article expanded and sourced accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 6 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle Passage (Immortal Technique album)

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

No sources, no release date, and very much speculative. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced vaporware. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator said it best. Neutrality^talk 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 20:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no release date set and this is the most recent reference I could find. It's a crystal-clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. §everal⇒|Times 21:46, 7 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Pin

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

Sources that I found were sites like IMDB, user reviews, and torrents. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Rotten Tomatoes entry, provided in the article, shows zero review. I could find a stub entry for the director in IMDB, but not an entry for the movie itself. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Mynameislatesha (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On a related note, I have just nominated the article on the filmmaker Gin X for deletion. It asserts notability based upon this non-notable film and two 2011 awards I have not been able to verify. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesktop

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

I found zero significant coverage for this software. The sources are download pages, the official website, and the developer's blog. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. I looked and could not find independent sources, either. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 1 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.